Talk:Tricky Trials

I think it would be a good idea to have the experiment name Update 1.21 redirect to this page as it describes the contents of the toggle a lot better than experiments does. As such, it's the more useful target for readers looking for information on the current 1.21 content. Having it as a redirect would still leave the option open to later create a page specifically about the Update 1.21 toggle while current readers get the most appropriate content possible. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - Experiments barely describes it at all. This page would be much more useful for readers. This would also fix the linking issue with proposed change to Template:Experimental, but I'll bring that up on that talk page seperately. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk)

👁 Image
 Support. I think part of the reason a Minecraft 1.21 page was suggested was to solve this "experimental toggle link issue". — Misode (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect target, as that was indeed part of the original forum topic. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is quite different from other major version articles, both in terms of style and layout. Pinging @Simanelix and @StizzurpXDD since some of the relevant edits were yours. I've found that most of the articles about major versions are quite barebones, and a few changes have been made to this article that diverge from previous major version articles. I definitely think that making these articles a bit more reader-friendly would be good, but I wanted to have a bit of a centralized discussion about it before scattered changes happen. Here are some of my opinions:

1. I'm personally not a fan of the "minecraft.net writing style" for this page; it's not the most encyclopedic and is also inconsistent with every other page on the wiki. If something like this were to be implemented, a talk on the style guide page might be helpful or something.
2. I support putting icons/images next to each feature, but this would have to be consistent across all major version pages.
3. I don't have much of an opinion on the bullet pointed overview in the lead of some key features, but then what's the point of the notable features section?
4. Linking to that point, things like particles have been added to this page's notable features, which aren't on most other version pages and it's debatable how notable they are.
5. Splitting up the sections with sub-bullet points like "New copper blocks" is a good change in my opinion, and makes the long lists more readable.

That's about it, I just want to try and keep these pages consistent with each other :) 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

For the dev releases, we would have to stick with the "minecraft.net writing style" but for these major update pages, we should definitely make it look different. For the second point you mentioned, I am planning to make it consistent for all major update pages. And now, covering rest of the points, the style. Maybe we can replace the 'Notable Features' section with the traditional 'Additions' sections but instead of writing every little detail, we can add them as 'Blocks' sub-section and 'Items' sub-section with sub-bullet points as "New Copper Blocks" and "New Tuff Blocks" etc. (and if we want to keep the notable features section, we can do the same thing). 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 07:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

We don’t need to stick to the "minecraft.net writing style". Pardon my wording, but it just seems outright lazy. BDJP ^(t|c) 08:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Other users have also made work towards satisfying point 2 for all pages, by the way. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

When I said "minecraft.net writing style" I really meant copying keywords that communicate the intentions of the developers and help explain the game design. I really don't think any other aspect of their writing style is necessary on our wiki. In particular, I added a paragraph trying to include the explanation of why the word "Tricky" is in the update's name, because it has a clear and direct connection the actual update. The same thing goes for the Breeze's design of "sweeping players off their feet". The comment about the Breeze could be removed, since it is somewhat redundant with the Breeze § Behavior, or it could even be added to that section of the Breeze article somewhere. The particles are only noteworthy as far as the connect to the Trial Spawner and Vault. Reworking the page so they are included as minor subpoints is one idea I like. Another idea is to just remove the particles since they are more appropriate for the other 1.21 pages or the update guides. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Notable features could use prose and look more like an article, but I think bullets are the quickest to read. This page should serve as a way for players to quickly get upto speed with new content, rather than a thorough explanation. Therefore, the fun quirky adventure style of minecraft.net is also not appropriate here. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

... as an alternative to placing the update logo directly in the infobox, since we aren't allowed to put update logos in infoboxes anymore.

You can see what this would look like on my userpage:

• User:Simanelix/Sandbox3

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a pretty smart compromise regarding the issue TitanianPerson (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, how do I add the little green plus circle that comes before Support? I'm kinda new to editing the Minecraft wiki TitanianPerson (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment Welcome! See Template:Comment. Hope that helps! -BrianGLHF (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose In my opinion, having a section link to the logo in the infobox has shown on the screen feels incomplete. Even if we can't put official artwork, like logos, in the infoboxes, having text in the infobox where there should be an image doesn't sound good. I would more than welcome putting the logo below the infobox, as we done with the key art for 15 Year Journey, but given I don't know the exact details of what Mojang (errr Microsoft) has to tell us what not to do, I'm not interested into providing that option yet until we know for certain what we can or cannot do as a wiki. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 18:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per PanchamBro. BDJP ^(t|c) 19:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose Interesting idea but I prefer the way it was handled on 15 Year Journey per PanchamBro. -BrianGLHF (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

could someone add the reference for the update date using this link? I don't know how to. [1] Cg28008 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Added a reference to the minecraft.net article--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yay! Java edition is getting (I believe) the twenty-first update since full release! For Bedrock, I think it's the twentieth! Anyway, apart from that, if there's anything that needs to be edited, we'd better get into that. Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Although, for a lot of you, it's not morning, so this kind of applies to the rest of the edits required. People are probably on it. Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

i changed some 'will be' to 'is' Cheddarcheese (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Good! Thank you :) Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy release day! Since the actual features have been in dev versions for a while, all we really need to do is remove all the upcoming notices across the wiki. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup. I'll do a bit o' that Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh nvm. It's already done Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Though, does anyone know when the update is? Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tricky Trials? It released a couple hours ago. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but I haven't gotten it yet. See my user page for the platform I play on. Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh now I have the update!!! Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Tricky Trials#Further revisions lists every version that starts with "1.21", and I see no need to do this. The drops are completely unrelated to Tricky Trials, and the most of the hotfixes don't even focus on bugs from Tricky Trails. Bundles of Bravery is its own update, and most of the versions after it should be removed. Note: Including Bundles of Bravery itself plus maybe a hotfix would be wise, since there are probably a lot of bug fixes and changes that are relevant to Tricky Trials. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support removing them 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
02:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree, given the new drop system these sections should only contain subsequent hotfixes and unnamed minor updates.  Nixinova   T   C   02:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The same logic would also apply to Trails & Tales. Also, each drop page would have to have the respective further revisions moved to it. Probably mentioning the first drop after each update would be a good idea. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Trails & Tales should still list all further revisions, including the two "drops". The first one was clearly just a "delayed" feature from 1.20, like the piglin brutes with 1.16. The second drop is a bit less trails & tales themed but I think it can't harm to just add that one drop. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I was thinking the exact same thing of at least listing the drops. Though is it really necessary when you can use the info box to navigate through them? Well it's probably fine. Especially since improved formatting and wording would make it more clear that the drop is not closely related to the update. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Java Edition 1.21.2 also made numerous changes to trial chambers - I would argue that is the change that should be listed on this page rather than the addition of bundles. Bedrock probably had something similar, though the history section doesn't list it. -- jacobsjo (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Bedrock Edition did receive the changes in one of the 1.21.30 Previews... but they were reverted later and never came back. Unfortunate parity issue. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Drops are basically just major updates that Mojang refuses to call major. They might as well be separate. Sightnado ( talk | contribs ) 18:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Well they call them drops instead because they don't want fans to raise their expectations super high like they did with the Wild Update. -- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Kinda sad how much marketing as negatively impacted Minecraft's dev cycle. We're practically back to 2012/2013 (pre-1.8)'s 3/4-updates-a-year frequency all but in name.  Nixinova   T   C   05:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Uhhuh. Definitely a good idea. These are super unrelated plus it's already been a year, so, uhh... -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  23:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this to the intro or something

During the developement process, many of the update's features were under an experimental toggle named "Update 1.21".

-- Simanelix ^(T|C) 23:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)