Template talk:Infobox version

As of the time of writing, hatnotes are used to link to guides from version articles. I think it would be better to place these links in the {{Version nav}} template. It would take up less space and if for some reason we were to move all the guide pages to a new format, it would be a lot easier to change the nav template than to change all the hatnotes. Fadyblok240 (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Would save you having to cross-reference pack format. 2001:8003:3FED:5100:692F:77A3:4AB0:C8F8 12:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Data pack format should be similarly added. – ZacNVR (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support adding resource pack and data pack format version, though care should be taken to make the difference between data pack format versions and data versions obvious. Kationor (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've long planned to add this to the version navs. I have the data in JS form here: https://github.com/nixinova/pack-format. Will work on translating into wiki.  Nixinova   T   C   10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. See {{Pack format}} with data stored at {{Pack format/data}} & {{Pack format/resource}}.  Nixinova   T   C   11:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This means that the next parent of a pre-release should be the version it is being developed for.

Example:

• [Java Edition 1.14.4 Pre-Release 4] -> [Java Edition 1.14.4]

This is already the case for snapshots, and it should be consistent with pre-releases and release candidates.

Snapshot example:

• [Java Edition 20w45a] -> [Java Edition 1.17]

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For reference, this is also being discussed in this forum post: Minecraft Wiki:Forum/Mass revert recent edits changing nextparent in development versions to the parent version. –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 04:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The other editions information isn't data about the version, it's disambiguation, so should be outside of the infobox. I propose we change it to be like this:

{
 "title": "Old version",
 "rows": [
 {
 "field": "2018",
 "label": "Released"
 },
 {
 "field": "\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Java Edition Classic server 1.0 article, displayed as Java Edition Classic server)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Java Edition Beta 1.0 article, displayed as Java Edition Beta)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Launcher 1.0 article, displayed as Minecraft Launcher)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Realms#1.0 article, displayed as Realms)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Pocket Edition 1.0 article, displayed as Pocket Edition)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Bedrock Editor 1.0 article, displayed as Bedrock Editor)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Minecraft Education 1.0 article, displayed as Education)</span>\n*<span style=\"white-space:nowrap;\">(link to Nintendo Switch Edition 1.0 article, displayed as Nintendo Switch Edition)</span>",
 "label": "Other instances of (link to 1.0 article, displayed as 1.0)"
 }
 ],
 "invimages": [],
 "images": []
}

{
 "title": "New version",
 "rows": [
 {
 "field": "2024",
 "label": "Released"
 }
 ],
 "invimages": [],
 "images": []
}

Thoughts on this, or perhaps where better to put it?  Nixinova   T   C   07:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - It feels somewhat weird to put all these other versions in there. Maybe the actual game versions are fine, but the Launcher? Server software? Realms? Absolutely not. 3A |  T  C  07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I did a bit of thinking, and maybe we should add an "equivalent update in other editions" section instead, so e.g. the section in the JE 1.15 page would include BE 1.14, and EE 1.14.31; the section in the JE 1.13 page would include BE 1.4 and 1.5, EE 1.4, and all those console edition versions, e.g. PS3/Vita/4 1.76. That would work much better.

Example:

{
 "title": "Minecraft 1.13",
 "images": [
 "Java Edition 1.13 menu.png"
 ],
 "rows": [
 {
 "field": "''(link to Java Edition article, displayed as Java Edition)''",
 "label": "Edition"
 },
 {
 "field": "(link to Update Aquatic article, displayed as Update Aquatic)",
 "label": "Official name"
 },
 {
 "field": "July 18, 2018",
 "label": "Released"
 },
 {
 "field": "...",
 "label": "..."
 },
 {
 "field": "\n*(link to Bedrock Edition 1.4 article, displayed as Bedrock Edition 1.4)\n*(link to Bedrock Edition 1.5 article, displayed as Bedrock Edition 1.5)\n*(link to Education Edition 1.4 article, displayed as Education Edition 1.4)\n*(link to Xbox 360 Edition TU69 article, displayed as Xbox 360 Edition TU69)\n*(link to Wii U Edition Patch 38 article, displayed as Wii U Edition Patch 38)\n*(link to PlayStation 3 Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation 3 Edition 1.76)\n*(link to PlayStation Vita Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation Vita Edition 1.76)\n*(link to PlayStation 4 Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation 4 Edition 1.76)",
 "label": "Equivalent versions"
 }
 ],
 "invimages": [],
 "footer": "</tr>\n</table>"
}

3A |  T  C  15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a different case altogether. The current parameter is for versions on other editions that share the same version number.  Nixinova   T   C   05:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I simply suggested adding a separate, new row. The "same version number" row can be moved out. — 3A |  T  C  08:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Have moved it into a pointer box. Having an equivalent versions param can be a separate discussion.  Nixinova   T   C   03:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no documentation for the jsonfile parameter. It is used on pages such as Java Edition 1.21.4 Pre-Release 3. - CrowdingFaun624 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Filled that out  Nixinova   T   C   08:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

This section continues from the section where we moved "other editions" out of this infobox. Here's what I said then:

^{[note 1]}

{
 "title": "Minecraft 1.13",
 "images": [
 "Java Edition 1.13 menu.png"
 ],
 "rows": [
 {
 "field": "''(link to Java Edition article, displayed as Java Edition)''",
 "label": "Edition"
 },
 {
 "field": "(link to Update Aquatic article, displayed as Update Aquatic)",
 "label": "Official name"
 },
 {
 "field": "July 18, 2018",
 "label": "Released"
 },
 {
 "field": "...",
 "label": "..."
 },
 {
 "field": "\n*(link to Bedrock Edition 1.4 article, displayed as Bedrock Edition 1.4)\n*(link to Bedrock Edition 1.5 article, displayed as Bedrock Edition 1.5)\n*(link to Education Edition 1.4 article, displayed as Education Edition 1.4)\n*(link to Xbox 360 Edition TU69 article, displayed as Xbox 360 Edition TU69)\n*(link to Wii U Edition Patch 38 article, displayed as Wii U Edition Patch 38)\n*(link to PlayStation 3 Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation 3 Edition 1.76)\n*(link to PlayStation Vita Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation Vita Edition 1.76)\n*(link to PlayStation 4 Edition 1.76 article, displayed as PlayStation 4 Edition 1.76)",
 "label": "Equivalent versions"
 }
 ],
 "invimages": [],
 "footer": "</tr>\n</table>"
}

I still think we should add a section for this. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. — 3A |  T  C  11:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My only problem with it is the huge size that it balloons the infobox out to be. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe have it in a pointer box as well?  Nixinova   T   C   11:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That works as well. — 3A |  T  C  11:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this would still be a good idea. Though, it would have to be manually specified on all pages as a pointer box. So maybe this is the wrong place to discuss this.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  09:00, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak support May not be necessary and should probably be collapsible in some way as to not bloat the infobox with information that isn't even technically related to the version. Might be confusing since Java Edition 1.14 is equivalent to both Bedrock Edition 1.10.0 and 1.11.0, and to a lesser extent 1.8.0 and 1.9.0.

👁 Image
 Comment Would this also be used for developmental versions released on the same day as each other with roughly equivalent content, e.g. 26.1 Snapshot 8 and Beta 26.10.24? 👁 Image
FireDragons52 00:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: I believe if we do implement the row itself, some people will eventually get to doing that. I didn't think of this a year ago when I made the suggestion, but now that I think of it, if we can actually get a table of equivalent development versions it would be possible, best using a module or whatever technical thing we can to record them.

I'm also not sure if there's a chance that equivalence only goes one-way, e.g. JE version X is equivalent to BE version Y but not the other way round. I can't think of any examples of this but I feel like it's worth mentioning. — 3A |  T  C  04:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realized this was a year old, whoops. Either way, I definitely think it's an idea worth discussing. 👁 Image
FireDragons52 05:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

the Bedrock Dedicted Server "server for" row uses the parent param, but it links to the BDS version instead of BE version. For example, if the parent param was 1.6.1 instead of linking to Bedrock Edition 1.6.1 it links to Bedrock Dedicated Server 1.6.1. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

BE betas have been fully replaced with previews, so there is no point in listing it.

For example, Bedrock Edition 1.21.80 lists:

• Previews (6)
• Betas (6)

But those 2 pages are exactly the same. There is no point in listing betas. At least not since whatever version of BE got rid of them. I suggest just writing LUA code to check the version number and then call that in the template and only add the betas link if it is below a certain version. I'll make an example in my sandbox real quick. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Working demo on https://minecraft.wiki/w/User:Simanelix/Sandbox?oldid=3013516.

Proposed changes on User:Simanelix/Sandbox/Infobox version.

Module on Module:Sandbox/User:Simanelix/BE version has betas.--Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please consider my proposal? --Simanelix ^(T|C) 22:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is the same exact thing then why were they even both left there after betas were stopped in the first place??
👁 Image
amethyst_hhh 👁 Image
^(t)(survey) 22:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, there are often deeper reasons for these kinds of things. Like what Capopanzo said. I don't really understand it, but it's an explanation. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Betas are still being released on Android.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I am assuming that what you mean is that they are just called betas on Android. I guess listing the betas and previews every time is fine though, since if a player really cared that much they could just look at Bedrock Edition version history/Development versions, right? --Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if it'd be useful for a Patch Notes link in the infobox, since as of now the patch notes are instead only listed as the first reference in most version articles (see Java Edition 19w07a and Bedrock Edition beta 1.13.0.1, which both have the first references outside of the infobox being links to the patch notes for the version).

Theres already some precedent for outside linking in the infobox with the "Downloads" links and to a lesser extent the Wikipedia link used in Minimum Java Version. 👁 Image
FireDragons52 00:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I think they're better as references. Some of them aren't formatted as proper patch notes, there may be multiple sources for a version's change log, they may be dead so an archive has to be used (non-Mojang, slow to load).  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  00:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

So, I've noticed that on pages like Dungeons:1.1.1.0 and Legends:1.18.19068, the infobox row shows the full page name instead of just the version number. I'm guessing this is because the template trims FULLPAGENAME instead of just PAGENAME when getting the version number. I would change this myself but I don't know much about this template and don't want to accidentally break some other page. 👁 Image
FireDragons52 21:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is actually in the beginning of the template where version-prefix is defined. For Dungeons, it becomes Minecraft Dungeons:, and for Legends it become Minecraft Legends:. The problem is that the Dungeons and Legends pages don't have the "Minecraft" part in the page name. The part of the template that formats the footer with links to other editions tries to replace "Minecraft Dungeons:" (or "Minecraft Legends:") in FULLPAGENAME with an empty string, but that phrase doesn't exist, so it displays whatever FULLPAGENAME is. I'll try to change it for Dungeons to see if it fixes the problem and doesn't break anything, then I'll change it for Legends. Rampage455 (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I edited the template and the navigation row for those two pages now appears to be correct. I had to do a null edit on those pages to make the changes take effect; I think that's a caching issue and the other Dungeons and Legends pages should update over the next couple of days. Rampage455 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edits also changed the links in the "Game" row on Dungeons and Legends version pages. Instead of linking to "Minecraft Dungeons" and "Minecraft Legends", they link to "Dungeons" (which is a redirect to Dungeon) and "Legends". Example: Dungeons:1.5.0.0. –LauraFi - talk 06:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ugh. This template has become too complicated. We have two different naming conventions to contend with (Java/Bedrock and not Java/Bedrock), and multiple parts of the template are dependent on the same variable. While I appreciate efficiency, it's too difficult to maintain as you can't always change one thing without changing at least one other. If we're going to use one template for all Minecraft games, we should look into compartmentalizing the template a bit more. Even if it's more lines of code, it might be easier to update. I guess we can undo my changes as the links are now wrong, and while the navigation row formatting would not be exactly correct, it also wouldn't be wrong per se. I'll try to find another solution to the original problem. Rampage455 (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Think I've fixed that.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  02:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be really useful for Android information on bedrock edition, and I don't see a reason to not implement this, since "Version Code" and "Minimum Java version" is already implemented and it's probably not too hard to implement.
I can see this working as something like this:

On code:

|minsdk= 17 (4.2.x - Jelly Bean)
|targetsdk= 22 (5.1 - Lollipop)

Preview:

Or maybe something simpler, like a |systemtarget= row.

Sorry for the messy cell, but it's the best I could do since I'm new to this ^^

TadpoleTrader (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)