Talk:Mentioned features

This page was archived once. You can find the archive here.

Non edition-specific mentioned features page

Should there be a non edition-specific "Mentioned features" page that lists stuff that is not exclusive to Java or Bedrock, such as the biome votes and fletching/smithing table functionality? Many of these features are currently only on the Java Edition page, and given that Mojang is aiming at feature parity between Java and Bedrock, I'd imagine that there would be fewer mentioned features that only apply to one of these editions. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Agree We should not assume that a mention was meant for Java unless it explicitly says so or was mentioned before the Better Together Update. The Blobs 02:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 AgreeTravelbytrain (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Agree As long as the top of the page is clear that its for features mentioned in multiple editions so it does not become clutter with edition specific mentions.

We do need to consider what to do about the edition specific feature pages, I can see a lot of well meaning editors adding mentions to the Java page that already exist on the general one if we leave them out, but I do want to avoid redundant information. Maybe if its a large enough feature, add a section with a {{main}} link? –KnightMiner ^t/_c 06:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@KnightMiner: The Java page could use {{about}} to point to this page. The Blobs 07:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Linking to the page at the top won't mean new editors will read the page first. Plus, a reader looking for information on a feature coming to Java Edition is better off not needing to check two articles for one version when we can include links to specific features. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The Nether Update

Helen once stated on Twitter that the Nether update is coming to Bedrock Edition some time in the future. Can somebody please add this to the "planned" section of the article? 98.230.115.82 23:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This page only documents features that are not planned for any specific version. Most likely, the Nether Update will be released to both editions simultaneously, as did Buzzy Bees. A source for this is here. The Blobs 00:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Nether boats"

Didn't a developer mention nether boats (presumably made out of the new wood) in a tweet?73.208.227.101 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Blaze3D

Is Blaze3D not the current rendering engine as of version 1.15? It seems to be actively having bugs reported on it. 108.78.62.168 00:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It is. Minecraft 1.15 uses Blaze3D as it's graphic engine. Since 1.15 is already out, the section regarding Blaze3D should be removed. Michaelts (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Netherite workbench

Somewhere on the feedback site yesterday, there was an article written in French that said something about a netherite workbench. They made it "announced" and today they removed it from the feedback site. Should we say anything about it on the page?--ManosSef (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dirt slab again

There are some mods that add dirt slabs (and stairs) too! 49.228.136.217 04:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

source 112 is broken

the source [112] on the page is a dead link Unbroken10990 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

About hostile mobs...

If sharks are rejected as Mojang doesn't want hostile animal mobs, then why are the spiders in Minecraft considered as monsters and why are silverfish bugs hostile mobs? This seems like they're being hypocrites in this case. GurgiFan57 (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They were added long before Mojang stated that. Fluffy8x (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That "Chinese mob vote" thing

It is likely that the Chinese "mob vote" is not a vote that influenced which mob got added to the game, but instead just a way to hype up for the update and tease that one of those animals would be added. In addition, the vote concluded in September 21 but the announcement live stream was September 30, and it's unlikely that the devs were able to make that much development progress to show on the live stream if they only started on September 21.

For reference, here's the text that is written on the vote website along with my translation:

国宝来啦！
票选你最期待加入《我的世界》的国宝

9月7日至9月20日，欢迎大家投票选出你们最喜爱的国宝。投票结果将于9月21日公布，而最终加入游戏的国宝将于9月30日在MINECON揭晓，让我们一起拭目以待中国玩家票选的国宝能否成功入驻游戏与玩家们亲密接触吧！

每人每天可投2票（可为同一个国宝投票）。

National Treasure is Coming!
Vote for the national treasure that you look forward to be added to Minecraft the most

From September 7 to September 20, [we] welcome you to vote for your favorite national treasure. The vote result will be announced September 21, and the national treasure to be eventually added to the game will be revealed on September 30 during the MINECON, let's wait and see if the vote winner from Chinese players will be added to the game and have a intimate contact with the players!

Every person can cast two votes per day (can be cast on the same national treasure).

User670839245 03:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate information

I don't understand the current organisation of the pages Java Edition mentioned features and Bedrock Edition mentioned features (as well as Java Edition unused features and Bedrock Edition unused features). It seems as though the vast majority of the pages' content is just duplicate information. In my opinion, we should aim to make these pages more concise, and either:

Option 1: Create a new page for "Mentioned" and "Unused" features shared between the two versions, trimming the current pages to be only for version-exclusive features;
Option 2: Merging the two pages and having separate sections and/or headers for content was only mentioned/unused in one version, as is the case for most of the Wiki's other pages.

If enough people agree it needs to be changed we can start a vote on this later. You can also offer other details and alternatives if you have any. Pescavelho (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Support, most of the mentioned features apply to both versions anyway. AlienAgent124 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

What option do you favour? Pescavelho (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think just having all of the content on one page is probably the best, with a couple of separate sections for stuff that specifically has to do with a particular edition, since there probably isn't enough information specific to each particular edition to warrant separate pages. AlienAgent124 (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are mentioned features split into Java and Bedrock if they haven't been added yet? These pages should be merged.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

---

The Java Edition mentioned features and Bedrock Edition mentioned features pages should be merged into one page. So much of the pages are just duplicated information and every time Mojang mentions a feature, that means we have to add the information twice to both the Java and Bedrock page. Then, if we have to make corrections to the mentioned features pages, we have to do this twice.

Mentioned features have not been added into the game, so there is no need to have them be 2 different pages. They are not on Java or Bedrock if they are not added into the game. If there is a platform specific mentioned feature, it can easily be added as separate sub-sections in the general mentioned features page. We could also strip down the Java and Bedrock mentioned features pages to only list the platform and edition specific mentioned features.

Delvin4519 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The original reason they were split was because the Java article simply existed first, and it ultimately got moved to the version specific name when the wiki started getting a real effort towards covering all editions equally instead of focusing on Java. Back then Mojang was a lot less focused on feature parity and there was little overlap between Java and Bedrock updates (Bedrock was still trying to catch up to Java in terms of features as it was only recently changed from being the Pocket Edition). Recent updates have often been focusing on the same set of promised features in both editions, so I understand the desire to merge it.

I think the best course of action is to make a mockup in either your userspace or the wiki sandbox of the merged article. Be clear on which features were mentioned specifically for Java/Bedrock and which features were mentioned for both or unclear (generally old enough mentions are going to be specifically for Java but newer ones may not be). Its possible the edition specific content would be enough to keep sections dedicated to both, or perhaps the combination will be long enough that its best to do subpages for common, java only, and bedrock only. Will be hard to tell without seeing someone attempt to combine it. –KnightMiner ^(t/c) 03:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this myself: User:AlienAgent124/Mentioned features. At the moment this incorporates all the text from both pages with minimal changes. Feel free to edit if there's anything that needs to be added or tweaked. AlienAgent124 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like my main concern with the mockup is its unclear which features were mentioned for one version only. A lot of the older mentions notably only were "for" Java edition even if parity may be a long term goal. Perhaps we should just edit the sections to be clear whether its java, bedrock, or both.

Honestly, I think part of the problem is the page could use better organization, we right now categorize it into similar states of development, but most of that is speculation. One alternative would be time organizing the page instead of by state, but not sure that would be easier to read, so sticking with the first and just being clear when a mention is not for all versions is probably best. –KnightMiner ^(t/c) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support - Harristic / Talk 19:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If this discussion is still active, I'd like to say, why weren't these merged in the first place? It's "mentioned features", so if something was mentioned, it's not that big of a difference between Java and bedrock, is it? Nerdyguy2000 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support There really isn’t a good reason to keep the pages separate. If there’s any information not on one, it either should be there or is an ancient mention, like nether pearls. This has been a long time coming. Realshow19 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

i agree 101.127.121.19 08:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Support For reasons already stated. SquebbyNICO (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support If a mentioned feature pertains only to a particular version, then it should be noted with a disclaimer, as is the case in any other article. Pescavelho (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Done. -- Arina (she/her) 18:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove implemented features

Should features such as Cave and underground features, Nether features etc. be removed as it is implemented into the game? Laiba (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Anything fully implemented should definitely be removed, though with some you could technically argue that they’re slightly distinct from the original mention. Not that it particularly matters. Realshow19 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So, should something like Nether Boats or similar be removed? Laiba (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean removing it could be quite logical, but then we at least need to have the info somewhere else on the wiki (maybe in each corresponding wiki page) that the first idea was this or that, so that we don't loose the track of the "first idea" ElGrenier (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, in that case, about the "Phasing out of NBT-based crafting recipes" does that count as getting out or not ? Because now its components, soo, is this still count as implemented, or does the crafting are still component-based ? ElGrenier (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove "joke features" and "brief mentions" sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

---

Literally no reason for them to exist. This page should definitely not be an indiscriminate collection of every rumor or speculation anyone close to Mojang has ever had. -- Arina (she/her) 14:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dianliang233. -- Arina (she/her) 17:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Why not? The Minecraft wiki is supposed to document everything about Minecraft and likewise to what Realshow said. Ayaan 17:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I could understand splitting them off to a separate page, but those sections aren’t “rumors.” They’re features, mentioned by Mojang staff. Obviously they’re going to be documented on a mentioned features page. You might not find them interesting or notable, but they’re still a part of history, and in plenty of cases are eventually added. Realshow19 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose per Realshow19. BDJP ^(t|c) 17:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also  oppose per Realshow. PhoenixAsh89 (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, kept. -- Arina (she/her) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Section notability

I've done a lot of cleanup for the page, going to take a small break now but I can't help but notice a lot of these sections are rather small or redundant. We don't need every individual mob vote to get a section, for one, and I'm not sure what makes snails or soul blazes more deserving of a paragraph than hamsters or the Q&A penguin. Realshow19 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tysm! -- Arina (she/her) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn’t be removed.Drour1234 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

They should, yes. That is the point of editing the page, to revise it. Realshow19 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm noticing a lot of sections talk about vague features, then proceed to mention a number of features that fit the criteria that were added after the section was written. At what point do we remove the section? It reads like you're supposed to still be reading the page in 2013, very bizarre and unprofessional. Realshow19 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe things should only be removed from this page if there is somewhere else on the wiki where such information can be moved to.Drour1234 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Where do you think we’d put them, “Implemented Features”? Realshow19 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

So, the article still hasn't been rewritten?

What is there to rewrite? 4ngryth3fan (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)