![]() |
VOOZH | about |
This page was moved, but the redirects that link to the subpages were not, so now there are 150 items in Special:DoubleRedirects. Could someone create a double-redirect-fixer bot? Majr? – Nixinova 👁 Image
👁 Image
👁 Image
07:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hold on. Since Classic pages now have their own page, we should redirect these pages to their own pages. It will take some time by the way.--Skylord wars (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
In the launcher, versions such as 1.4.3-pre are labelled as just "snapshot 1.4.3", and ingame it just says "Minecraft 1.4.3". Even the jar files on the article only say 1.4.3. This is the same for 1.6-pre and others. Should these pages have "pre" in their name? If so, should the lead sections remove the pre? This is a bit confusing. – Nixinova 👁 Image
👁 Image
05:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The obsolete Minecraft versions are the Minecraft versions discontinued more than ten years ago (as roughly). The Minecraft versions older than the release can be defunct, and defunctions are terminated at Alpha. --183.88.158.244 04:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to use ymd in these small tables? they easily sort and it's just easier to see the release dates, as ymd gives the order of importance. – Nixinova 👁 Image
👁 Image
08:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
For some reason I can't tell the difference between the background colours of "Unavailable in the launcher, but archived elsewhere" and "No direct evidence/proof exists". Both are grey to me, and although one is probably a bit darker when used in the table, I cannot see this difference in the legend because it is so small. This applies to both the main Classic legend as well as the Pre-Classic one. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Image
👁 Image
] 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Should we add addition summaries back? I looked at the history of the page, and I have found out that prior to September 2013, every update of Minecraft had addition summaries next to the version name, release date. It would write what was added in the corresponding update, bug fixes and more. Why don't we just add it back? To not make the page abnormally long, we should simply cut out the bug fix part. I don't mind if it shouldn't be added back. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.127.30.21 (talk) at 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
As Humiebee said on the admin noticeboard, i think this page needs protection in some manner due to edit warring and vandalism. James Haydon (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a question. Will the lost minecraft versions EVER be found? User:Danguser95
As requested in this page, I have made a chart displaying all java versions throughout the years. See here File:Version History Java.png. Please share your thoughts about it, does it contain any error? Or do you have any suggestions on how it may be improved? Write your feedback here as comments, or in my talk page. I won't put it in the main page for now, but when some of you have agreed to do so, please do. Luotiansha (talk)
Why don't we add version labels as the launcher name itself like (also known as a1.0.4 in the launcher)
It seems that all versions before 1.0 are unavailable on the new launcher. I don't know if it's just a problem on my end, but they definitely were there before. If this is universally the case, then the availability color codes should be changed (I am incapable of doing that). AstrumViridis (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind. The new launcher just unchecks this box by default.
AstrumViridis (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if Minecraft 1.22 will be revealed and releases? In Minecraft Fanon Wiki, 1.22 consists of several major updates and release dates with new features, so it might be fake. Proely (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
why is pre-classic rd 131648 not there anymore in version history? 37.25.85.212 19:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Why are pre-classic versions and some other java edition versions not publicly released? 92.53.21.48 12:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I recently merged Java Edition/Version history with this article and added the additions tables that were in the previous article, just to actually merge the articles (most of the other content was overlap). I was worried the additions tables might clutter the page, and I see my merge edit on this page has been reverted. I'm fine with that, I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. But if the regular editors of this page and the other would like a compromise, you could hide the additions tables behind a {{collapse}}. For example:
1.0
| Update | Version | Development release | Full release |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adventure Update (Part 2) (Guide) | 1.0.1 (Server only) |
– | November 24, 2011 |
| 1.0.0 | September 22, 2011 | November 18, 2011 |
Rampage455 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
|align=none:{{collapse}}. 👁 Image|noclear=1:we should probably change it because arrows were added in survival test as entites, but as items in indev MinecraftFanIGuess (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I did some digging in the Revision history and the block "Waxed Oxidized Copper" was removed from the "Block and item additions guide" show button that brings up a chest with the items/blocks added to that version on the main page (under 1.17) on 15:35, 10 January 2025 by someone named "Hung1234". What is the reason for this? I'm pretty sure the block is still in the game as is mentioned on the copper page. I specifically made an account to comment this. I would fix this myself but I have no idea how to edit this wiki.
I know this block was on this version history page because literally the edit before that one was 17:15, 9 January 2025 by someone named "Nesekf" and the block was visible. Going back further, the block was still there. ThrowawayAccount47474474 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a duplicate image in the (chest) view item and block additions displaying thing.
The thing in question is the default colored "Bundle" item. This is in both 1.17.0 and 1.21.2 viewing thing.
Is this intentional? Pretty sure the single bundle in 1.17 was ONLY experimental and not actually obtainable. 1.21.2 made all of them obtainable.
Basiclly, i saw something, on the page java edition classic 0.0.19a_01 i saw a image, meaning that it should be "Not archived. Video/image proof exists." instead of Not archived. Existence implied from other means." also the other "Not archived. Existence implied from other means." is not supoosed to be that because i went into these pages and they have irs Logs on the references part, so it should be "Not archived. IRC chat log proof exists." if no response or this topic is deleted, im going to do it myself. Douglas15amor (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
h-how does java edition 1.22 redirect here if the page does not exist? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE 51.158.54.205 17:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
This page is a summary of versions, not the content within, so I don't see how they are useful here at all. People have gone overboard adding these to pages, I feel. Nixinova T ⁄ C 04:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)