Talk:Pack format

Not sure how to modify that {{ }} stuff. But, Resource pack 16 line may gain to tell that a lot changed between 15 and 16. That much changed that someone made a tool to transform your pack from 15 to 16, and the tool was displayed in the official miencraft snapshot page. https://github.com/Mojang/slicer/releases/tag/v1.1 ! - GodRage (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as both the Resource Pack page and the Data Pack page contain a history (which include the formats) or a separate list it feels odd to maintain two lists of basically the same information. (Which they right now do not do which shows how unwieldy it is to have it twice...) I would argue for moving all the data from this page to the other two and deprecating this by linking to the section in those two other pages --Phoenix616 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose. The table on this page comes from {{Data pack format}} and {{Resource pack format}}, thus the data is only written in one place on the wiki. It's just transcluded in multiple places where it makes sense. This page is still useful to have. — Misode (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this page is very very useless to be honest! For pack makers that makes datapacks and resource packs easily! Without this.. welp i guess i have to use AI or a lot of google searches or just use those two separate pages that are feeling redundant.. BakokongHenkoloy (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why is the initial data pack format version is 4 instead of 1? That's seems hilarious. DeepLineMadom (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Mojang wanted both numbers to match (given that the resource pack format was 4 when data packs were introduced) - and as we all know, that worked quite well. 2600:1700:4BA1:9F90:8D60:FD35:16BF:C6AE 08:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Make it so much easier to find each format, but still lets you view all of them if you really want to. Vizthex (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In the "Resource Packs" section, the pack_format value 10 is missing. Maybe some info on that would be useful. Like, does the resource pack parser accept that value, and if so, what format does it expect and what versions is it accepted for? EHXNeo (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The pack format for 25w16a is 57. SeaDragon1 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Between pack formats 61 (1.21.4) and 71 (1.21.5), there's a change to advancement json files that I haven't seen covered. It used to be

"background":"minecraft:textures/block/red_sandstone_top.png"

and now its

"background":"minecraft:block/red_sandstone_top"

Notice the lack of textures/ and .png. 👁 Image
extraterrestrial bean (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's a breaking or significant change. (Sul4ur) 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It showed the purple and black missing texture squares as the background in my advancement page in my datapack. 👁 Image
extraterrestrial bean (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Then I think that's a resource pack change. (Sul4ur) 04:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, it was in the files of my datapack and it pointed to a vanilla texture. The datapack actually had no accompanying resourcepack, nor had any reason to comply to resourcepack changes, considering it was a datapack. 👁 Image
extraterrestrial bean (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I found what I pointed out documented in the Technical section of Java Edition 1.21.5, so there is no more need to respond to this thread. Consider it resolved. 👁 Image
extraterrestrial bean (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I added "for more information see lab lab lab" into the Significant/breaking changes row after you pointed it out. (Sul4ur) 09:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't really get why we have to use this template subpage to insert all significant or breaking changes. It's very uncoventional for a number of reasons, for example:

• I have made it so that the table supports listing multiple changes. I want to take advantage of that new feature (and I already did for Template:Data pack format) but for Template:Resource pack format I can't really do it because of the /value subpage.
• I want to split the Resource pack format table into releaseonly and full tables but this subpage doesn't allow me to do so.

As you can see this page is just an obstacle for my pack format table improving. The only reason why I didn't want to remove the subpage is because it's also used in a few version pages, which are important pages.

Editing the pages not to use this template and removing this template are both big changes. Should I do them? (Sul4ur) 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The resource pack format in all versions between 1.6.1 to 1.8.9 (including all 1.7 releases) is 1, as listed in List of resource pack formats.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The introduction of minor pack format versions in 25w31a has led me to a conundrum: the tables are already quite bloated as it is (the data pack format table had to have a releaseonly table made while the full table was collapsed), and since minor pack formats inherently do not make breaking changes, there is less of a reason to include them.

I believe we 👁 Image
 should not include minor pack versions in the tables, as a lot of recent resource pack versions haven't actually made any changes other than adding textures, which did not even warrant a resource pack format bump in the past. Sightnado ( talk / contribs ) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not they're included in the main table, they should absolutely be listed somewhere here. I use this page regularly to inform what pack format numbers I decide on for my RPs and DPs. Minor pack versions are important to know for some pack makers, especially those who make resource packs that replace every block/texture in the game. Cygnus (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

~2026-NetherRubyHills18151 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)