Forum:Further article split discussions

Index >

Further article split discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

Opposed splits are not going through, supported splits are being worked on as part of Project DIG. Harristic / Talk 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello there! In the past month, a major discussion regarding page granularity on the Minecraft Wiki was had, which resulted in a rough consensus that dozens of articles should be split. The process of splitting those pages began, and has been ongoing for the past few weeks. Overall, the process has been relatively smooth throughout. However, the old forum discussion left several key issues unresolved, and given the ongoing page splitting project's progress, now is the time to address some of these unresolved issues.

Why this discussion is being revived again

Unresolved issues with the previous discussion

The previous discussion had several key issues:

The original discussion was heavily focused on splitting families of pages.

The discussion forum was primarily laid out in a way where editors had to discuss splitting a group of articles, not discussing splitting each article individually. The original discussion's layout works best for splitting families of articles, such as tiers of tool and armor equipment, wooden materials, or colored and dyed blocks. For other items, this format resulted in the regular need to add additional sub-topics as the discussion went on.

The original discussion left out the discussion of several pages completely.

Given the original discussion's design, many pages weren't discussed at all, such as froglights or command blocks. As such, for the ongoing project for splitting various articles, the consensus of whether those articles should be split, isn't clear, as it was never discussed. This means that a new discussion is necessary in order to determine whether these pages should be split.

The original discussion was not properly closed.

This is another issue of the original discussion. While the consensus was clear to split or not split various pages for some topics, for other topics, this isn't so clear. Some topics had multiple proposals lumped into a single discussion, other topics lumped multiple items into one discussion; such as music discs, pottery sherds, and banner patterns. The consensus for each of these items differed, despite them all being together in one discussion.

Editor activity on the new wiki has decreased somewhat over the past few weeks.

Over the past few weeks, the new wiki's activity seems to have decreased as far as it’s seen anecdotally. Most notably, the original forum post's author, hasn't been active at all since the original discussion died off. Without the original forum post's authors to close the discussion, the discussion has been in a sense, abandoned and left behind for the other editors to guess what the consensus was for some of the more debated topics.

Getting new discussions on individual talk pages is difficult

After the original forum post died down, a new discussion spawned for a split of Suspicious Blocks, in its individual talk page, however, very few editors have commented on the issue over the course of two weeks. This is problematic, since if a discussion needs to sit for several weeks, or a month potentially, then it would make it difficult to realize the SEO benefits of split pages, given the old fandom wiki's dominance in search results, and the long timelines for getting discussions on individual talk pages.

Given the lower editor activity, the individual talk pages are somewhat hard for editors to find, and it is also in a sense undesirable to have dozens, or lots of pages, all have a pending split notice at the top of their respective articles, all at once, across the wiki.

Benefits of the discussion

In case you have missed the earlier discussion. The original discussion notes the benefits of split pages here. Some of these benefits include: easier pages for readers and new editors to understand, relevance of information to readers, and search engine optimization.

In addition, this discussion covering each case as its own topic and section will significantly reduce ambiguity regarding consensus, and will make the level of granularity that readers and editors prefer, more clear; with a centralized discussion space.

Cases

This discussion aims to cover cases that are unclear, or were previously undiscussed, in the original discussion.

One huge change for this discussion is that each article will have its own individual topic section for discussion below. By having this discussion covering each individual article as one topic section, this means that this forum will not discuss splitting families of articles like the original discussion. As such, cases such as wood product variants, dyed block variants, or equivalents, are not in the scope of this discussion. Those should be discussed in another forum post, for example, such as a “Splitting families of blocks” post.

Otherwise, this discussion’s format will be somewhat similar with the original discussion. Use  Support for split pages, and indicate a preference for merged articles as  Oppose.

This discussion will be open for at least 1 week (Sunday December 3rd, 2023, 21:00 UTC), but the discussion's progress will be checked throughout for adjustments as needed, or if individual topic sections can be closed (but no earlier than 1 week).

This discussion should not affect any ongoing splits on the current page splitting project, unless it already has a discussion thread here.

Suspicious Block

Suspicious Gravel and Suspicious Sand should each have its own article, with the overview page turned into a disambiguation.

---

Parts of this discussion was brought in from the discussion in Talk:Suspicious Block#Split.

---

split suspicious sand, unsuspicious, gravel--49.178.87.156 22:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, there was a discussion about splitting the page in this forum post, although the discussion also covers a bunch of other block pages. A separate discussion may be warranted, though I don't think the opinion towards splitting this page is favorable. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support. They generate in different places, have different loot tables, sounds, IDs and they are visually different. The prose on this article that would have to be duplicated is very tiny in comparison to the overal page size. — Misode (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the problem with discussing splits on individual talk page articles ever since the wave of editor activity died down 2.5 weeks ago. Since it is very hard for other editors to come across these discussions, so the discussion times is very long and can drag out a month or more. Especially since the new wiki is still at a SEO war with Fandom, so having these discussions drawn out a long time, or a lack of replies, is very problematic. I have a similar issue with a split notice at Hardened Glass, and waiting past the American Thanksgiving weekend would be problematic, with a potential lack of time to do the split for 2-3 weeks, if I don't split the page by this weekend.

Anyhow, I've looked at this article about Suspicious Blocks closely and now  Strong Support splitting Suspicious Block. There isn't actually a lot of duplicate information here, because there's basically only 1 sentence or two that is duplicated. That's basically it, there hardly any duplicate info here. With this split, it's probably worth just scrapping the overview article completely and turning it into disambig, there's just 2 blocks, so it's probably not worth the overview page. It would be preferred a split ASAP given the SEO benefits it would give.

IMO it'd be perferred if the page granularity splits address all of the miscellaneous stuff like music discs, tulips, item frames, command blocks, etc., before getting to tiered tools and armors, and before the split of walls, stairs, and slabs are done. The miscellaneous stuff really just bloats the list of overview pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Harristic | Talk 15:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support as well plighting_engineerd (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ Talk
Contribs 22:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support — BabylonAS 04:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support — Köpleres (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - cph101TalkContribs 19:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Although yes, it generate in different area, but they are the many things in common: suspicious block, brush to reveal what item in that block, and being fragile. How about putting it on the corresponding main block article (suspicious sand to sand page, for example)? Jsmile0209 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak oppose, different generation but essentially the same main functionality (fragile, falling block, use in archeology), loot is set by the structure and doesn't directly depend on the block type itself. I could see a point in splitting if other non-gravity affected blocks are added (e.g. suspicious dirt), so splitting now could be a good idea in terms of futureproofing (hence my "weak" opposition).  Strong oppose having suspicious block info in the main sand/gravel pages: too different from the regular variants, they'd probably need separate sections and at that point we should just have them on separate pages.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 14:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Information shared by all suspicious blocks I'm thinking should be offloaded to archaeology, brush, or falling block, not the main sand or gravel articles. If suspicious red sand or susupicious dirt is added, then I'll look into restoring the overview page from its disambiguation, but for now, just two suspicious blocks is just too weak to justify an overview page, given all of their differences currently. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Undyed Terracotta

Undyed terracotta should have its own article, separated from all other 16 colors of terracotta.

Update: If supporting the split, also list the preferred article title for the 16 colors of terracotta as either 1.) Dyed Terracotta, 2.) Colored Terracotta, or 3.) Stained Terracotta.

Note: This proposal is for discussing splitting undyed terracotta only.

 Extremely strong support. Aside from usage as a building blocks, undyed terracotta has completely different crafting and smelting methods of obtaining and usage from dyed terracotta. This needs to be split, period.

Undyed terracotta is obtained by smelting clay, and is used to craft smithing templates. Undyed terracotta cannot be smelted at all, but it can be dyed. It is not possible to create glazed terracotta from undyed terracotta. Stained dyed terracotta on the other hand, is not obtained by smelting, but it is obtained from dyeing. Dyed terracotta can be smelted to create glazed terracotta, but it can't be used for crafting smithing templates at all. Also, on Bedrock Edition, undyed terracotta uses a different block ID from dyed terracotta, and Java Edition had a similar situation prior to 1.13. Dyed terracotta have alias IDs on Bedrock Edition, but undyed terracotta doesn't.

I'm currently thinking that the 16 colors of dyed terracotta should be moved to "Stained Terracotta", in reference of the old "stained clay" name used prior to 1.12, while a theoretical split of dyed candles and shulker boxes would be located at "Dyed Candle" and "Dyed Shulker Box", however, these latter two are not in the scope of this discussion.

Delvin4519 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support proposal #3. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Per Delvin4519. – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support proposal #3 – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support These are basic building blocks with enough differences to deserve a split between undyed and dyed variants (unlike shulker boxes and candles, which have a main specific functionality that is the same across undyed and dyed variants) . The page for the dyed blocks should be named "Stained Terracotta" as it's the collective name used in the en_us.lang file in 1.12 (tile.clayHardenedStained.name=Stained Terracotta).--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

In Java Edition 1.20.2 source, there is an entry for "Stained Terracotta" in the RecipeProvider. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That settles it imo.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sponge

Wet Sponge should have its own separate article from Sponge.

 Neutral, on one hand, dry sponges and wet sponges are about as different blocks as one can get. One block generates natually, can be smelted, but it can't absorb water; and the other can absorb water but can't be smelted, nor does it generate naturally. On the other hand, sponges regularly go back and forth between the dry and wet stages when used in normal gameplay, so in that sense, sponges are more like lit redstone lamps and unlit redstone lamps, but sponges being that they have both dry and wet stages in the Creative inventory. Also, on Bedrock Edition, both dry and wet sponge still use a single ID. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — This is a case of a block having two reversible functional stages split across Java resource locations. I doubt that people would be specifically interested in a wet sponge when it's the dry stage that gives sponges utility in the game. — BabylonAS 04:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ talk | contribs 04:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose The purpose of separate wet sponge is like a sponge with a block state is "wet". And wet sponge can be easily reversed to Sponge. Although it is true that Wet sponge do not have ability to absorb water, it is not worth a split. Regarding reader confusion and readability, I don't think that split Sponge would make it better. It would like reader has to find info of Wet Sponge in separate article when in fact it is just a same block being wet. Jsmile0209 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support Like Delvin said, these blocks are about as different as two blocks can get: saying that a wet sponge is the same as sponge, just wet, is an oversimplification. Everything is different: sounds, textures, particles, usage, methods of obtaining the block, even history (as dry sponges were added much earlier than wet sponges). This is not the same as with lit/unlit redstone lamp, which differ only in light level. With that being said, this can be done similarly to Beehive and Bee Nest (which were split): two pages covering related blocks with a common subpage explaining the common thing. --Melwin22 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

“This is not the same as with lit/unlit redstone lamp” — this is completely wrong. With regards to the sponge's main utility, both states are not really usable independently from each other. You need to dry the sponge that you've got from the ocean monument, then use the dried sponge to soak water, then dry it again. Outside of this cycle, there is nothing that requires a wet sponge or a dry sponge specifically. By the way, you can take a look at the old discussion. — BabylonAS 10:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Amethyst Cluster

Each type of amethyst cluster should have its own article.

Things like Small Amethyst Bud, Medium Amethyst Bud, Large Amethyst Bud, and Amethyst Cluster.

 Oppose. This is just crop growth stages like wheat growth stages, but each growth stage is obtainable in Creative mode. Doesn't need splitting. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, same as Delvin, they are just like crop growth stages. - UnExpectedDino ᐸ talk | contribs 18:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support for sub-sectionsDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, glorified blockstates like the damaged anvils, the item forms only exist because they have to keep their growth stage when collected.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 17:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tulip

All variants of tulips should have its own article, with the overview page turned into a disambiguation.

Things like Red Tulip, Orange Tulip, White Tulip, and Pink Tulip.

 Support. All other flowers have their own articles. Tulips should just have individual articles with the Tulip overview page turned into a disambiguation stating "there's 4 types of tulips". Information shared by all tulips can be offloaded back onto the main overview Flower page. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — Tulips have very little difference between themselves, compared to other flowers. They only give differing dyes and two variants are found in some generated structures, but that's about it. — BabylonAS 03:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose, same as Babylon - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ Talk
Contribs 4:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose - Per BabylonAS. – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Having all tulips combined while every single other flower is split is such a weird inconsistency. These are literally only combined because of the name, which just isn't a notable enough reason. - Harristic | Talk 13:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How exactly does “such a weird inconsistency” harm the wiki and its readers? I am of a belief that applying the same solution to absolutely everything is not always the best. — BabylonAS 13:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If every single flower is on its own page, except four of them, that's simply confusing. Most flowers act identically, tulips do not have a property that applies to only tulips, therefore making it neater to combine them all. They're merged because of the name and I think that's not a great reason for a merge. - Harristic | Talk 13:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

“Tulip” is not just a name, it's a legitimate genus of flowers in real life. In the game, all four tulips have more or less the same shape (which distinguishes them from any abstract “red/white/orange/pink flower”) and they have the same list of biomes to generate in. — BabylonAS 13:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate dealing with all of the miscellaneous stuff first that clogs the last column of the list of merged pages in User:Delvin4519/Merged Pages. Splitting tulips is 1 less overview page in the miscellaneous section, since the current overview page for Tulips would become a disambiguation page. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Froglight

All variants of froglights should have its own article.

Things like Pearlescent Froglight, Verdant Froglight, and Ochre Froglight.

 Neutral, but leaning towards very weak/soft oppose, but barely;  soft/weak oppose. Even if froglights were split, they'd still likely have an overview page, meaning that it'd just be duplicated info, unless the overview page is turned into a disambiguation (in that case I'd more prefer the split). Also, there aren't separate pages for cold, temperate, and warm frogs, so splitting froglights would make that more inconsistent, unless cold, temperate, and warm frogs get separate articles as mobs. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — This is roughly similar to dyed blocks, which also differ in appearance and have slightly different methods of obtaining. We’ve decided so far to keep the 16 dyed variants of certain blocks merged together, so having those three variants merged as well makes sense. — BabylonAS 05:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ talk | contribs 15:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Neutral - Froglights have even less differences than dyed blocks such as wool, and since there's only three variants, stuff like the data values section aren't long. I'm neutral though, because I also have no reason to fully oppose this since it would have an overview article. - Harristic | Talk 16:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Anvil

Chipped Anvil and Damaged Anvil should have separate articles from Anvil.

 strong oppose. This is similar to growth stages of crops but as durability. Just because an anvil is slightly damaged, it doesn't significantly change its primary usage for repairing, renaming, and enchanting. It's a hybrid of durability and crop growth stages. Doesn't need splitting. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - These are borderline block states of one another. - Harristic | Talk 16:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support for sub-sectionsDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Glorified blockstates, the only reason they exist as separate items is because they have to keep the damage state when mined.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Command Block

All variants of command blocks should have individual articles.

Things like Command Block, Chain Command Block, and Repeating Command Block.

 soft oppose. All three variants of command blocks use the same user interface. They just happen to use different block IDs and separate Java Edition Creative inventory entries; when toggling between "impluse", "chain", and "repeating". Delvin4519 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — A command block can be easily turned into any of those modes via its UI. It's a reversible change, more similar a bit to redstone comparator modes. — BabylonAS 04:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ talk | contribs 05:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify your reasons for support, please? — BabylonAS 13:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, essentially similar to the structure block states, except command blocks have different item forms as well. Heck, structure block states even have more differences among themselves compared to command block variants...--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Item Frame

Glow Item Frame should have its own separate article from Item Frame.

 Support. Just put some inverted <noinclude> tags surrounding the "Usage" section of the regular item frame page. This way it's possible to load the content from the item frame's usage section on the glow item frame page, excluding the rest of the item frame page that's not the usage section. Aside from that, the only other prose to copy over is the "item frames are entities" sentence in the "breaking" section, but otherwise that's it for the split. This is just one of those pages that just clogs the "merged pages" list used to track the list of merged pages, since it's an overview page covering only 2 items. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Positively neutral — We don’t really need <noinclude>, a link to the basic Item Frame article works just as well. It’s yet another example of a “subclass” game feature, having the same relationship as sticky pistons have to regular pistons, chest boats to regular boats, and hanging signs to regular signs; the scale of differences being more similar to the latter case. All four cases don’t need an “overview” article as such; the primary variant’s one should describe the base line, and the “subclass” variant articles note the differences. — BabylonAS 05:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The only issue I see with this is that with chest boats and sticky pistons, a player must craft a regular boat and a regular pistion before the player can access sticky pistons and chest boats via crafting. Glow item frames are more similar to hanging signs. The crafting progression for hanging signs and glow item frames bypasses the original variant, meaning a player does not have to interact with the original variant to access the variant of these blocks.

I'm also perfectly fine with the noinclude tags for glow item frame/item frame. One other special case to note is the bee nest and beehive articles where the original discussion had strong support to split bee nests/beehive, as it was covering a natural block and a crafted block in a single page. When I did the split for those, I found that the usage section was exactly the same with no usage differences. The only differences being obtaining, so for beehive, I moved the usage section into a subpage and transclude them on the 2 split pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but the crafting recipe for a glow item frame is literally an item frame and a glow ink sac, so glow item frames are actually like sticky pistons and chest boats not hanging signs. - Harristic | Talk 16:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No it's not you, I misread the page. I double checked and you are correct. It's an item frame with a glow ink sac thrown onto it. I now change my vote to  Strong support for the glow item frame split. The crafting recipe for glow item frames is in the wrong section on the regular item frame page. It should be under "usage" and "crafting ingredient", not "obtaining". Only for glow item frames is the glow item frame recipe under "obtaining". Delvin4519 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - I view this similarly to soul variants and signs/hanging signs. - Harristic | Talk 16:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't think it worth the split because it is like a item frame being a lighter so that it can be seen on dark time. Although duplicate info are not evil, it might make a reader think like: "it is similar to item frame, so why not just describe that info on that page", imply that it's not worth the split. Jsmile0209 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Music Disc

All 16 variants of each music disc should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 soft/weak support There was some discussions that referenced the discussion in Talk:Music#Revisiting_this_topic, but only if each music disc had their own article. There was a lot of support in the original discussion, surprisingly. I'm thinking a template system that works similar to achievement or advancement, where the whole music disc table is created in the overview page, and each split music disc page loads the respective row from the music disc table accordingly. The same goes for banner patterns, and maybe spawn eggs. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support as long as the music itself gets a description on those articles. Though, I wonder how the articles would be named and structured? The linked discussion concerned tracks themselves, not music discs, and I imagine someone making separate articles for a track and for the corresponding music disc, a prospect I am frankly doubtful of. On the other hand, if we do have a combined music disc & track article, we’d have to figure out how to name the “Cat” article: do we use “Cat (music)” (or soundtrack, or track) or “Cat (music disc)”? — BabylonAS 06:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the names of music discs in game on Java Edition is Music Disc <Author> - <Name>. So the blocks music disc is called "Music Disc C418 - Blocks", and Pigstep as "Music Disc Lena Rene - Pigstep". The renders section on the current overview article on the wiki names them in the same as it does in game. If another naming convention is preferred, then I'm fine with that I guess. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - different obtaining methods and could also work as pages for the music tracks themselves. The in-game name doesn't really work as a page title because it's written in two lines, and I think something like "Music Disc (X)" or "Music Disc X" (where X is just the track name without the composer) would work better.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Music disc obtaining methods have grown more and more different over the updates, especially with 5 being crafted with disc fragments. We also know that every single update will have a new disc, meaning the page is destined to get longer and longer. For the naming I'd prefer either "X Music Disc" or "Music Disc X", I definitely don't think we need the composer in the name. - Harristic | Talk 13:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the Music Disc page could be about the type of item while individual pages could be made for significant enough soundtracks in the game, including Thirteen, Cat (soundtrack), Dog (maybe a sub-section of Cat (soundtrack)), Blocks, Chirp, Far, Mall, Mellohi, Stal, Strad, Ward, Eleven, Wait, Wail, Otherside, Five, Pigstep, and Relic. These pages could also be about their cooresponding in-game Music Disc.Drour1234 (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Banner Pattern

All 8 variants of each banner pattern should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Neutral. Surprisingly most of the content is from the templates, so that means there's very little actual prose to duplicate, aside from maybe the history section. One caviat is that the usage section template is specified manually, and in that case, that's a lot of template parameters to duplicate. Ideally it should be possible to fetch the loom usage content directly from the individual pages on the overview page, using the templates, like how it works for the crafting usage template. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support, different obtaining methods for some of those, and the infobox in the individual articles could show a render of a banner with the pattern applied, similar to the armor trim pages.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - I was originally not feeling this split, but I've realised that's only because they all have the same item icon, which isn't a terribly important factor I'd say. Banner patterns are actually rather different in terms of obtaining. - Harristic | Talk 13:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Pottery Sherd

All 20 variants of each pottery sherd should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Neutral. The page is like the spawn egg article, but with a bit less unique content in it. Most of the info is just from the chest loot section, and it seems that all the other info is in the "trivia" section. The sentence at the start states that pottery sherds can be obtained from breaking a pre-existing decorated pot, but otherwise, there isn't a whole lot of content here to begin with, unlike spawn eggs. In a sense, an individual pottery sherd article would have less content than some of the individual spawn egg articles. I suppose the pottery sherd infobox is a bit messy, with 20 tabs and 20 inventory slot images, unlike spawn eggs. Although I am neutral, I lean towards weak/soft oppose for pottery sherds given very few unique characteristics, but lean toward very soft/weak support since each pottery sherd comes from various structures, Delvin4519 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - UnExpectedDino ᐸ talk | contribs 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support - different obtaining methods, the infobox could show a render of a decorated pots with the sherd design applied.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Capop. From a reader perspective I'd love this split to happen, the loot chest table on the sherd page is rather overwhelming and it would be much nicer to simply show only the sherd I'm looking for. Similar to the smithing template split, nothing is lost from this split happening because we'd have the overview page. - Harristic | Talk 13:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Spawn Egg

All spawn eggs should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Neutral - Spawn Eggs are the definition of "just one more block", or in this case "just one more item" being added to the article over time, as each update adds multiple spawn eggs over time. There are three overly long massive tables here, and it's going to get worse a lot more rapidly over time, unlike wooden variants. Each major update adds 3 - 5 new spawn eggs, but there's only 1 new wood type or so every other update or every third update.

For spawn eggs, there's also the issue of "how do we exactly deal with the spawn eggs article" issue? The table listing the addition of each spawn egg in the overview table is useful in a way, as it provides a way to find how many spawn eggs there are in a particular version at any given time.

If the individual spawn egg info is moved to the mob article itself, it's going to be completely drowned out by info of the mob itself, making individual spawn egg info hard to locate in the mob article.

If each spawn egg has an individual article, then the page would have very, very little specific info about it. There's only the entry listing 1 or 2 sentences about it in the first table, and then of course the spawn egg IDs, and it's entry in the history section marking it's addition to the game. Also, Java and Bedrock have different names for each Spawn Egg. On Java Edition it is called "Mob Spawn Egg", while on Bedrock it is called "Spawn Mob", so the article title would have to favor one edition over the other.

So there isn't a good solution to these. Either 1.), the spawn egg article will get more and more longer and larger over the course of more updates, 2.) Have individual spawn egg articles with only 2 sentences and the DV and history section showing only 1 or 2 entries, Or 3.) Put spawn egg info on the mob article itself, which means info on the mob itself completely drowns out the info on the spawn egg.

Delvin4519 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong OpposeDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose - Creative/command-only items with absolutely identical behavior.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose It doesn't worth the split because if it were, then it can only be described in sentence like "X spawn egg is a egg to spawn mob X" in many pages which make is unnecessary hard to maintain. May support if spawn egg is allowed on individual mob article and make this page an overview page, with a note that "the properties of spawn mob are described in the separate mob article". Jsmile0209 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Map

Empty Map and Empty Locator Map should have separate articles from Map.

Note: Filled Map would be located at Map, as that’s the in game name.

 Strong Oppose - This is just a worse experience for readers looking for info on how maps work. First a reader gets led to the page for "empty map" after looking at how to make a map, and then having to click a second extra link to "filled map", to finally learn about how maps work. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support for Empty Map,  Strong Support for Empty Locator Map as a sub-section of Empty MapDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Explorer Map

Each type of explorer map should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Neutral, not leaning either direction. The infobox of explorer maps is currently is somewhat of a mess. Also the list of structure explorer maps makes the obtaining and usage sections a pain to read. I  Oppose a 3 way split of "explorer map", "village map", and "buried treasure map", however, as that would make this split more inconsistent. If explorer map gets split, then it should be a full split for all 10 explorer maps. – Unsigned comment added by Delvin4519 (talk • contribs) at 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 20:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – all of them function the same way as far as I'm aware. I agree that the obtaining section is hard to parse; maybe it could be split into subsections for each item, or otherwise indicate the different items more clearly? All the upcoming tags are also definitely cumbersome and ought to be split into separate paragraphs or sections. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Enchanted Book

Each enchanted book found in the Creative inventory should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Strong Oppose splitting each enchanted book into individual pages, these are duplicate pages of each enchantment article. There isn't much more for a "Enchanted Book Sharpness V" article, vs. the existing article at 'Sharpness". Also there is only a single item ID shared by all enchanted books. These also all share one single texture. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — Enchanted books are not limited to what can be found in the Creative inventory. Picking out those and leaving out hundreds of books with combined enchantments is very arbitrary. If anything, an enchanted book only serves as a “vessel” for storing the enchantments and applying them on an item. — BabylonAS 04:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - GXDdcZ123 ᐸ talk | contribs 15:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong OpposeDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose per BabylonAS.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Goat Horn

Each type of goat horn found in the Creative inventory should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Strong Oppose. Very few unique characteristics and content, although I suppose specific variants of goat horn come from specific instances. Existing overview article is already quite short. In addition, only a single item ID and a single item texture is used and shared by all goat horns. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong OpposeDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose essentially the same item with the same obtaining methods, one line is enough to specify those obtained from screaming goats.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 13:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious Stew

Each type of suspicious stew found in the Java Edition Creative inventory should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Strong Oppose. Only a single item ID and a single item texture is used and shared by all suspicious stews. Each variant's detailed tooltip is hidden in Survival mode, and not all suspicious stews are in the Bedrock Edition Creative inventory. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong OpposeDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Painting

Each type of painting found in the Java Edition Creative inventory should have individual articles, in addition to the overview article.

 Strong Oppose. While the table listing all paintings is somewhat long, a single item ID and a single item texture is used and shared by all paintings. In Survival mode and in Bedrock Edition, there is only 1 painting type available, selecting a random painting when placed. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong SupportDrour1234 (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 12:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, individual painting items only exist in creative and only in java, just for the sake of convenience. The current Painting page is fine, and splitting it would be confusing more than anything.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall Discussion

General discussion

I have archived the old discussion regarding reviving this forum post here. For some extra context, view the old discussion there. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Better organization for overview pages

I think it is necessary for us to write things down about overview page format in the Style Guide. Also a some kind of disambiguation template ({{Hatnote}}) could be useful.  DIR GIM Dianliang233 T C 10:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be primarily an issue with different editors doing different overview pages, which ends up with different ideas for overview/split pages resulting. I primarily prefer a template based approach where either the overview page fetches content from the split pages, or the other way around. One issue of note is how Door only shows shared history, but not the addition of new doors (like wooden ones), but Stairs shows the addition of each stair.

Here's the list of all the overview pages on the wiki and whether they are split, or not: User:Delvin4519/Merged Pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I brought this issue up with the stairs page, but it is going to be absolutely necessary to have templates for loading data values, trades, smelting, loom recipes, stonecutter recipes, mob loot, anvils/smithing, etc.. A mechanism for loading obtaining or usage, and querying split pages and specific selections from overview pages. Especially for pages like banner patterns that would mean all the template parameters need to be duplicated without a way to query individual pages for their loom recipes as it stands right now. Sounds seem to be somewhat of a mess but right now it seems though the solution for sounds is to use a subpage on a specific page and then load them from that particular subpage as needed.

Blows my mind that {{smelting usage}} and {{stonecutting usage}} don't exist. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

I had previously opened the discussion at 20:08 UTC on Sunday, November 26th, 2023, and it is now 168 hours (1 week) from when I opened the discussion and noted that it would be open for at least 1 week (168 hours).

As the discussion sits currently, several days have passed without activity, based on the discussion, the following appear to have a decent support for split:

• Undyed Terracotta, Music Disc, Banner Pattern, Pottery Sherd, Suspicious Block, Item Frame
  • Dyed Terracotta will move to "Stained Terracotta", per discussion after 1 week.

The following won't be split:

• Amethyst Cluster, Anvil, Command Block, Spawn Egg, Enchanted Book, Goat Horn, Suspicious Stew, Painting.
• Sponge and Froglight does not have good support for splitting, but not a lot of input/discussion.

The following do not have a clear consensus either way, and potentially needs more input/discussion:

• Tulip, Map, Explorer Map

I will update the ongoing page splitting project with the current splits, and the discussions for those with supports for splitting will be closed. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)