Changing the names[]
I think we should simplify the names to something like 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 rather than complicated names. Just like MCPE in play store. Their complicated name is 1.2.9.1 but we use 1.2.9 instead.
Skylord wars (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I totally agree, especially that the official changelog clearly displays simple names like 1.2. • Yanis48 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - the complicated names can be easily found in-game. There is no need from them to be simplified at all. -BDJP (t|c) 15:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Split[]
@BDJP007301: Why was my split reverted? All other versions except LCE have their own pages but console doesn't just because we don't know what to name the pages. – Nixinova 
19:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Simply put, no discussion has taken place regarding this. While I do understand that this edit was a bold one and done in good faith, it is generally recommended that a discussion take place prior to a major change. Case in point: bring it up on the community portal. -BDJP (t|c) 20:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- While that may be true, reverting for the sole reason of a previous discussion not taking place is generally discouraged, even if a discussion probably should have been done before taking action. In this case, all the other version history pages have been split and it doesn't change anything drastic, so I think this would have been an acceptable case of being bold. WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is a good essay explaining this; in short, changes generally shouldn't be reverted just because their hasn't been a discussion, although I personally would've probably discussed this change first. Now, of course, if you (BDJP) had a specific reason why you personally thought that it's more harmful than helpful to split the pages, that would be a perfectly reasonable revert reason. That being said, by this point, now that the edit have been made, reverted, restored, and rereverted again, it's probably better to go ahead and start a brief discussion, as if will help prevent edit wars.-- Madminecrafter12
Talk to me
21:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- While that may be true, reverting for the sole reason of a previous discussion not taking place is generally discouraged, even if a discussion probably should have been done before taking action. In this case, all the other version history pages have been split and it doesn't change anything drastic, so I think this would have been an acceptable case of being bold. WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is a good essay explaining this; in short, changes generally shouldn't be reverted just because their hasn't been a discussion, although I personally would've probably discussed this change first. Now, of course, if you (BDJP) had a specific reason why you personally thought that it's more harmful than helpful to split the pages, that would be a perfectly reasonable revert reason. That being said, by this point, now that the edit have been made, reverted, restored, and rereverted again, it's probably better to go ahead and start a brief discussion, as if will help prevent edit wars.-- Madminecrafter12
