Talk:Java Edition 25w02a

Version number designation of the next game drop

There seems to be a bit of a debate on what version number this snapshot belongs to. An initial edit by User:MarkusRost at Special:PermanentLink/2812020, as well as reverts from User:Leo768 at Special:PermanentLink/2812860, and User:BDJP007301 at Special:PermanentLink/2813326 and Special:PermanentLink/2813826, maintain that since the version number for the next drop (I'll just be referring to this as the "Spring Drop" for a little bit) is not mentioned in the slicedlime video, we can't use that as a source for the claim that this snapshot is for 1.21.5. I made an assumption that drops are minor version numbers, and updates are major version numbers, as that is how it has been so far for every drop and following from the logic that drops are smaller patches than updates. But I guess we cannot make inferences on this wiki, per Special:PermanentLink/2813826. Admittedly, I jumped to the video as a source because a similar situation happened for 1.21.2's first snapshot, where User:BDJP007301 did point out at Special:PermanentLink/2663219 that that video mentions the version number explicitly. So I concede that we cannot claim that this Spring Drop snapshot is for 1.21.5.

However! This raises another question. If 25w02a is for the "Spring Drop", but we can't yet say that 25w02a is for 1.21.5, doesn't it also follow that we can't yet say that the "Spring Drop" is 1.21.5? Considering this, we should move 1.21.5 to another page title. Since there isn't an official or numbered title for this drop yet, we have to use an unofficial one. 1.21.4 used the "Winter Drop", and I've already seen some people call this one the "Spring Drop", so that's almost a good placeholder title. The only change I would make to that is to add the year on, to future proof and disambiguate it from other potential spring drops in the future. But Spring Drop 2025 already exists, and it's formatted more like the drop/update pages named after the official name instead of the version number (The Garden Awakens, Bundles of Bravery, Tricky Trials, etc.) with abridged features and no mention of technical features. So we need to figure out a new title for 1.21.5, to avoid claiming that the drop belongs to a version number without an official source to back it up.

Considering this also almost happened with 1.21.2, I think we should set up some kind of policy to streamline this and standardize "detailed" drop/update article placeholder names (like what 1.21.2 would have needed during its first snapshot had slicedlime not mentioned 1.21.2 in his video), should it happen in the future. Mojang doesn't feel like they owe us immediate confirmation as to what version number a drop will be in, and they're not entirely wrong. After all, it is just to satisfy our pedantry.

Milo359 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

1.21.5 is a clearly logical conjecture name and trying to avoid its use would result in things being needlessly messy for everyone I think. If we have a policy then it should simply be to assume major updates increase the major update number and drops increase the minor update number, because that is how version numbers work. We can keep a citation needed tag though. - Harristic / Talk 05:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the conjectural name. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too, and that's what keeping the citation needed tag is. Per the style guide, unsourced content (that is the type of content that needs to be sourced in the first place) should not be added into articles. If a piece of content is dubious enough to warrant a citation needed tag, and a source isn't available, it should be removed. So either the conjectural name is good enough that we don't need a citation needed tag, or we shouldn't conjecturalize version numbers for drops/updates which haven't explicitly been confirmed for a version number yet. I honestly thought the usage and treatment of information needing a citation was a known and agreed-upon rule. Milo359 (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's only semantics, the two tags communicate identical messages in this scenario, "1.21.5 is assumed and needs a citation to be official". Choose whichever fits more, which is probably conjecture, but citation needed is not so drastically different here as you make it out to be.

"I honestly thought the usage and treatment of information needing a citation was a known and agreed-upon rule", rules will never cover every possible future scenario. Not that I think this scenario calls the rules into question too much. - Harristic / Talk 20:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the template to {{conjecture|tag=1}}. -- Leo768 (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I like that idea, so I went and did it. Thanks! Milo359 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

What's going on with revision 2814887?

I think we're at a good point with the {{conjecture|tag=1}} tag, but I was actually looking through the edit history of the page, and I found something that could help us do better: this revision, Special:PermanentLink/2814887. For some reason, a source was rejected. Looking at the source, it's a playlist by slicedlime, titled "Minecraft 1.21.5 Update Videos", with the currently singular snapshot video in it, so I don't know why it wouldn't be accepted. The edit summary simply states "see previous revert summary". The previous revert is this: Special:PermanentLink/2814460, but it doesn't have a summary other than "reverted". Looking specifically at BDJP007301's last revert, Special:PermanentLink/2813874, it says "not needed", but this is in reference to a completely different revert, one about speculating whether the drop is called the "Spring Drop" (highly unlikely, that's just a working title). So I must ask User:BDJP007301, what reason are you referring to? Milo359 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This one. BDJP ^(t|c) 01:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well at least it's linked on this talk page too now. Thanks! Milo359 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)