Forum:Page granularity guidelines

Index >

Page granularity guidelines

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

No comments in almost two weeks. Conclusions about the individual cases were either concretely reached or are now being discussed at MCW:Forum/Further article split discussions. - Harristic | Talk 23:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Given the multiple lengthy (and marginally productive) discord discussions about page granularity in the past weeks, it’s clear we need a place to discuss what features should have separate articles. We currently have no clear guidelines on the scope of what a single page should cover, which is a major reason why these discussions have not concluded and have often gone in circles. What we do have is a set of general article guidelines that have informed page scope decisions up to now, and the first entry states that:

1. Articles must contain enough information to warrant a full page. If they do not have enough content, they should be merged with other similar articles.

This is an unhelpful definition, since one is free to choose how much content is “enough” on any given page. The unclear guidelines have led to an inconsistent wiki experience which will only get worse as Mojang continue to implement features that have similarities to existing features.

Now is the time to address our inconsistencies and create clear guidelines for moving forward. This discussion will likely end with some number of pages needing to be updated or created to meet the new guidelines. Soon after discussion closure there will be a project created to coordinate efforts and help enforce whatever consensus we reach. It will require work, but as explained below, the benefits to both editors and readers is well worth the effort.

Why should pages be more granular?

Search - how people find us

The majority of visitors to the wiki find us through a web search for terms like “minecraft <thing>” or “<thing> minecraft”, where “thing” is a name as it would appear in-game. When article titles match these search queries, there is a major boost in discoverability by search engines, which means readers can find the information they’re looking for more reliably. The benefit of granular pages was made very clear when we created a page for each announced 1.21 feature, and they quickly became prominent in search results, even becoming the #1 result for some queries such as “minecraft copper bulb”. But when an article covers multiple things at once, a more generic name is assigned to the collection and unique information about each different thing is added to the page. This makes the page less of a match for typical search terms, and negatively impacts the on-wiki experience of informational clarity.

Accuracy

Even disregarding the search benefits, a user clicking a link to Diamond Pickaxe is unlikely to care how many hearts of damage a wooden pickaxe does, or the chance of finding a stone pickaxe in a bonus chest; when we include all pickaxe information onto a single page, we force each reader to sift through irrelevant information to find what they are looking for.

Generic pages also let informational accuracy fall by the wayside. Lantern says "lanterns melt snow slowly", but that statement silently became a lie when Soul Lantern was added to the page, since soul lanterns are not bright enough for nearby snow to melt. All these fuel sections follow a similar pattern of silently becoming wrong after an update since warped and crimson products are included in the page but are not usable as fuel.

Additionally, granular pages open up opportunities for automatically updating information from game data. As you may know, everything in Minecraft is associated with a unique resource location string in the form of minecraft:<name>. This string is used in commands, data packs, loot tables, recipes, tags, and more, as a central reference to everything about each block and item. Almost every piece of information in our infoboxes is defined by the game in association with a resource location. The values for many properties are able to be automatically extracted from the game itself. This means that for the majority of information in the infobox it is possible to automatically update information, but only for pages referring to a single resource location.

Of course, there is a line of how granular is too granular; you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would want every possible banner to have its own article. The purpose of these discussions is to use our actual examples to find the right level of granularity to have up to date and clear pages without duplicating too much information.

Cases

It is extremely important to understand that in all of the following proposals there will still be an overview page for the subject which will contain the shared information, while allowing specific information to have its own page. Some examples of existing overview pages are Ore, Door, and Smithing Template.

This is formatted slightly differently from a regular discussion, since there are many decisions to be made here that are not all related. Please leave comments on individual sections where applicable, to make it easier on whoever closes this.

For the abundance of clarity: in each of the cases below, indicate preference for distinct articles with  Support, and indicate preference for combined articles with  Oppose. Topics are structured this way regardless of the authors’ personal opinions. The groups are put in a rough order of how agreeable informal discussions have been so far, with most agreeable at the top.

Materials for tools and armor

Equipment with differing durability or bonuses should have separate articles.

Things like Pickaxe, Axe, Shovel, Sword, Hoe, Helmet, Chestplate, Leggings, Boots, Horse Armor

 Support - Clear case for more granular pages. All materials have differences in breaking speed and durability. Some materials have major gameplay differences, such as needing a diamond pickaxe or higher for obsidian. Chest loot varies greatly. Ores, nuggets, ingots, and blocks all already have their own pages so the equipment made from those materials should also get dedicated pages. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — We would end up with articles consisting predominantly of duplicate information without trying beforehand to organize it in a better and more concise way on the already-existing singular articles. We can use tables, tabbers, icons and so on. "Ores, nuggets, ingots, and blocks all already have their own pages so the equipment made from those materials should also get dedicated pages" — oh come on. — BabylonAS 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The granular articles would not be predominantly duplicate information. Everything shared between them would be on an overview page, the same way Door is now. We are also not nearly as large as wikipedia, we are covering video games that have a very finite amount of information in them. How do you address the increased editor load that comes from pages covering multiple items? Tabbers won't help editors, all the information will still be there in edit mode. Mudscape (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We're not doing anything on the wiki just for editors. We're doing stuff for anyone who visits the wiki. If something that makes it easier for readers to use the wiki makes it harder for editors to maintain the wiki, we shouldn't just run away from it. — BabylonAS 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting anything that is at the detriment of readers. Tabbers are less than ideal for readers, and avoid all of the benefits that come from actual split pages that were outlined in the forum post you are responding to. Mudscape (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You are frequently suggesting tabber as some sort of fix to our problems, despite tabber generally being a bad idea for both readers and editors alike. By suggesting tabber as a solution you are admitting there is a problem, and I think splitting pages is the clearly superior solution in this case. Also I seriously doubt that wikipedia page is meant to give the message of "never compare anything ever", like, cmon now. - Harristic | Talk 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment Changed my mind, I guess split articles could work in this particular case. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Soft Oppose For basically the same reason as BabylonAS, this would lead to quite a lot of duplicate information across articles that are basically the same, just with a few numbers changed here and there, such as mining level and attack damage. Perhaps if this were implemented in a way that kept the single page for lets say all the pickaxes as an example, but then maybe had well designed separate pages that discussed just the specifics of each pickaxe type i would be more neutral to the idea. But as it stands this would be a lot of duplicate information, user navigiation between pages would become more difficult, and it would be more difficult to maintain. Jjlrjjlr (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you feel about the level of duplicate information on Door, Wooden Door, Iron Door, Copper Door? Those are existing examples of the kind of overview and specific pages that are being proposed here. Using your example of pickaxe, there will be an overview page (Pickaxe) which contains all the shared information about pickaxes, and then also some more specific pages for the actual tiers that are just the specifics of that pickaxe tier (Diamond Pickaxe, Stone Pickaxe, etc) Mudscape (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with this statement by Jjlrjjlr. While some editors are somewhat confused by Babylon's arguments, I find this argument here to be a lot more convincing. I am bit concerned about the ability to maintain all of these split pages for tools and armor. We could also have a situation where Mojang keeps adding more variants, but the number of editiors on the wiki could be in decline. This would make maintaining all these split pages more difficult. Hence I am currently opposed to splitting tools and armor. I would strong support a split of tipped arrows, spectral arrows, and arrows though. They have all completely different uses, obtaining, and crafting recipes. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the "stuff will be harder to maintain" argument is ever valid. Especially in this case because specific tools and armor just aren't things that are going to recieve updates or changes often. Editing individual smaller pages is always going to be easier than one massive page. - Harristic | Talk 01:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support Speaking as someone who has largely been a reader of the wiki more than an editor, I think this split would significantly improve the presentation of information. As such I ffel this change would be a beneficial one. Duralith (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft Oppose - See Babylon's arguments. (EDIT: see update below) Delvin4519 (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose - per MCW admin BDJP, again referring to Babylon's arguments. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, can you just clarify what you mean by "per BDJP"? I'm trying to understand your POV but all they did was agree with another person you already agreed with, so I'm not sure if I'm missing a comment they made elsewhere. Duralith (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please review Babylon's arguments. I have already referred to that user, and the MCW admin named has also referred to the same user for argument. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per BabylonAS BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you expand on your thoughts? There will be overview pages that significantly minimize the duplicate information and tabber is almost always a bad solution to a problem for readers and editors. Mudscape (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support. Looking at the Pickaxe page, almost every section has a table or list differentiating every material type. A combined page explaining what a pickaxe in general is is good, but the properties of each type of pickaxe should be on their own page. If I click on a link titled "Diamond Pickaxe" I expect to find info about that specific type. This could, for example, allow us to list blocks you need a diamond pickaxe for. - Misode (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Misode. - Harristic | Talk 00:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Mudscape and Misode. They have both used Diamond Pickaxe as an example of a logical distinction due to it (for example) allowing you to mine different blocks. I will add that similar distinctions exist for every pickaxe; e.g. you cannot collect iron with a wooden pickaxe, nor redstone with a stone pickaxe. Tool progression is an intrinsic part of overall progression in the game, and enables quicker or more affective tool actions, usually both at once (the exception is the gold pickaxe, which can only mine what wooden pickaxes can, but can do so more quickly than diamond pickaxes. These unique features are not insignificant, and deserve unique pages. For all information that is shared between pickaxes, the shared page should of course persist, as is clearly noted in the outline of this forum. | Enbyd (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support. I'm not entirely convinced, but after some mulling over, it might be worth it. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Mudscape and Misode. Köpleres (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Does a user clicking a link to Diamond Pickaxe is unlikely to care how many hearts of damage a wooden pickaxe does? Maybe no, but that's a bit extreme. In my opinion, without comparison, one cannot remember it well. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 09:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - That is a pretty good point. I have not thought about that, but yea, we would be completely missing out on the comparisons. We have tables for a reason. It is good information to know how much stronger a netherite sword does than a wooden sword, and also show how much longer a netherite pickaxe lasts compared to wooden pickaxes. Without the comparison tables, one would have to shift through 6 different articles, or 54 articles total for all the tools, weapons, and armor, versus just 1 article as it is now. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That is what the overview pages are for as discussed previously. Those who are looking for comparison information will still have a place to see that, and those who aren't won't have it forced upon them to get what they actually want. Mudscape (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: confusing and duplicated information for readers. Again, this could result in the issue of if Mojang changes say, the attack damage of diamond swords later down the line, the diamond sword page could be updated, but someone could forget to update the overview page. This would lead to the same issue of readers finding conflicting information on the wiki. It does not resolve the issue that was raised about splitting articles in the first place (re: nether fuel in furnaces). I'd argue duplicated information is even worse than just the current issues we deal with right now, like the nether furnace fuel issue, given mistakes happen either way we go. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is possible to happen, and it'll be easier to address with smaller pages since more readers will be able to understand the purpose of the page, that is what resolved the issue. Since, as you said, mistakes happen either way, and more granular pages are better for search, and consistent granularity is good for everyone, what are the downsides to more granular pages here? Mudscape (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Downsides are failing to update the page in time will misguide readers. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 17:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the exact reason I am trying to warn about regarding splitting pages that do not have significant differences between variants. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Per Mudscape and Misode. --TreeIsLife (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Per Mudscape and Misode. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Per Mudscape and Misode. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support because tools have different properties in-game that makes them different from each other. A gold pickaxe is very different than a wood or stone pickaxe, and it has different use cases (gold pickaxes are used alongside beacons, while netherite pickaxes are used for general mining, to mention an example). Splitting these pages can help us to better describe the properties of these items and mention, with a table or bullet list, a series of blocks that that tool can break or modify. --Supeika (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support? As a reader my first inclination is to search for individual items like "Diamond armor" or "Stone pickaxe" instead of a shared page, and the combined obtaining and usage information definitely seems cumbersome to wade through. I'm coming to believe that combined obtaining and usage information is the main aspect that I find cumbersome and warrants split pages, even if the behavior is otherwise the same. (Another idea is to organize sections per item where its obtaining and usage info are in a single place and not mixed with other items, though I'm not sure how much benefit that brings over separate pages).

I think the way the door pages do it is fine, where common info is described primarily on the combined page and briefly on the individual pages (with an obvious link to the common page), and the common page should definitely still have comparisons. –Sonicwave ^talk 22:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - I have checked the recipe book on Java, and now recommend a much simplier approach to splitting articles that have crafting recipes. In many cases, split based on that. Given that tools and armor have such a huge importance in survival, that can also signficantly improve search results on the new wiki. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Per Mudscape and Enbyd - Im Wired In (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - I was unsure about this at first, but after some thought I think it would make sense to split, per above arguments. Since the overview page still exists I don't see issue with adding more granularity, aside from the general worry about conflicting information. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – keeping in mind that we'll still have an overview page about each tool/armor piece, when a reader is looking for "gold sword" they're probably looking for something related to that specifically (e.g. how much durability does it have again?) and should find the relevant information immediately. If they would be looking for mechanics about swords in general, they'd be searching for "sword" anyway. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Turtle Shells

Turtle shells do not have any equivalent for other armor or tool types, and they're also the only armor ingredient used in brewing.

 Strong Support - No other tool or armor is used in brewing. Doesn't make sense for brewing information to be in a page about armor like helmets. Turtle shells are such a unique and extrenous item to have in the page about helmets/armor. Delvin4519 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support There were already big issues with turtle shell being merged with the helmet page, especially at the time we had heavily used {{Animate}} to animate different pieces of armor on the armor page, so this is basically a necessity. --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - Turtle shells are a very unique head item, and therefore should be split. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support Chinese MCW has a separated page for turtle shell. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 16:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - absolutely, Turtle Shell deserves an article. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - per above. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support — I suppose turtle shells are used more commonly as potion ingredients than actual armor pieces, plus it looks like we're going to split all armor pieces anyway. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – apart from what's already been said, the same reasoning as in the section above applies here too. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

General variants of arrows

Things like regular arrows, spectral arrows, and the general overview of tipped arrows.

 Strong support, we have pages for all three types of potions. Doesn't seem to make sense to lump tipped arrows with arrows. Also spectral arrows are exclusive to Java Edition. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Delvin. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Delvin. Köpleres (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support, as long as we're not getting individual articles on "Arrow of Slowness" etc. — BabylonAS 06:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support Astonished this has not been split yet. --TreeIsLife (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - The current Arrow page is an collection of a large variety of distinct information, much of which is not shared between all arrow variants. For example, each tipped arrow (plus spectral arrow) has a distinct associated status effect. Also, tipped arrow variants are each crafted with a distinct lingering potion used in the crafting recipe -- except for the tipped arrow variants that can only be obtained via trading. Differences like these suggest that variants should not exclusively exist on an overview page. As stated in the main post and elsewhere, pages that are collections of other pages can (and should, if desired) exist if there is a clearly defined rule to follow for merging shared information about them. Taking the earlier example, tipped and spectral arrows are arrows that apply a status effect when striking certain entities, so they could reasonably exist on an overview page for "effect arrows" (the specific wording here is not the point; the point is to have a clear rule for covering shared information). It is useful to be able to browse pages that compile shared information, as well as directly browse information pertaining only to a certain feature. | Enbyd (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - It's a very general article right now, as with most of the pages here. It needs to get split. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Harristic | Talk 16:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per above. Indeed quite surprised to find spectral arrows on the arrow page. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - three pages instead of one. (Hopefully noone suggests splitting each tipped arrow type into a separate article?) --Melwin22 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support because if we have individual pages for effects, why not individual pages for tipped arrows? It's way easier to remember how an individual tipped arrow works, and you most times just need the slowness or instant damage ones, so I support this because of these situations. --Supeika (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Somewhat surprised they aren't separate already. I wouldn't split tipped arrows into their potion effects though Ishbosheth (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support, as they differ in their method of obtaining and their interaction with Infinity. Wormbo (talk) 09:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Specific potion/tipped arrow effects

Specific things such as individual effects for each tipped arrows, potions, splash potions, and lingering potions.

This like arrow of slowness, potion of leaping, splash potion of night vision, etc..

 Strong Opoose See note replying to mudscape below - We're not doing individual dyed blocks, why do each individual tipped arrow or potion type? Also, they all still share the same ID, as there's only a single ID for tipped arrows, potions, etc.. Delvin4519 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Never, not as long as I edit the wiki. For different effects, we have separate articles just about effects themselves. — BabylonAS 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment Maybe we could have potion articles that cover all potion forms and variants for a specific status effect? This way we could show the whole chain of recipes. I still  Oppose individual articles on tipped arrow variants. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Page for each effect is more than enough. --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Even though I made a project about splitting articles to their own variants, I think there should be some pages that don't get split. This is one of them. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Same as BabylonAS. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 16:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Given the potion effects already have a page, a page for each tipped arrow is pointless. Most such page would exist of is duplicate text from other tipped arrow pages and a link to the effect it inflicts. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft oppose - yes I can see some differences, but not as much to make separate articles. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support because, on the general separation of arrows, there was this brought, and imo it's better for not only search terms, but also readers to find specific arrows. You many times will want the slowness arrow, and to find out where it is on the current page is a mess, you have to scroll a lot to.find out that strays drop it, and this is one of the reasons for why, at least I with my reader perspective, find individual articles for tipped arrows better than just an overview page. Tipped arrows are also functionally different from other arrows like spectral arrows, and even between each other they have different properties, even if they're kind of the same entity, because they have different visual appareance (specifically the particles they emit), and also the effects they give, which aren't the same on one arrow than for the other.
About potions, I do support individual potion bottle articles, but I'm neutral about regular, splash and lingering, but I wouldn't be mad about them getting split as well because they're also different between each other. --Supeika (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - At the very least we need to have one potion page per type of potion. I was recently playing minecraft with a friend and caught a zombie villager early, so we needed weakness potion. If you currently search weakness potion you do indeed get to the weakness potion, but you are completely left in the dark for how to make that potion. This is honestly an awful user experience and it led to my friend giving up and logging off for the day. In these cases where minecraft itself falls short on teaching the player it is all the more important to have the wiki be a top notch resource for players. I also support "Splash Potion of X" and "Lingering Potion of X". It will be helpful for readers and I don't think there is such a thing as too short a page. Mudscape (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Yikes, that is a big boo-boo that it's not in the potion page. It is in the brewing page though "sigh". That is quite the bad design on the current format you pointed out. Good thing I added the 23rd section to this forum for potion variants.

I am thinking that if the MCW wiki sets up the proper infrastructure to have a lot of the infobox/recipe/sounds/acheivements/DV/BS/ED/etc. content auto-fetched/auto-generated/auto-compiled, set up and running before performing all these splits (via testcases). Then, I may reconsider changing my opposes to supports. Most of my opposes in the forum right now are due to existing moudles/templates/etc. being insufficent to have a lot of common information be auto-compiled or fetched, vs. duplication of content. However, it is preferable to see these instances replicated in testcases in front of eyeballs before I change my opposes to support. Tuff Stairs was a good start, but the new pages for arrows, woods, etc. should more resemble Tuff Stairs, than flowers or iron door. As far as I know, only some of the sounds, some of the BS, and the hardness/blast resistance stuff, can currently be auto-fetched. Hence, I would recommend addressing existing infra weaknesses before going all out on splits (and after that will then be when I could change my opposes to supports).

Given Minecraft will likely add more variants and variants of things, ensuring MCW can auto-fetch and compile content, will help immensely cope with an influx of split pages alongside the influx of more variants of blocks. That way we could so something like "{{wood}} planks can be smelted in a furnace" to "{{wood}} planks can be cooked in a furnace", in 1 single edit, and have it auto-update on all 12 pages of wood.

As far as I am aware, there are around 176 different tipped arrows/potions/etc. in total. A system that can allow the brewing page to fetch content from each potion article, or vice versa, or from a module, would be valuable.

Setting my updated status here to  oppose (conditional). Any of my opposes for other things will likely reflect this particular issue. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak oppose - If we did do one page per potion I would want to merge the splash and lingering types into those articles, rather than having unique articles for everything. I'm less opposed if there is automation put in place but this one feels largely unnecessary. I'd have to see data on if people were actually searching the individual potion names, and even then I'd be unsure. In this case I'd usually rather not be by default directed to the more granular page (should it exist) when searching for something like this. I'm definitely not opposed to linking the brewing chart in more places though, although I suppose from Mudscape's story users might not click on those even though the link was right there. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, unless the search statistics show overwhelmingly that the individual potion/arrow names are frequent search targets. The effects themselves are already described on separate pages, so the only distinction really needed is by game mechanics, i.e. separating throwable potions from drinkable potions (which is already a thing), and potion-tipped arrows from other arrow types. Wormbo (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Mudscape. --Dianliang233 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support for potions, weak support for arrows. When you look up individual items like "Strength Potion", you are probably interested in the individual effects, but are instead dumped onto a huge Potion or Arrow page. The arrow page does not list details such as effect duration at all. Potions at least redirect you to the specific table entry with the effect, but then you need to dig for obtaining methods elsewhere on the page, and recipes aren't there at all but on Brewing. I think I agree with Mudscape that looking for potion information is one of the most cumbersome experiences I remember having on the wiki.

I would rather have short "landing pages" for these individual items that have clear links to the general page, instead of doing it the other way around and have to remember to search for the effect and not the potion name to get specific details on the effect. I also don't see the need to split drinkable, splash and lingering variants, and would prefer to keep them on the same page. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support for potions, and also  Support for tipped arrows: I'm still a bit unsure as I don't think there would be much content on tipped arrows right now, but also all tipped arrows have different durations which are difficult to remember, and also splitting could allow for documenting of how the arrows actually affect entities (e.g. things like harming or healing arrows are a bit ... strange and work counter-intuitively.) As for potions, brewing is one of the most-searched things on the wiki and having separate articles for each potion where the brewing process for that specific potion is laid out very clearly would be an obvious advantage. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocks that are the same shape

Blocks that are the same in shape but differ in infobox data should have separate articles.

Things like Stairs, Wall, Slab

 Support - Stairs and Slab list three different tools required for mining the block. The Stairs page has 4 blast resistance values. Hardness has so many different values it just directs you to the breaking table. So many blocks are covered on these pages it's impossible to think they are completely correct and up to date. Obvious case for more granular pages. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — How about rewriting the infobox template to use an external tabber that controls the infobox's entire content, instead of just the image? Then a second tabber level for cases like different variants of wood and deepslate. — BabylonAS 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A tab in the infobox that controls more content outside the infobox sounds very unintuitive. If we want that, that should be enough of a sign to split the page. - Misode (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I said nothing about stuff outside the infobox. But stuff like Breaking row and Crafting could totally get their own tabbers or toggles. — BabylonAS 19:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You're saying that as if the only problem with these pages are the infobox, quite clearly, that's not the case. - Harristic | Talk 00:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Changed my mind, now I  Support splitting those articles in general but I'm not sure about the extent of splitting. I'd ideally prefer grouping things like wooden slabs, but that might likely depend on whether the actual plank article gets split. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - A split has probably been necessary for some time, the problem starts with editors arguing over how many pages to split to. For now, prefer to try out Babylon's approach. Also keep the 1.21 stairs and slabs in testing mode throughout 1.21's development, until we gather more data on which readers and editors perfer. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The big issue with tabbers is it gives 0 benefit to search, and depending on exactly how its implemented with hiding content, would actually significantly hurt our search results for the non-default variants. Splitting infobox data with tabber can help, but then you need to show the tabs and editors need to put the information in to every tab. For stairs this would be 56(!) tabs shown, and 56 different options for tabbers around the page. Mudscape (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - These pages are too large. Having one page for slabs would be like creating one page for full blocks. - Misode (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Imagine if there was just one block page and that was it, no individual pages at all. - Harristic | Talk 19:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - Same as Harristic and Mudscape, and also if Mojang keep adding stairs and slabs with for example unique sounds like the tuff ones, the page will be to large, and image if they add stairs for copper, just for that we would split the the pages, for the properties and match other pages like the doors. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per BabylonAS BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your thoughts here? Tabber (and especially a double tabber) are really not great options for either editors or readers, and I cannot think of a way to make 50+ items work on a page even with tabber. Mudscape (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose per MCW wiki admin BDJP007301, as well as my earlier comment referring to BabylonAS. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Some have voiced concern that the discussion is about granularity guidelines, not about the person. I've double checked the stairs, slabs, and walls article, and when I use a standardized test of "a majority of the information in obtaining and usage should be relevant for all variants", stairs, slabs, and walls all pass this test. The primary issue with these pages is listing all the crafting recipes one by one, but they're literally exactly the same recipe. Even if we combined most or all of them into a single entry, a majority of the information would still be applicable for all variants. Sorry, but my standardized test guideline says the current stairs, slabs, and walls articles passes the test I have used to evaluate if a page needs splitting -> "do not split". Delvin4519 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Question - You want to split the undyed variants, why not the slabs, staris, and walls? (slabs and stairs at least). - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 04:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Update - Upon further concerns raised in the discord chat overnight regarding tabbers, and further consideration regarding the size and scale of the stairs and slabs page, I've tweaked the forumla I used regarding my granularity guideline of "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage", and now support the following:

 Soft Support splitting wooden stairs/slabs crafted from planks. All wooden stuff should be in a separate page, like wooden fences/doors. None of them can be used in stonecutter, and they are mined with axes and not pickaxes. Some recipes are only available for wooden slabs, especially several functional blocks like bookshelves, etc., so this is more consistent. Also none of the stonecutter slabs or stairs can be used in furnace. This gives them a "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage" score of 98%.

 Soft Support splitting bamboo mosaic stairs/slabs - In order to get to bamboo mosaic stairs and slabs, you have to first craft slabs back into a full block, then craft them back into slabs, or stairs. Gameplay progression. Bamboo mosaic stairs and slabs are the only blocks that have to be crafted from a parital block back to a full block, before re-crafting them back into partial blocks. Gameplay progression, as with undyed/dyed variants. This gives a "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage" score of 100%. It also accurately reflects gameplay progression to get to bamboo mosaic stairs and slabs requires crafting a slab back into a full block, then crafting it back into partial blocks.

 Soft Support splitting copper stairs/slabs - No other stair or slab has a recipe for waxing. Copper stairs and slabs are the only variants that can oxidize, or be waxed. Split them. This gives a "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage" score of 100%.

 Oppose splitting all remaining 39 slabs, 36 stairs, and 25 walls - All remaining stairs, slabs, and walls do not have any functional difference, aside from breaking and natural generation. Since I've already removed all wooden and all copper related blocks, this leaves no other "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage" content in the page for remaining items. None of the remaining variants are mined with an axe, or can oxidize; and all of them are stonecutter blocks. Since I weigh common crafting recipes quite a bit strongly, as such, the "not throwing unrelated information to readers in crafting/usage" score for all remaining 39 slabs, 36 stairs, and 25 slabs, is approx ~87%. Only breaking times and natural generation have slight differences, but it still pales in comparison to the fact that they all have common crafting, stonecutting, and other related functionality is all the same. Splitting these would result in more duplicated content than it's worth, as there would be arguments on how to split them, how many split pages to make, and which to group together. While I did have a guideline of not having more than 16 blocks in one page, I am so hard pressed to find any functional difference with the such a high and large number of remaining variants of stone or brick related stairs, slabs, or walls. There is also historical precedent to this. Historically, brick slabs, quartz slabs, and stone slabs all shared the same data value, even after all wooden slabs received their own ID.

Delvin4519 (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Tuff Stairs does a good job of not needlessly duplicating content. A large portion of the page, most content of this page, can be fetched from existing subpages and existing templates. This is a good example of a split, without significantly making editor maintainance worse. Also, many textures of stone and brick related stairs and slabs were updated in different updates, so they don't have the consistency of similar updates like for wooden and dyed items. so  Conditional/Weak Support for splitting the remaining 39 slabs, 36 stairs, and 25 walls. Plus, most of the parent building blocks have probably been already split. Split levels should be the same level as parent blocks. If all wooden planks are one level, all wooden stairs should be at that level. Note: I still do not support splitting wooden or dyed items though. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - all stairs, slabs, and walls have their own entries in the recipe book on Java Edition, but all wooden plank variants are combined. Note that copper variants all share a common family and shouldn't be split, but they should be one merged article (they all have "copper stairs/slabs/etc"). Hence, I support this approach to splitting. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - These pages are some of the ones that, in my eyes, are most desperately in need of splitting. Again, coming from the perspective of more of a reader than a MCW editor (though if it's not clear, that is something I'm interested in changing), I'm finding it almost impossible to find the information I'm looking for on any of those pages with just the sheer amount of stuff crammed into them. To be blunt, from a utility perspective, in their current states, those pages just feel awful to try and navigate. In response to the suggestion to use tabber to switch between block versions, that feels like an approach that wouldn't help much. At least as things are now, I could Ctrl+F to try and find something on the page, but with tabber I'd lose that ability. Duralith (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - I have a hard time understanding why having all of the information about all of these blocks in large merged pages has been tolerated as long as it has. When I place blocks in game, every block choice is intentional, and the variety -- both in function and in appearance -- is what makes things meaningful and interesting. If every block here were replaced with an average of all the blocks that had a similar shape, I would assume it were an April Fools update. Shape may be a property that joins these blocks, but it seems arbitrary that it take such high priority, given that each block is a unique combination of many aspects. If each block represented here was already on its own unique page, it would be very strange to choose to merge all of their information onto one page. Every single block should at least have its own page, and overview pages should exist to compile generic information about shared information. | Enbyd (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support. Köpleres (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support We shouldn't use tabber pages (or infoboxes), that is clearly a recipe for a disaster. On other hand, I am sure we will not be able to split everything. I cannot imagine pages like "Polished Diorite Stairs", those will likely remain on pages such as "Polished Stairs" --TreeIsLife (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. The moment I see an article called Polished Blackstone Brick Stairs, I'll just call it a day and consider quitting the wiki. If we do split, we'd rather at least group some of the related variants. — BabylonAS 10:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel the concern, we don't need an article on Polished Blackstone Brick Stairs. That would be insane. Also who in the world would be searching "Polished Blackstone Brick Stairs" on the web? I can't imagine that would be getting any hits. If there were any page errors on that page, almost no one is ever gonna search for, let alone maintain that article and keep it up to date. I could see "Blackstone Stairs", but come on. All the stone, brick, and quartz stairs, slabs, and walls have essentially zero functional difference. Only wooden and copper stairs and slabs have functional differences. Delvin4519 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - This is what the project that I've started is all about. I know they are very similar, but they all have different data. Also, it would go by the three previous comments, where we wouldn't split absolutely everything. We'd split the main ones, like cobblestone stairs, blackstone stairs, diorite stairs, etc, but I wouldn't go so far as instead of "Copper Stairs" we have a page on "Waxed Slightly Weathered Cut Copper Stairs". I mean, come on. That's just silly. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support, but be considerate. It'll become apparent from my other votes on this page, but I wouldn't support a page for each wooden, andesite, diorite and granite stairs variant and comparable. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - I mean, i don't feel strongly either way, but I have a potentially silly idea. Cobblestone stairs, cobblestone slab and cobblestone wall "in principle" don't differ much from the cobblestone block itself. Maybe just add the textures and few sentences onto the cobblestone page? Likewise with all other things? --Melwin22 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

At this time, this is probably the most ideal solution for non wooden and non copper related stairs, slabs, and walls, to get all the individual articles below 16 blocks/page. I can also see this for bamboo moasic stairs and slabs as well, with bamboo mosaic. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I do think having a single place where the "family" variants are shown together would be good, which is one of the motivations behind the Category:Thematic nav templates I've been working on. As for having the combined pages be a replacement for individual pages, while a clever idea and can look very nice, really misses out on all of the search and discoverability benefits, which is the main way people find us in the first place. Mudscape (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Besides, stairs, slabs and walls usually don't share most of the recipes the source materials can be used in. Cobblestone, both of its substitutes (cobbled deepslate and blackstone), and all the planks have a lot of such recipes. — BabylonAS 07:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support, since the similarities end with the shape of the block and the crafting recipe. Some of these can be created in the stonecutter, others can't. Some of these are flammable, others aren't. Some of these take longer to mine or are easier to blow up, but part of those differences aren't even on the page for the corresponding block/item itself. Wormbo (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support – Unsigned comment added by Consumed (talk • contribs) at 23:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

 Oppose to making new pages for these,  Strong Support adding these blocks to the corresponding block page. Then remove duplicated content from the block shape pages. Shared information, like placement mechanics and block data values, should be kept on the existing page though. Hydroquake (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also strongly consider this solution as well, so I'd also support this as a possible solution. Note that planks and copper already have several, or a dozen variants in their respective pages, so the respective wooden and copper stairs and slabs would still need individual articles. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Each of these deserves to have an individual page - Im Wired In (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per Misode Ishbosheth (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support per Misode, Harristic, Wormbo and others. This might've made sense when there were few of these variants and all slabs shared the same ID and properties, but now there really seems to be little in common except for shape and some technical information associated with it. I don't currently have an opinion on retaining combined pages for wood and stone variants. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – I feel like it's a good idea to have both a general overview page for the mechanics (and also the block state / data stuff, don't need to repeat that for every single stair/slab/wall page) but also a brief article about the walls themselves (for quick reference, e.g. where they're found in the world). I don't think these singular articles would be particularly useful for readers, but it would definitely make the overview page a lot less cluttered, as each variant has its own properties. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wood block variants

1. Stem and Hyphae should have separate articles from Log and Wood.
2. Stripped and unstripped variants should have separate articles.
3. Log, Wood, Stem, and Hyphae should have separate articles for each in-game block.

Things like Log, Wood, Block of Bamboo

 Support 1,2,3 - A stripped log or stem Block of Bamboo is already a log-like page that is on its own. Stems aren’t even called the same thing as other logs. Stripped versions of all the above have unique crafting recipes involving hanging signs. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to above, there has been a lot of support recently for splitting at least splitting the nether stems from overworld word (point #1 here) and I agree. They never should have been put onto the same page, stems simply aren't wood. Mojang has shown no hesitation in adding both more wood types and stranger wood types (is Block of Bamboo a log? We don't have it on the logs page but it makes planks.) The pages are already covering too many topics at once which is detrimental to wiki health and user experience as detailed above. They will continue to grow and become more unwieldy with each new variant, just take care of them now and reap the benefits Mudscape (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose 1 and 3,  Strong Support 2 - Most search results for even crimson and warped stems and hyphae go to "crimson wood" and "warped wood". Most people search "crimsion wood" and "warped wood".

I also previously fixed the issue of hardness and blast resistance values for the infobox title for the modules. The hardness and blast resistance values are now properly fetched from the modules for the combined "log/stem" infobox title, and the modules can support the same for "stripped log/stem".

We still need to split stripped logs and stripped wood from logs and wood. There should only be 1 copy of each variant in each article. Also obtaining and usage of unstripped and stripped variants is different. They don't fully overlap.  Support splitting stripped logs and stripped wood.

Blocks of Bamboo can't be merged, due to having both log and wood, but there is only a single block of bamboo, and not a 6 sided block of bamboo (6 sided wood).

See the following sources for what people search for: here and here.

Delvin4519 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting these pages should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe natural generation and history.  oppose 1 and 3 splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As a person who understands how Module:Inventory slot works, I can confidently say that it's relatively easy to set up an alias to cover all flammable or non-flammable wood types. As long as you know Lua, of course. — BabylonAS 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose on all — per Devlin's arguments. I also oppose splitting out all the stripped stuff, which only differs function-wise in being used in a single recipe. — BabylonAS 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment In the future, if Mojang adds 4 more types of wood, there' be 30 blocks in the logs and wood page, if we don't split stripped logs, stripped woods, and hanging signs. Also, obtaining and usage for stripped logs and stripped wood is different from non-stripped variants. Stripped variants do not generate as commonly as unstripped variants. Also, especially, the data values column is too cluttered, and could potentionally result in other editors splitting out stems and hyphae, if we don't do the split of stripped logs and stripped wood, which is the preferential split. It'd keep the wood items consistent. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We're not in the future yet. — BabylonAS 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The wood pages are still large as they are now. 22 blocks in the infobox as it is currently suggests that the page needs splitting. It's why logs and wood have come up like a billion times the past 3 weeks for splitting. Split at the stripped level, but not at the overworld/nether level. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit/Update: Per my suggestion on a related wood topic discussion. Keeping stripped woods with unstripped versions together would cause the combined article to be above the 16/17 block limit threshold for a maximum number of blocks a page could reasonably describe in a single article. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment -  Support #1,  not sure about #2 and #3. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support 1 and 2. Stems and hyphae have different names, that alone warrants a split in my opinion, and they still have mechanical differences. They function as logs, but as we've seen with Block of Bamboo something can function as a log while being perfectly fine to split. It just doesn't make sense to split block of bamboo but not stems and hyphae. I'm willing to be that people are also more often searching "bamboo wood", but we're not going to combine the pages becaause of that.

Generally conflicted about 3, I think with how many wood types are getting added it would just be easier to stop grouping all of these things together and I'd like to avoid "Overworld stairs" and "Nether stairs" ever happening. But I'm just not sure. - Harristic | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit:  Support 3 also. I explained it a bit here already, but see my reply to wood product variants for more reasoning. - Harristic | Talk 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly agree that the splitting is inevitable eventually with how willing Mojang is to adding new wood types. The "Overworld X" and "Nether X" are genuinely terrible solutions, but its at least better than putting a slash in the infobox title like Log/Stem - Mudscape (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Delvin4519 BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support 2,  Strong Oppose 1 and 3. If necessary, we can revive the point 3 in the future, but for now it will lead to completely duplicate pages. Stems and Logs have the same block ID (logs), same with Wood and Hyphae, and have nearly the same function as normal logs/wood blocks. As for stripped variants, I agree with Devlin's argumenets --TreeIsLife (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support for 1 and 3;  Oppose 2. I interpret #3 as a page about logs, wood, stems and hyphae and within that page describing the variants thereof; explicitly not a page about acacia wood, another one about oak wood and the other about jungle wood. If the third point should be read in the latter meaning, then I do not support it as they're so similar to one another - the only difference being the tree from which they come. That could easily be mentioned in the obtaining section and on its respective tree page, for so far it hasn't already. My interpretation of #3 does imply #3 is equal in what it's trying to achieve as #1. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support 1,2,3. Stripped variants are irreversible changes to the original blocks, and they have different properties. Stems/Hyphae and Logs/Wood are also different from each other not only visually, but also in functionality. So, personally and as a reader, I'd support separate articles for all these blocks. --Supeika (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support for 1 and 2, undecided about 3 (but probably tending towards support). Overworld logs and nether "logs" have different properties, while log/stem, wood/hyphae, and their stripped variants have different ways to create them. Bamboo also is yet another different case entirely. Wormbo (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I've noticed that doesn't seem to be a page that lists every block in a particular wood set. That sounds like a good addition to dedicated tree articles. Hydroquake (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support 1,  Support 2,  Neutral on 3 - Nether variants should absolutely have their own page, they are very different from normal logs. Since stripped logs are used in the crafting recipe for hanging signs I think they should be split. I could take it or leave it if the other logs were split. I'd leave it to the decisions of other parts of this forum; if we are splitting a lot of things this should also be split, but if we decide to split only some things I think that for the sake of consistency with everything else it should stay. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support splitting out hyphae, as well as Nether planks from the planks page. I'd probably also support splitting Log (1) simply on account of how unwieldy the obtaining section is, although there might be ways to improve that. No opinion on 2 or 3, though I'd consider adding sprites to Wood#Natural_generation at least. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support all three. Might be a bit aggressive, but "Log" is probably one of the pages that a beginner sees first and right now it's a terrible first impression. So, overview articles for all of the categories mentioned above, plus specific articles about the blocks. (Also semi-offtopic sidenote, IMO "Wood" should redirect to "Wood (disambiguation)", which should be extended to cover all things that are made of wood, and the page about the Wood "bark" block should be "Wood (block)", as the naming ingame is confusing especially for new players.) | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Things that are only tangentially related

Blocks that do not overlap in obtaining and usage should have separate articles.

Things like Pumpkin(Carved Pumpkin), Grass(Fern)

 Support - Although pumpkin and carved pumpkin look very similar they actually share almost no other characteristics. All crafting recipes can only take one of the variants, including creating iron and snow golems. The carving process is not reversible, and the blocks are not interchangeable in any way. Grass/Fern is a similar situation, where they aren't really the same block, they just happen to be on the same page right now. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - these are some of the weirdest things I had to make custom "all-X" sprites for for proper linking in inventory pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Harristic | Talk 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - GXDdcZ123-|-Talk 20:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support. Köpleres (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support. For their different namespace ID. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 09:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - Enbyd (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support --TreeIsLife (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - I was always confused on why fern and grass are on the same page... --Melwin22 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - especially pumpkins. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support – the reason for why these pages are merged is just historical, nowadays there's no good reason for keeping them together IMO. For grass specifically, all four blocks (grass, tall grass, fern, tall fern) should have separate pages. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support per all.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Soul variants

Soul and normal variants should have separate articles.

Things like Torch, Fire, Campfire, Lantern

 Support - Normal and Soul variants are completely distinct when it comes to crafting. Each variant has a different light value, leading to gameplay differences such as Soul Lantern not melting ice. Soul campfires deal more damage than regular campfires. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support. I think their differences warrant a split, also in terms of torches it would just be a lot neater to have three individual torch pages instead of "torch" with two torches and "redstone torch" with one. Also I have no doubt Mojang will eventually add a third variant of these blocks which would probably necessitate a split. - Harristic | Talk 19:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft Support - All of these had to make custom sprites for the current combined articles. I suppose all of these should be split. They kinda just add up the list of the list of wiki pages that cover multiple items. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support Except similar usage, they are basically all different. --TreeIsLife (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Weak Support. For different namespace ID, but they do share similar features. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - They are pretty different. These don't need an overview page either Ishbosheth (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Unsure due to them being so similar and only coming in two variants, unlike the eleven wood types. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – the fact that there's much more information about the normal variant makes it difficult to find information about the soul variant. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Non-wooden block variants

Each variant of a non-wood building block should have separate articles from other objects. (Variants are cracked, polished, chiseled, brick, cut, smooth, etc.)

Things like Granite, Diorite, Andesite, Polished Blackstone, Stone Bricks, Nether Bricks, Sandstone

 Support - Like everything else, having a page that focuses on the one specific block makes parsing information much easier, and makes verifying and updating information much easier. Chiseled Deepslate is already its own page and is very easy to read. Most variants are not interchangeable in crafting, meaning the crafting usage section on pages containing multiple variants is bloated. The decorative variants are important for visual variety when building and we should be clearly conveying their unique aspects instead of lumping them all together on a page. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Partial oppose — As tempting it might be to optimize for stuff like Semantic MediaWiki, we shouldn't do it at the expense of readers. I believe split articles are only worth it for chiseled forms, as well as blackstone and deepslate, which have complex cases of multiple processing stages: raw -> polished -> polished bricks for blackstone; cobbled -> polished -> bricks -> tiles for deepslate; with chiseled forms made from polished blackstone and cobbled deepslate respectively. Cracked and (for stone brick) mossy variants, however, are too visually similar to the basic brick variants, and thus shouldn't be split out. — BabylonAS 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you detail how having a standardized granularity for block variants is "at the expense of readers"? Mudscape (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment - Now I only have reservations about splitting out cracked variants of bricks/tiles, as well as mossy stone bricks, which are usually found together with the basic variants and don't have extra uses compared to them. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment, as of now, only sandstone currently has the issue of two hardness values in one page. Also smooth quartz and smooth stone are split. Why hasn't smooth sandstone, I'm not sure.

For granite, andesite, and diorite, the polished versions don't have wall variants, so if we split stairs, slabs, and walls, it'd be inconsistent to not split polished from non-polished variants. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment, per request for me to evaluate my test I'm conculuded on using on a majority of topics of discussion on this forum, it seems some portion of articles here warrent splitting, so  partial support for splitting for some articles listed here. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support per Mudscape's arguments. Further, the deepslate navbox at the end of the linked page is satisfyingly easy to parse. However, its intended use is currently limited due to nearly half of the links in the box redirecting to a generic stand-in for the linked block; slabs, stairs, and walls make up all but two of these redirects. Despite this, the deepslate navbox is significantly easier to make sense of and navigate than the comparatively bloated blocks navbox which sits just afterwards on the same page. The blocks navbox, assuming it is used as intended, adds a considerable amount of (at best) tangentially related or (at worst) completely useless information to every single block page on the wiki. We should support having more of such helpful features as thematic navboxes (like the one discussed here), but they cannot be fully realized without a respective specificity in the pages that they link to. If a block is important enough to make it through development and get added to Minecraft, it is important enough to have its own page on the Minecraft Wiki. We are competent enough to figure out from there which specific information is identically shared and which is therefore justifiably merge-able onto overview pages; the blocks themselves should never have to fight to have unique pages. | Enbyd (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

So you're okay with having different pages for standalone and wall-mounted signs and banners? Unlit and lit redstone ore? Inactive and active furnace? They're technically different blocks, on Bedrock at least. — BabylonAS 07:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This comparison is completely nonsensical and I’m confident you knew that already, this is unproductive. - Harristic | Talk 12:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Not splitting anything is kind of insane. One can't use black dye to create regular prismarine. Why shove the dark prismarine recipe for those who want to learn about how prismarine is made? One can't even make walls from dark prismarine, but one can for regular prismarine. We wouldn't even use an animated crafting recipe to combine all of the prismarine crafting recipes. Heck, they're separate crafting entries right now, so we're literally shoving unrelated blocks together. We already have a prismarine shard article. Polished granite and granite? Same problem. Blocks like lit redstone ore aren't even registered as valid items to have in the inventory to begin with on Java Edition.

However I still completely disagree that every block should have its own article. Mojang opted to group items together in the recipe book on both Java and Bedrock Edition for a reason. It's because it would make navigating the menus in the game itself so, so, so cumbersome. The same would be true for the wiki covering... a game about Minecraft... Having separate articles on all of them would be insane. Even Mojang thinks stems are so, so, so related to logs that they are combined in the same submenu on both editions of Minecraft like basically everywhere in the game. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Re:Every block have its own article: I agree that I don't think anyone wants that. Its clearly nonsensical to split Pumpkin Stem and Attached Pumpkin Stem and a similar sentiment can be seen on the discussion regarding copper. On the other hand, our goals are not quite the same as Mojang's. We aim to be a comprehensive and in depth resource for players that goes beyond the information that is easily attainable in game; and that additional information means we cannot always defer to Mojang's decisions on groupings while keeping the best user experience. Mudscape (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This topic is about non wooden block variants, I  soft support splitting some of these. Things like cracked deepslate bricks and tiles come from smelting, and don't have any crafting recipes. Delvin4519 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Recommending splitting these items in the first order/wave of splits. Some of these will not have overview pages, so it is a matter of a full-scale split for these.  Support splits for these per User:Delvin4519/Merged Pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partial oppose, specifically for (what's mentioned in the example) granite, diorite, andesite, stone bricks and polished blackstone (bricks?), as a sentence or template or one-two can keep the variants separated from one another. I would support splitting off red Nether bricks from Nether bricks, given the latter has gotten more variants. I'd support splitting sandstone into (regular) sandstone and red sandstone, as the former generates in the desert and is used to make the pyramid, while the latter generates in the mesa and isn't used in naturally-generated structures. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support, because lately Minecraft has been adding a lot more variants like these than on past years, and it's now more worth than ever for readers and searchability to have separate articles. Not only readers would benefit from getting individual pages from Google search, but also they would have an easier time searching, making the wiki more accessible. --Supeika (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Mostly support, since methods of obtaining or using these are typically different. Smooth sandstone or smooth basalt, for example, have different block properties from the blocks they can be created from. I'm only undecided about whether purely cosmetic differences are worth a separate page. Wormbo (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Some of these would warrant splitting even if we weren't pushing for more splitting in general, it feels very inconsistent when building blocks are merged and when they aren't. - Harristic | Talk 18:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support - I don't see any harm in splitting these pages, but I also don't see a huge benefit either. It's mostly just good to get consistency. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support splitting Polished Granite, Andesite and Diorite from their base variants. Not sure about splitting decorative variants from each other, like stone bricks, red nether bricks and quartz blocks. –Sonicwave ^talk 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support splitting everything. As of now there's a lot of inconsistency with how these blocks are handled - smooth blocks are split off except for sandstone, granite/polished granite are on the same page despite being comparable to end stone/end stone bricks, which have separate pages (different generation/obtaining, same overall properties) etc - and keeping some of these merged with the base blocks (mainly the polished -ites) really doesn't make sense to me. These are just basic building blocks with no special functionality, and readers are most likely to be interested in specific information about obtaining and crafting usage, which would be easier to find if each block had its own page.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 02:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – obtaining all of the variants is wildly different, and that's probably the main thing readers want to know about. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Bucket of aquatic mob

Each bucket of aquatic mob should have its own article. (Bucket of Cod, Bucket of Salmon, bucket of Tropical Fish, Bucket of Pufferfish, Bucket of Axolotl, Bucket of Tadpole)

 Support - The page doesn't even share much information between the different items, most of the information on the current page is about tropical fish or axolotls only. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Not an in game name ("Bucket of aquatic mob") in any previous or current update ever, also not really a thing that looks nice with a catch all "all-X" sprite. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment "Nether Portal" is was neither an official name of the portal, but still, we use it. --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

False, there is the advancement "Build, light and enter a Nether Portal" - Misode (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Misode: But it wasn't when the page was moved from "Portal" to the current name nearly 12 years ago. --TreeIsLife (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support splitting out Axolotl and Tadpole at least. — BabylonAS 19:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Just no need for these to be merged. - Harristic | Talk 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per all, it made sense when it was just fish. --Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 20:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support. Köpleres (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support. Same as BabylonAS. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 08:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support Split and make the current page a disambig --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support, many pages that I've seen list these separately, and even the name itself is confusing. Bucket of aquatic mob? Which mob? Can we have a bucket of squid? --Melwin22 (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support – in general I think it's confusing if different items are merged into a single page with a title that doesn't resemble anything in-game. I would also support moving the "Bucket of aquatic mob" page to "Bucket of mob" before changing it to an "enhanced disambig" or whatnot. –Sonicwave ^talk 22:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - This just makes sense. Ishbosheth (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support – This article in its current state, and especially its lemma, is just nonsense IMO. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Saplings

Each sapling should have its own article.

Things like Sapling

 Support - Mangrove Propagule is already on its own page, as are Azalea/Flowering Azalea. Saplings have differing growth requirements, are found in different locations, jungle saplings are more rare from leaves. There are too many nuances to saplings to keep every bit of information on a single page. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — Just offload growth requirements for individual trees to individual articles about trees. Also consider rewriting the loot chest template itself to not show everything at once. Propagules and azalea thingies have never been "traditional" saplings in the first place and shouldn't be taken as an argument for making separate sapling articles. — BabylonAS 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment Support Babylon's arguments. Trees are so different compared to saplings, so everything tangental to trees should be taken out of the saplings page. We also should rename all the trees pages to have the "tree" suffix, so we can use the unsuffixed titles to list everything related to a type of wood. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire purpose of a sapling is to be grown into a tree, why would we move information about requirements for growing trees to tree pages? You're going to look for the sapling page if you want that information. - Harristic | Talk 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment Right now I'm  Neutral on saplings. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Split here has been based on name. Fungus for nether wood saplings, bamboo shoot for bamboo wood saplings, mangrove propagule for mangrove wood saplings. The rest are saplings. Most of the page is dominated by data value section, just like leaves. The obtaining and usage sections aren't actually that long. Plus, I am also significantly opposed to treating wooden materials differently from other similar families of grouped blocks, especially blocks that fit neatly in a two-dimensional array, trees are not blocks, but are generated features. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting these pages should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe natural generation and history (and a small portion of "usage").  Oppose splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Mudcape. - Harristic | Talk 20:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose same as Babylon's and Delvin. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 20:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per BabylonAS BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Babylon and Delvin. --TreeIsLife (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support When looking up a specific sapling, I would want to get information about its main purpose: Growing a tree of that type. Currently, Sapling has that information in a hard to parse list. The individual tree pages do contain information about tree growing, but navigating there from the sapling page is difficult. Even then, for example Oak also contains information about swamp oak - that can't be grown from a sapling. Further, Oak then needs to list all the blocks that an oak sapling can be placed on, something that has nothing to do with the tree feature. jacobsjo (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Upon further consideration,  Support per violine. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support and I want to mention something super important that hasn't been mentioned before: all the saplings work kinda differently. In particular, we have the special cases of spruce, jungle, and dark oak saplings which can (and in the case of dark oak, can only) generate 2x2 trees. In addition, some saplings allow spawning of bee nests while others don't. The condition for oak saplings to grow into trees is different than it is for birch or spruce trees. All this information cannot really be viably added to the trees articles because 1) nobody would look for that information there and 2) again, naturally generating trees have different properties than those generated through saplings, making it difficult to clearly describe how the sapling mechanics work. Add to that that other saplings like mangrove propagule and bamboo shoot are already in separate articles. Splitting the sapling article would make it much easier to display this information in these articles, and as such would make them much much more useful for readers. Right now I think the sapling article is very confusing especially for newer players who want to learn how saplings work and why their tree doesn't grow. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The growing conditions are described in the tree articles, as there are already individual pages for tree articles. Those pages already describe how big trees are and how big or small they can be. The information should just be offloaded onto the the tree articles. It is inconsistent to have some growth requirements listed on saplings, and other growth requirements listed on trees. Putting them all on "trees" would be more consistent, since each tree is different. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Violine already refuted this in his response, it makes no sense for sapling growth information to be only on the tree articles as people are going to search for the sapling if they want to know the requirements for growing the sapling they have obtained and are trying to grow. - Harristic | Talk 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We should put the information where users expect it to be, which, at least for myself and the few others I have talked to, is on the sapling page. As violine says, natural tree generation and sapling tree generation requirements aren't even always the same, so putting sapling tree generation requirements into the page detailing natural tree requirements is confusing to readers. The individual tree pages cover where that tree can grow naturally, it adds unnecessary confusion to also have a section about "heres where a sapling can grow" when we have another perfectly good option, which is to split sapling. Mudscape (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the sapling article is hard to read. Plus, the tree article is listed right there. We could just add links for all the tree variants to the name for each sapling in that section. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support for complete split. Growth requirements may be a property of the tree itself, but they only matter when dealing with the planted saplings. As such, players only come into contact with them when interacting with the item. Wormbo (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft support – this seems like potentially a nice idea, there are loads of differences for saplings, but it’s not a super neccessary thing. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Soft support – per Melwin Ishbosheth (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaves

Each leaf variant should have its own article.

Things like Leaves

 Support - Too many differences to keep on one page. Different probabilities of dropping saplings, some leaves drop apples, mangrove leaves can grow propagule. Flowering azalea leaves and cherry leaves are also flowers for bee purposes. Various leaves aren't affected by biome colors. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Wood related item, follows the same rules as other wood related items except for saplings, since those have 5 different names. I don't think the current leaves article is too bad as it is now. Most of the page is dominated by the data values, block states, and history section. The actual sections of relevance for the reader, the obtaining and usage sections, are quite small and relatively short. Not enough content about obtaining and usage, for individual pages yet. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting these pages should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe natural generation and history.  Oppose splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You say the article is "not too bad" which means its not fantastic, and most of the page is dv/bs/history. Additionally, most of the page isn't the content that readers are actually looking for. Having more granular pages would significantly shrink the dv/bs/history sections by removing all information not relevant to the specific leaf. It would also turn the obtaining and usage page into being 100% about the leaf that a user is looking for. So we can have one page that every single reader goes to, but >80% of the page is irrelevant to the leaf block they are looking for; or, we make 10 pages, one for each type of leaf, and 100% of information on each page is about the leaf block that a user searched for. Plus many many many more people will find the page in the first place, since users are extraordinarily likely to search the exact name of a block. Plus, there aren't any downsides for people searching "leaves" since we will still have a page called that with whatever information is needed! Mudscape (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

80% of the information not being for a leaf block doesn't seem to be true. They all have the same breaking time, they all say "leaves come from trees", "leaves can be created by new trees", "leaves can decay, etc, etc". That sounds like a vast majority of the information is relevant for all leaves. Plus, data value sections simply list "<variant> leaf", there isn't anything different about those. Plus, it's not relevant for survival players if most readers play survival, and even for technical players, the ID to type in commands is pretty much the same as the block name. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You yet again miss the point about data value sections and the like. The problem is the size of these sections, whether or not they're different is irrelevant in terms of data values and nobody is talking about that. Most people aren't reading them so we should avoid making them incredibly large because things like the gallery and achievements (I know leaves don't have achievements, I'm speaking generally) are stuffed below those sections despite being a lot more relevant to the average player. - Harristic | Talk 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Minecraft has been in the process of deprecating numerical data values for quite a long time, so we are more at the point where the namespace ID to type into for commands is literally almost basically just the tooltip nametag of the block or item. Just auto-collapse the sounds and data value sections. We don't really need them shown by default. Also, we can just move the achievements section to be right after usage, instead of after data values. Why separate survival related content from one another? Consider a revision to the order of sections in the style guide first, before splitting, as doing so after a split would mean updating potentially 1,000 more block and item articles, then revising the style guide and updating such articles, before such a split. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - There's no need for this article to be treated the same as other wood related blocks. Overworld wood blocks are identical to each other while leaves are very much not. - Harristic | Talk 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Is regular & dark oak leaves dropping apples and jungle leaves dropping saplings in lesser quantity that much of a difference? — BabylonAS 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

How much of a difference is required to justify separate pages? All the leaves come from distinct biomes, distinct trees, some are flowers, some can have bonemeal used on them. As stated in the forum post there are many benefits to separating pages and there is no reason to have such a high threshold on how different pages must be. Mudscape (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Table of leaves isn't even that big. Differences between the leaves are already very clearly laid out in said table. Also the usage section isn't that long, most of it is just empty whitespace after a single sentence, except for the paragraph at the beginning. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't ignore half of the differences that have been laid out to make it seem like they are less different. - Harristic | Talk 20:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of the differences have to do with trees. If it's relevant for trees, move the information to the <variant> trees page. Trees are like the only thing so different enough we gave them their own articles a long time ago. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If we are moving information off of the leaves page because theres too much information for one page - isn't that the very definition of a page that should be split? You're suggesting moving leaf info to tree pages because those pages are split, why not just split the leaf page and solve the issue directly? - Mudscape (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There would be so little information about each individual variant of leaf, and how it is different from other leaves. Again, most people care about obtaining and usage, so the sounds/data value/block state sections should not be the deciding factor for a split. Each tree page is a detailed article that has enough content for a single article for a single variant. IMO, I think the current leaves article is pretty good in of itself as it is. The obtaining and usage sections are about what I expect of a article for it's size and it's scope. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Literally none of the differences listed have anything to do with trees. - Harristic | Talk 21:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Only 2 of the 8 sections in "usage" are specific to specific variants of leaves. All other 6 subsections of "usage" are applicable for all leaves. And in "obtaining", there's only like 2 lines describing what is specific to specific leaves. About 75% of the info in "obtaining" is appliacable for all leaves. IMO, there is not enough variant specific information for a split. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's three sections. This is about the same amount of unique information that the flower page had and that split was widely supported. There's just no need to keep these pages together when there's a lot of unique information and as always these pages are going to be subject to long history, data values, and sound sections as time goes on. General overview pages exist for a reason. - Harristic | Talk 21:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 19 flowers, but only 10 leaves. 19 flowers were far to many for a single article to reasonably describe. The leaves article also has a lot less content than flowers. Too early for a split. Also flowers had about like 16 crafting recipes specific to one flower, making that page extremely hard to navigate. That page failed the test of "majority of information in obtaining and usage applicable to all variants". Leaves passes this test. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"Too early for a split", if you can tell that a split will be necessary with the addition of a couple more leaves, then it makes no sense to oppose the split right now. This is an article that will, without doubt, just become worse with time, and articles becoming bigger with time is the entire reason this discussion is being had. There are already clearly defined differences between leaves, there's just no reason for this page to be treated the same as wood variant pages. - Harristic | Talk 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot split info that hasn't come into existance yet, nor can we split pages that do not exist yet. This discussion was about splitting existing pages, not future pages. Sure, Mojang could add 6 new variants of wood, but they can also have decided to stop adding new woods. We don't know yet. Plus, block of copper and cut copper were split during the addition of copper doors and trapdoors. I don't see any issue with using the same format for cut copper as for wooden materials, if, and when, the time comes. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the disconnect, this isn't a discussion about splitting. This is a discussion about guidelines for now and the future with how page content is handled. So we are very much talking about future pages. Not in the sense that predicting the future should be a main argument, but in the sense that we should be making guidelines that can continue to be used for the next 5-10 years. Mudscape (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You miss the point, the point is that eventually we will need to split these pages, because they are already a valid candidate for being split, which means they will only become more valid over time and it's a lot simpler and makes a lot more sense to just make the split now. Also you are kidding yourself if you want to say that Mojang never adding another wood type is a possibility, I'm sure you know that. Merging copper and cut copper was convenient because they were the only oxidizing blocks, there is no convenience reason for keeping leaves merged, so this comparison just doesn't work at all. - Harristic | Talk 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The point regarding block of copper and cut copper was still missed. The 1.21 update was a reasonable time to split that page as before there was only 1 copper page beforehand, and then after the fact, there came to be 7 copper related block pages. I don't see any issue with that, and why it would not work with wooden materials. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Delvin4519 BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — Delvin4519 summarized it well, the individual leaf types have more things in common than the cited example of flowers. A few leaf types dropping apples and another one dropping saplings less commonly are not a fundamental difference in their functionality. — BabylonAS 06:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment I'm still not quite convinced that the minor difference in drops (that only affects three leaf types) is enough to warrant a split, but there might be more factors to consider. Still, I think the goal of achieving total consistency (in this case, between leaves, saplings and logs/wood) might fall into the "all-or-nothing" mindset of which I'm wary in general. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support. Leaves have different textures, different biome colors, different loot tables, spawn in different biomes and are part of different trees. - Misode (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support, because some leaves have actually uniqueness in their generation, like the ones that generate on mansions. Also oak and dark oak leaves are the only ones that drop apples, and the most important part being that the data values section is long and readers wsnt to find data about the specific leaves block they're searching. And searchability is another point to split these, since a reader is more likely, while first searching "minecraft leaves", to return by searching "minecraft azalea leaves". --Supeika (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Devlin --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - This should follow the same decision as sapling, for the sake of consistency. I'm leaning towards support for both. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support – this isn't quite as obvious as the other ones, but at the very least flowering azalea leaves being considered flowers makes this page a pain to read through and find relevant information in. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wood product variants

1. Wood variants should have separate articles based on gameplay differences.
2. Each wood variant of an object should have its own article.

Things like Planks, Fence, Boat, Button

 Support 1 & 2 - None of the crimson or warped wood items can be used as furnace fuel, which is a fact missing from many of the pages above because the pages are simply covering too much. Bamboo Boat isn't even an item that exists, it's a Bamboo Raft. As Mojang continue to add more wood variants with slight differences the pages will continue to become harder and harder to maintain. The best course of action is to split all wood variants completely. This will create simple pages that are easier to keep up to date. The current page name will be used as an overview page, containing all of the information common to that type of item. This frees up the individual pages for the more specific information such as natural generation, fuel, sounds, id values, and allows for thematic navboxes to be put in place for each wood type to give readers easy access to all items available for a specific type. Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose 1 & 2 - No one in their right mind is ever going to search for "overworld wood stairs', "nether wood stairs", or "overworld planks"/"nether planks". Everyone searchs for "planks", or "oak planks". Someone typing in "oak planks" and being redirected to a page called "overworld planks" is insane. No one is going to ever type in that article. The common phrase heard is "being redirected to a page whose title doesn't match what I typed in". Splitting into "overworld planks" "nether planks" "nether wood stairs", is insane and would make SEO on the new wiki worse. It would be much more confusing for readers. Imagine a reader typing "Oak Planks" and being taken to "Overworld Planks"? There is no such thing as "Overworld Planks" item in Minecraft. Having 3 overview pages called "planks" "overworld planks", and "nether planks", for all the woods is even worse. Why have 3 overview pages that all need maintainance when we can have just 1?

Also, "nether wood can't be used in a furnace". It's literally just a single sentence in the planks page, and all the wood stuff. Why split every single wooden related item just because of a single sentence? It's not like theres 25 crafting recipes are only used by overworld stuff and not nether stuff. A vast, vast majority of all of the stuff for overworld wood is applicable to nether wood. Also, nether planks can be crafted into sicks, and then they can be used in a furnace.

Split into overworld/nether would also not be supported by our modules or sprite systems. We don't have a "all overworld wood stairs"/"all nether wood stairs" sprite, and there is no "all overworld stairs" entry in the crafting modules, hardness modules, blast resistance, invsprite aliasis, etc. Splitting all the wood stuff over a single sentence doesn't justify the cost.

It would be extremely inconsistent if we split wood stuff, but not dyed stuff or coral stuff. These three should all be split all at once, or none at all.

See here] for what people search for when they want to learn about planks in the game.

Delvin4519 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment, I completely forgot we haven't split wooden buttons and pressure plates from stone buttons and pressure plates. Those splits still need to occur. This is to align with doors, trapdoors, and fences, which already are on the new system. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting these pages should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe natural generation and history.  Oppose splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: I have previously supported splitting wooden buttons, pressure plates, etc. from stone and polished blackstone pressure plates and buttons. I will be  strong opposed to deleteing pages like Wooden Fence, Wooden Trapdoor, when individual wooden variants get their own articles. All of those articles like "Wooden Door", "Wooden Trapdoor", "Wooden Fence", "Wooden Pressure Plate", "Wooden Button", etc., etc. should still exist, regardless of individual wooden variants get their own pages. This is due to common values like hardness, using an axe, common redstone functionalities, connections with other blocks, and common crafting recipes, etc. The same is true for pages like "Dyed Shulker Box", "Dyed Candle", and "Dyed Terracotta". I  strong oppose deletion of any of these pages. We especially need a "Wooden Slab", page showing all 5 common crafting recipes shared by all wooden slabs. For consistency, "Wooden Stairs" should also exist. If the excuse is redirects don't show up in search results, then none of these should ever be redirects, or be deleted. If "oak stairs" deserves its own article, "wooden stairs", should also deserve its own article, especially since the forum promised overview pages for these. It's break of a promise of the forum not to, and I will oppose splitting if we're deleting "wooden trapdoor", etc., to do such a thing. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"nether wood can't be used in a furnace" is indeed a single sentence, and its a sentence that isn't on multiple wood product pages even 3 years after nether stems were added. You're right noone searches for "overworld wood stairs", just like noone searches for "stairs", people search for "oak planks", so why oppose creating a page with the name people are actually looking for? Mudscape (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

More people search up "planks" than "oak planks", and again, if we aren't making a page about "white wool", or "waxed block of copper"; why make a page for "oak planks"? Delvin4519 (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And we will still have a page called "planks" to catch those searches. Wool and copper are freely convertible between their different forms, but oak planks and spruce planks are completely distinct. You cannot convert an oak plank to a spruce plank, or a dark oak plank, and you cannot convert any of their products to other product variants either. Mudscape (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're splitting planks into "overworld planks" and "nether planks", will there still be a "planks" article? Otherwise, then we're just having 3 overview articles about every single wooden item. Also your argument that wood can't be converted into another variant. Well, the same goes for corals. So if we split wood, then each coral variant gets their own article? One can't turn a tube coral into a bubble coral. Also, candles can't be redyed, candles can only be dyed once. Do we give each candle their own page since we can't redye a yellow candle into a pink candle? Delvin4519 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there will still be "planks" as an overview page, please read the forum post. Corals and candles are separate discussion areas on this forum post and are not necessarily tied to the decision for wood products. Mudscape (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We should still keep things consistent for readers. Thats why its best to have identical standards for wooden and dyed items. If one plays survival mode in Java Edition and want to craft wood from logs, the recipe book has logs and stems combined in the same icon. To see how to craft hyphae from stems in survival mode, one has to click on the log icon, and see all of the logs and woods in one menu. A reader might be confused why oak planks is its own article, but not red wool. Make it consistent for readers. Go take a look at not only the Creative inventory, but also take a look at the recipe book in Survival mode. Does one see wood items grouped together in the recipe book in survival? Almost all of them is a yes. Even nether woods with wood. I don't need to repeat the SEO again that there's more searches for planks than oak planks. Also it makes no sense to split wood at 11 variants if 16 variants of dyed blocks are together. If there were 17 variants of wood, I would be a lot more favor in a split, since I understand the concern about the "just one more block" issue. But if we're keeping dyes together, we have to wait for the 17th variant of wood to split. We'd need more wood variants than dyed variants for a split. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As a reader I would not necessarily expect planks and wool to have the same granularity. I also think that the creative inventory/recipe book arguments are not compelling to many readers. Personally I actually dislike how all the wood types are grouped in the recipe book because it makes it harder for me to autofill the specific type of wood I am working with. The pure number of variants isn't necessarily the main defining factor either. 16 is not a magical number and I think it would be unwise to pin that as some kind of limit. - Mudscape (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if we put all of those aside, at the end of the day, more readers are looking up "Planks", than "Oak Planks". We should just give them all of the information in "Planks". Otherwise, we'd just be asking readers to select a particular plank among 11 choices to find the information that they're looking for. That is an extra barrier to entry into trying to learn more about what "Planks" can be used for. Readers would be hard pressed to wonder what could possibly be different between "Oak Planks" and "Birch Planks". The literal only difference of wooden types is nether fuel and no nether boats. Aside from that, it's just sounds for nether, cherry, and bamboo wood. Basicslly almost no one comes on the wiki to learn about sounds. Most people care about obtaining and usage. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

And again, planks would still exist as an article. If fuel and boats and sound isn't enough to warrant splitting, where is the line? We are here to define the guidelines for granularity, even if it doesn't result in any immediate change. - Mudscape (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A large percentage of the obtaining and usage sections must be inapplicable for said block, for it to warrent splitting. For example, if 80% of the obtaining and usage sections of an article is only relevant for regular prismarine, but not dark prismarine or prismarine bricks. Then dark prismarine and prismarine bricks would be split. If we're worried about dumping irrelevant info for readers being a big problem, then the standard would be "a large amount" (~50%? ~80%?) of the information in obtaining and usage" being inapplicable for said block. And for the concern about "just one more block", then we could set a limit of 17 blocks/variants to be a maximum threshold for requiring splitting, to avoid the issue of "just one more block" to ever cause future problems down the line. That'd allow many editior's preference to keep dyed blocks together, together. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Who prevents adding that poor little sentence? — BabylonAS 19:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As addressed extensively in the beginning of this forum post, the only thing preventing that update is noone noticed it. When it was added it was correct, it was only later made incorrect by a completely unrelated edit that added extra wood types onto the same page without thoroughly and extensively checking every statement on the page to see if they still applied to the newly added slightly different block. Mudscape (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support 2 for two reasons:

1) With 1.20, cherry and bamboo wood sets were given unique sounds instead of generic overworld wood sounds. Cherry wood, despite having literally zero differences to all other overworld wood, got unique sounds, therefore I think it is safe to say all future wood types will have unique sounds even if they are not distinct like nether wood and bamboo wood. This is already and issue, but it WILL get worse rather quickly, we could see a new wood type with unique sounds within a couple months. Obviously, things with different sounds really shouldn't be on the same article as that ends up signifying it as unique, and sounds take up a large part of articles if you're listing the sounds for multiple different blocks.

2) "Overworld X" and "Nether X" is a really bad naming scheme and should be avoided, but that is the only option we'd have for naming if we split wood product variants like that. I'd much rather avoid that awkward split and do a full split.

- Harristic | Talk 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment. I'm not sure that sounds are enough to justify their own article. It would get messy to have cherry and bamboo wood to have their own articles, but crimson and warped have to share 2 variants, and the rest of the 7 variants in 1 page; all because of sound. I'd just suggest making the sounds table collapsed by default. Most readers are probably looking for information about obtaining and usage, and the splits should be primarily about those. I'm not sure of people who go on the wiki are looking specifically about information about sounds. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I supported 2, which would mean every variant is split. One page for each. Yes, cherry being its own page but others being combined would be dumb. - Harristic | Talk 20:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO, since we're seeing almost unanimous support for keeping dyed blocks together. I understand there is some amount of risk with the "just one more block" to each of the wood pages. I'd suggest waiting until there is a 17th type of wood, before splitting any wood pages. There needs to be more wooden variants than dyed variants to split wood. This also applies to stems/hyphae.  Conditional support, there needs to be a 17th type of wood to begin the process of splitting wood. More wood blocks than dyed blocks, would mean it makes sense to split wood. Splitting at 11 woods still feels early if we're leaving 16 dyed blocks together. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The difference between wood and dyes is incredibly clear cut and I think saying they're identical situations and that number of variants is somehow the deciding factor feels like ignoring points made. - Harristic | Talk 20:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Well it's not just the number of variants, but it's also since almost every single crafting menu and creative menu in the whole game has all the woods together and all the dyes together. Anyone looking at how to craft jungle hanging signs has to see all of the woods together with crimson hanging signs in the recipe book in survival. It's more than clear for the player and the reader that woods are all the same umbrella and grouped together. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Throughout this entire conversation, creative inventory order has never been a relevant factor and there's no reason why it would be. Why would placement in the creative inventory ever be a more accurate indication of similarities than just looking at the feature and how it functions? - Harristic | Talk 14:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What happens when a player is trying to use the recipe book in Survival mode to try to craft hyphae from stems, or hanging signs? Mojang groups things together in submenus, or had grouped them in data values, for a reason. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose Same as Delvin. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 20:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Delvin4519 BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose — For planks, only the two Nether varieties are definite outliers here, as they can't be used as fuel or to craft boats, but they still share the vast majority of functional usage, notably crafting recipes. Boats and rafts are not functionally different at all, with the obvious exception of those that have chests added, which already have their article. Wooden buttons and fences likewise act the same. — BabylonAS 05:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment I'm now a bit more supportive towards planks, buttons and fences, but still wary of splitting boats. Planks, buttons and fences do have a little functional (and audial) variety between them, but boats do not. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support 1 & 2 - Re: #1: The gameplay differences between existing wood variants seem reasonable as the basis for some type of overview/category page, but the distinctions should be made specific so that the scopes of any overview/category pages are very clear. For example, one might see it fit to create a category for "Blocks which do not burn and whose item form can be crafted using planks"; arbitrary example aside, the point is for there to be an explicitly justifiable reason to include a given block or item in a category page. In no case should such pages supersede the pages for the individual blocks listed there. Re: #2: Having every unique block on a separate page is a much preferable option to assuming from the start that certain blocks should be fundamentally grouped by a certain (arbitrary) property. I hold a similar position here as I do for blocks that are the same shape. | Enbyd (talk) 08:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: #2 Many of the <wood variant> article title names currently redirect to trees, as the tree page currently uses the <wood variant> title. The tree pages should be moved to "<wood variant> tree", and the unsuffixed title page should list all blocks with the variant prefix. Note that jungle has a biome and so the tree already uses "jungle tree", and so a page listing jungle blocks would need to be located at another title. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support 1 & 2, because Mojang will continuously be adding more and more wood variants, and keeping all of them on the same page will not only be hard to maintain, they also are annoying for readers because wood variants are more unique and have way more differences in generation than any other kind of block. Nether planks not burning, bamboo raft being a raft and not a boat, just mean that wood as a set has grown a lot in complexity more than it's worth to keep it merged, so I support the split. --Supeika (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support for 1, tentative support for 2. The fence article covers nether brick fences, which aren't even a wood product. Wormbo (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment, one should not that while iron doors and trapdoors have been split from wooden doors and trapdoors, as well as nether brick fences from wooden fences. We have yet to split stone and blackstone pressure plates and buttons from wooden pressure plates and buttons. Strongly would consider splitting these first. Also, I am  significantly opposed to splitting wooden items by variant, as there would now be 3 nested levels to get to wooden variants for some blocks. For example, an oak door would have info relevant to all doors in "door", then info relevant to all wooden doors in "wooden door", and finally, info specific to oak door in "oak door". Going through 3 (Three!) pages just for info on oak doors is insane. Two (2) pages is already a major split of the information. Also, we can only ever do "wooden door", as "overworld door", and "nether door", would be insane for anyone to search or browse, on top of a all "all door", page, "wooden door" page, etc., that would be 4 nested pages of info, or a 4-way split. Plus, again, wooden items share a common two-dimensional array family of blocks, just like dyed materials. Either split 'em all, or keep all wooden materials together. 50% of all the blocks in the game is just a variant of wood, variant of dye, variant of copper, or variant of coral. See this page here. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose I think now we are just discussing the same thing (wooden stuff) being split and we made separate sections for saplings, leaves, logs... I think it has to be clear that if we split just one of these wooden-related pages, we would have to split all of them, because that would lead to confusion. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

100% agree. It would be so, so, so confusing to split one wooden item, but not the other wooden items, and then it can be easily argued that if wooden items are split, then dyed items should be split, etc., etc. I don't want to hear about "but trees are already split", but... there's some good news. A tree is not a block, but it's a generated feature. Delvin4519 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Saplings are already inconsistent because propagule and fungus are split, they don't need to be identically treated as wooden blocks because well, the game doesn't even do that. Also you seem to have not actually explained your opposition at all, unless you're only opposing because you also oppose leaves and saplings, which would be, well I already explained why these things don't need to be treated the same. - Harristic | Talk 21:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support 1 & 2 - Nether variants need their own page, and an "overworld planks" section feels a little silly. I could see it either way but nether variants should absolutely be split. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Neutral – honestly, even with the gameplay difference of burning and non-burning wood I'm not sure if a split is warranted, as that's essentially the only gameplay difference for all of them. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up a bunch. But for consistency sake it might still make sense. | violine1101 ^(talk) 08:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Head

Each Head should have its own article. (Skeleton Head, Wither Skeleton Head, Player Head, Zombie Head, Creeper Head, Piglin Head, Dragon Head)

 Support - Too many differences to keep on one page. Obtaining is very different between most variants. Skeleton head and dragon head are found naturally generated. Four of the heads come from charged creepers. Player head isn't obtainable in vanilla survival at all, a fact which is not mentioned at all on the current page. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Mudscape. We never made a piglin head blocksprite because of this merged article which is annoying. - Harristic | Talk 19:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - This falls the same as with music discs, pottery sherds, etc. There should still be an overview article. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As stated in bold at the top of the cases section there will be overview pages for all subjects discussed here. Mudscape (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Per Mudscape. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support The similarities among different heads are too few, and they share different namespace ID. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 16:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support, absolutely, undoubtedly. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Neutral Not completely sure about this yet. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support - I can see it either way, but it would probably be good to split. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Unsure due to both having similarities and individual differences. Or maybe I just don't care. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Weak support – Player heads should definitely be split, sharing little in common with the others, and wither skeleton heads have some significant differences as well. I'm not sure about the other mob heads as they share more similarities. Usages are nearly the same, and there are some unique obtaining methods, but these are similar (all falling under "structure generation") and described in one-liners (dragon heads found on end ships, skeleton skulls in ancient cities). It feels less cumbersome than cases like Sand, where there's more information with little in common.

I don't know if we have to split all of the mob heads if we decide to split wither skeleton's, though the common page should definitely still describe it in some way. –Sonicwave ^talk 20:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support – player heads are special (skins), wither skeleton skulls are special (wither summoning, regular mob drop, skull banner pattern), skeleton skulls are special (spawn in ancient cities), dragon heads are special (mouth moving when powered, and end city loot), piglin heads are special (ears wiggling when powered), creeper heads are special (creeper banner pattern). Enough reason for splitting all of them. (I suppose the zombie head will be the boring one out of the bunch but we'll have to live with that) | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Violine.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cosmetic item variants

Each item that is a uniquely named cosmetic variant should have its own article.

Things like Smithing Template, Music Disc, Banner Pattern, Pottery Sherd

 Support - Smithing template is already this way and those pages are very easy to parse as a reader. The smithing template page itself has a great overview with links to all the specific templates, and having the specific template pages allow us to have prominently displayed renders of what the trim actually looks like on armor, something that took me hours to find when the pages were all together. Similarly the other pages mentioned here all have varied methods of obtaining, look visually different when used, and some even differ gameplay differences like rarity and renewability. Having articles for each of these variants will help greatly for users who are looking for exactly how to get that new music disc or that pottery sherd they are missing. Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Keep the overview pages for all. Smithing templates are fine, I don't feel strongly about these as long as we keep the overview pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Per analysis of gameplay differences of all items in User:Delvin4519/Merged Pages:

•  Oppose splitting goat horn, suspicious stew, pottery sherd, enchanted book, spawn egg, command block, item frame, map, and painting (JE Creative inventory). - Too many gameplay similarities. Also, goat horns, suspicious stew, and enchanted books don't even have different textures.
•  Neutral for music discs, banner pattern - I suppose the overlap isn't that high, but I'm torn on these. Banner patterns are separate on JE recipe book, I guess that would warrent a split.

Delvin4519 (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - Harristic | Talk 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose for anything that isn't trimming template. Those are fine because there are multiple factors affecting the appearance of a trimmed armor piece, and those individual trim articles could potentially depict all the 36 combinations if needed. Other articles should be fine in their single-article state after rewriting a few templates to allow showing information only on those items that the reader wants to choose. — BabylonAS 19:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Music discs at the very least have very varied obtaining just like smithing templates, in fact all of them have unique obtaining. If you're going to completely redo an article to only show information on the thing the reader wants, why not just...split the pages? All of these pages would keep a main overview page. - Harristic | Talk 19:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

All of them? Most music discs are obtained via creepers. — BabylonAS 06:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Some are obtainable only via creepers, some are obtained only through structure loot, some through both, and one through a crafting recipe. There's more variation in music disc obtaining that there is smithing template obtaining. It would be so arbitrary to split one but not the rest. - Harristic | Talk 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment - Now I'm not really sure. Sherds do maybe have the least info per potential article, but that "least info" would be the obtaining information which might be crucial. Maybe the same applies to music discs, one could get a sample of how it sounds on one article, and where to find it on the other. Then there are the banner patterns which similarly have varying sources of obtaining... I guess it would be sensible to split when there are varying methods of obtaining, which would then exclude things like paintings as those have a shared item form (and thus, the same crafting recipe). — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment #2 -  Support split articles on music discs, as long as they also document the tracks themselves. See also my reply to violine1101's comment. — BabylonAS 09:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per BabylonAS BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Mudscape. Köpleres (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose all but smithing template per Babylon. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Weak Support, to be honest, I like the idea but I see why would people disagree. There would be quite a lot of redundancies. Sherds probably have the least information for a page, it makes slightly more sense for music discs. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support. They being separated pages will benefit readers and help the wiki get better into search rankings of people. But aside from that, short pages are perfectly fine, and I'd even add a render of how a decorated pot with all its sides being the same looks like on an individual pottery sherd article. Banner patterns are pretty much similar to smithing templates, so are pottery sherds as well. Music discs definitely should have their own pages, because, as a reader, I find better to navigate across small tables to listen to how they sound and to see how they're obtained. --Supeika (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support Smithing Template (per Mudscape), Music Disc,  Oppose Pottery Sherd, Banner Pattern

The Music Disc page already suffers some performance issues, likely due to usage of Lua and DPL.

Banner Pattern is still a very small page for a split and for pottery shard it would make lot of duplicate pages. --TreeIsLife (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support music discs as those would double as an article about the song itself too (see Talk:Music#Revisiting this topic),  Support the others (different ways of obtaining). | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually yes, having articles on music discs double as articles on songs greatly enhances the individual value of those articles. Why did I not bring that up previously? Sadly, this does not quite apply to sherds or banner patterns, which can only offer visuals. — BabylonAS 09:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support for smithing templates (well that's already been done and I don't think we're going back);  Support for music discs, all the newer ones have unique obtaining methods and that's enough for a split imo, and as other users said they could also double as pages for the music tracks itself (we could have the track preview easily accessible in the infobox or something like that);  Weak support for pottery sherds, different obtaining sources and we could have a render of the sherd on a pot in the infobox;  Weak support for banner patterns, again different obtaining sources for some of them and we could have a render of the pattern applied to a banner in the infobox.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Infested block

Each Infested Block should have its own article. (Infested Cobblestone, Infested Stone, Infested Deepslate, Infested Stone Bricks, Infested Cracked Stone Bricks, Infected Mossy Stone Bricks, Infested Chiseled Stone Bricks)

 Support - Too many differences to keep on one page. The page covers blocks with different hardness, different renewability, natural generation is different. "Infested Block" isn't even the name of a block in the game. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"Infested block" is indeed the internal name for all of them. The deepslate variant specifically is an "infested rotated pillar block". And of the non-deepslate variants, only infested cobblestone has different block properties. Wormbo (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Infested blocks aren't obtainable in survival mode, as far as I'm aware. This is a Creative only block, and so it's listed from the inventory pages as a single entry. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

While not obtainable in survival, they are often encountered and they each have a natural generation method. Inventory page isn't the gospel truth for how important something is. Mudscape (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Regarding my idea of "information in obtaining and usage, should be relevant for survival players test", it appears the majority of the information relevant for survival players is all applicable for all variants. I don't see any major issue where info for survival players, the info for one infested block it's downright completely irrelevant for a specific kind of infested block. Usage is 100% applicable for all variants. Over 50% of the info in "obtaining" is applicable for all variants, which means I'd rate it as close to 70 - 80% info is applicable for all variants. It's just breaking times and biome generation where one infested block is different, but that's only 20-30% of the info in "obtaining" and "usage" combined. Delvin4519 (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Not sure about this one, but I think infested block and suspicious block should be treated the same. In that either both are split or neither are split. They're both unobtainable variants of normal blocks that function identically but generate in different places. - Harristic | Talk 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Unobtainable in Survival, so the average player won't care much about where infested stone spawns vs infested mossy stone bricks. Functionally they are identical (they spawn silverfish when broken, that's it), no need to split them.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They aren't quite functionally identical. They differ in renewability and hardness in the infobox, which makes it difficult to automatically verify/update that information. and to use that information to automatically keep things like Renewability up to date. Mudscape (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Delvin4519 BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. There's really not much difference. Differences in renewability and hardness stem from differences in the non-infested varients themselves. I think the differences are already noted enough. The main focus of this article is the occurence of infesting itself. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Per ManyOursOfFun. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support. While this is one of the least important ones to split, I fully agree with splitting them, as they're just a few set of blocks that wouldn't damage anyone being split, and it would be helpful to turn "infested block" which isn't an in-game name to am overview page. And, putting myself as a reader, I'd find easier to have separate pages. --Supeika (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Unsure, but leaning to  Oppose - Depends on whether the average reader is interested in specific kinds of infested blocks or in infested blocks as a whole. Though... having separate articles and an overview article would cover both cases 🤕 — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Neutral leaning to  Support – unsure, I can't really see people looking specifically for one variant of them, and they are all very similar. So the overview page will still be more important for readers probably. I suppose splitting it would declutter the overview article though, and there is some information that's unique to each variant (where it can be found especially, currently bit of a mess). | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Deepslate ore

Each deepslate variant of ore should have its own article.

Things like Gold Ore, Iron Ore, Diamond Ore, Coal Ore, Redstone Ore, Emerald Ore, Lapis Lazuli Ore, Copper Ore

 Comment - I do not feel strongly either way here, I am looking forward to hearing arguments on why one way or the other is best. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft oppose - We probably don't need 16 articles on all 16 overworld ore blocks. 8 articles should be sufficent. I could see the case since the hardness values don't match in the infobox, but I'm not fully convinced. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - I think it'll be more logical to have 1 page for each ore type. Users looking for the distribution or iron ore aren't interested in only the distribution of deepslate iron ore. - Misode (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Misode. For readers this would actually be a harmful split. - Harristic | Talk 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, same as Misode and Harristic. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, almost no difference. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Delvin. Köpleres (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

🤣 Mudscape didn't specify any arguments against splitting out deepslate ore at all. — BabylonAS 08:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to react so aggressively to simple misspell? Köpleres (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - They are basically the same, with the exception of appearance and break time. They should stay on the pages that they are currently on. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support. My reason is that some deepslate ores have some uniqueness in their generation or history. For example, deepslate diamond ore generates alongside fossils on negative height, deepslate iron ore generates on the huge iron veins also found on negative heights, deepslate coal ore and deepslate emerald ores generate very rarely and they have unique history sections due to how it was changed from being only possible on modified worlds (through datapacks or mods) to possible on all worlds. Also, these blocks are more than just a variant, they have different breaking times than the regular ores, and the fact that they share the same generation algorithm than regular ores makes it easier to just mention "deepslate something ore is an ore that generates in the place of regular something ores on negative height altitude". Reader-wise, I don't think a reader really really would be either annoyed or pleased with this proposal, but imo, the more specific the page, the more likely a reader is to read it, and unlike something like waxed copper, deepslate ores actually have way more differences: sounds, history, data values, generation methods, appareance. --Supeika (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If deepslate iron ore is split from "iron ore", where are people going to find information about both types of iron ore, if "iron ore", only covers the stone variant? This is one of those splits that would actually be quite harmful for readers. There are probably some readers who come to want to learn about where to find iron, but they don't care whether it's a deepslate or stone variant, since they just want the iron. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

On biomes where iron generates, deepslate iron also generates, so that information is not really something that would worry me. And this is the same for the other deepslate ores. They are part of the same generation algorithm of the respective material, the difference being location, and as such you could go to both pages where the normal one says "this ore generates from 320 to 0", the deepslate one saying "this ore generates from -1 to -64", and the general ore page would mention a general overview of all ores' generation algorithm and locations. If I were a reader, a page about iron ore would suffice for iron ore, but if I want to read for the huge ore veins, or about how diamond generates alongside fossils on negative height, I would probably search for separate pages, since it's kind of weird to have different material elements on the same page. --Supeika (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just an insane amount of duplication of content to maintain. Why update 2 pages called "iron ore" with the same exact content when there can just be one page with a single copy of content to update? If the user goes to "usage", the single sentence it says is "iron ore is used to obtain iron ingots, it can also be smelted and has the same sound". People probably just want to know where to get iron. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I find a lot of value into descentralized pages, not only for visual appareance but also because you have more possibilities to remember something if you read it from a specific page instead of a centralized one. Also, MCW is one of the few places that don't do separate stuff first, whereas the usual is to do first separate even if very similar, then merge but only if there's a need, because I find concept association easier to achieve through individual pages than merged ones. --Supeika (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If "Iron Ore" covers stone iron ore only, and "Deepslate Iron Ore" covers only deepslate iron ore, where should the article title be for the page covering both types of iron ore? A page where readers go for information about "I just need to know where to find iron ores to mine, thats it", like the one we have right now. Because, the current article uses the title of the stone iron ore "Iron Ore". We can't use that title for the overview page about iron ore, if stone iron ore is found at the "Iron Ore" title. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Ore article already does that at the table on the #Distribution section. The whole article could be improved though, but there is already a base set up for a general overview. --Supeika (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the Ore article covers much more than just iron. Though there's always Template:For 🤷🏼‍♀️ — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support for subpages - I support makkng subpages on the regular Ore pages for the Deepslate Ore pages; not individual pages in their own right.Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose - This is one of the few splits that I think would be very harmful for readers. It is unreasonable to expect readers to go to the raw material page (i.e. raw iron) in order to find distribution for the ore itself. And splitting that info between articles is just unhelpful. There would have to be some significant work put in to making sure information like this wasn't lost to readers if this page were to be split. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Unsure, leaning towards  Oppose - On one hand, deepslate variants of the ores are just special variants for cases when a vein happens to generate inside deepslate or tuff, and a reader searching for altitude levels to mine diamonds would not be bothered with the differences between the two as long as they can get diamonds (and a pickaxe to mine it). On the other hand, if split, linking the two is as easy as adding Template:For with content like "For the variant that generates in deepslate layers, see Deepslate Diamond Ore". — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose – this is I think an exception where splitting these pages would be actively harmful for readers, who just want to know where they find a certain ore, and they don't care if it's deepslate or not. Template:For is not exactly a super obvious place for readers to look, and we don't want them switching between the pages to compare where they should go for, say, gold mining. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, readers most likely want to know where they can find ores; splitting this information between regular and deepslate ore pages would be just annoying, unless the information is repeated in both pages (e.g. "diamond ore generates from y 16 to y -64. When replacing deesplate or tuff, it generates as deesplate diamond ore generates from y 16 to y -64 when diamond ore replaces deepslate or tuff.") but I fear even that would lead to inaccurate or missing information.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Things with similar name or appearance but different functionality

Each item or block with differences in obtaining or usage should have its own article.

Things like Mushroom, Mushroom Block, Fungus, Nylium, Suspicious Block, Sand, Beehive, Compass

 Support - Currently the Warped/Crimson situation is very inconsistent. The roots, vines, and wart blocks are all separated between warped/crimson, but nylium and fungus are still together. Huge mushrooms grown from red/brown mushrooms are completely different from each other when it comes to growth. Brown mushrooms emit light when placed. Additionally, "Mushroom Block" isn't the name of an actual block in the game, there are only "Red Mushroom Block" and "Brown Mushroom Block" Suspicious block is similarly not an actual block name, and their loot varies greatly based on generated location. Beehive page is covering both a crafted block and naturally generated block. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this apart from suspicious block. I  Oppose splitting suspicious block because those blocks are as identical as you can get, ignoring appearance. Archeology loot tables are structure dependent, not block dependent, so there is no difference in functionality. These blocks also aren't obtainable by players anyway so I don't think them generating in different structures is much of a reason to split. Though to be honest this is leaning into a soft oppose. These pages were originally split and it was fine. - Harristic | Talk 19:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe suspicious sand and suspicious gravel are obtainable in survival by having them fall into a bubble column and then the falling entity timing out. Mudscape (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely that wasn't something the game developers intended? — BabylonAS 19:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Compass has already been split. Beehive is also the only other article with 2 hardness and blast resistance values in a single infobox, like sandstone. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose on all but the beehive, as they're similar enough where I do not think a separate article is warranted for each. The beehive article, on the other hand, is a naturally generated block and a crafted block in one, with both having their own differences. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose on all but the beehive, as DarkShadow. It's getting really frustrating for all of these redirects. Bee Nest and Beehive are not really even that similar. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Beehive and bee nest have different hardness and blast resistance values, so the infobox for these is currently broken. A split should be done similar to undyed vs. dyed shulker box and candle variants, I recommend one page transcluding content from the other; otherwise, I would be seriously significantly concerned and worried about having 2 copies of the same exact content in "usage", that needs updating. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support for all of them, except compass. Compasses fall into the "just a temporal state change" category that makes, for me, something not worth to split, as lodestone compasses are actually just compasses that now point to some lodestone block, in a similar way to waxed copper. However, for the other blocks, I'd strongly support splitting them, because they're not only visually different, but some of them have different usages and properties (namely nylium and beehives and bee nests). Sand and red sand, while very identical, have very different places where they generate. And suspicious sand and suspicious gravel have different loot inside them, which makes them more worth to split, and mushrooms and mushroom blocks are found on different structures and generation. --Supeika (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Compass is already split into compass and recovery compass. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose on all except the beehive per DarkShadowTNT. BDJP ^(t|c) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much opinion on whether the pages have enough unique information to warrant splitting, aside from Compass which is already split and I believe should remain that way. However, I finding it cumbersome to parse out the unique information that does exist, similar to the previous situation with Wither Roses on the combined Flower page. For example, red sand obtaining information is mixed in with regular sand's, which I probably wouldn't care about if I'm looking for red sand, as well as common information to both blocks. The fact that only brown mushrooms emit light or that only warped fungi repel hoglins is also not obvious at first glance.

Should we consider having a clearer distinction between common and unique information, such as having additional subsections or maybe even introducing sprites for paragraphs with unique info? I don't really know how to make subsections work with the Sand example as the common information is secondary to the obtaining methods unique to each block. But sprites as a visual indicator would make it easier to identify, even in cases like Fungus#Breeding that are probably concise enough that subsections would be overkill. –Sonicwave ^talk 20:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose on all except for  Neutral for beehive, per my analysis in User:Delvin4519/Merged Pages, going through all of the articles on MCW. Too many gameplay similarities to duplicate. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 No clue, too many things are dumped into this single section. Should probably tackle them on a case-by-case basis. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Same as Babylon, struggling to think of a solid opinion on this one because there's many different examples that aren't really on the same level of granularity. We should revisit each page later. - Harristic | Talk 19:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Very different situations, so rapidfire:  Support mushroom,  Weak support mushroom block,  Strong support fungus,  Weak support nylium,  Unsure suspicious block,  Support sand,  Support beehive,  Strong support compass. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Compass is already split. Why are we discussing splitting an item that has already been split a long time ago? Can't split an item that has already been split. Delvin4519 (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe it refers to a lodestone compass. — BabylonAS 11:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For resource locations and registered items, there is only the regular compass "compass", and "recovery compass". There is no lodestone compass in game. In that sense, MCW already has separate articles for compass and recovery compasses. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Lodestone compasses have their own resource location and texture in Bedrock, and in Java they have their own translation key. So for all intents and purposes they are very different items for the player who isn't interested in how the item is implemented. In particular, it's impossible to turn a lodestone compass back into a regular compass, similar to how carved pumpkins cannot be turned back into pumpkins – it's a one-way transformation. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support, especially for Beehive and Compass (Normal and Lodestone ones are completely different things). Nylium and Fungus should be split for consistency reasons. Mushroom and Mushroom Block pages have tons of recipes and these pages are one big chaos, so that should have been done already. --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Mushroom blocks are not used in any crafting recipes at all. Mushroom items do, however. Mushroom blocks have too much overlap with each block variant, like the textures share textures with the mushroom stalk blocks vs. the brown and red mushroom blocks. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

General  Support, but  Weak oppose for suspicious blocks. Suspicious blocks are similar to infested blocks, they do have small differences in generation but overall they are the same thing. The loot doesn't depend on the block itself and they are not supposed to be obtained in Survival mode, so I imagine readers are more interested in general information about their behavior rather than specific differences between the two blocks. Though I can see a reason to split them if they add another suspicious block (e.g. dirt) with different behavior compared to sand and gravel. Overall I think each case should be discussed individually.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 17:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Coral

1. Dead coral variants should have separate articles from alive coral variants.
2. Coral variants should each have separate articles. (Tube, Brain, Bubble, Fire, Horn)

Things like Coral, Coral Fan, Coral Block

 Soft Oppose - All the coral variants are found in the same place, aren't craftable, and have no gameplay or infobox differences. They feel similar to copper oxidation stages to me, but slightly more unique. Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support Soft Support 1,  Oppose 2 - In general each article should only contain 1 copy of each variant. Also usages and obtaining for alive and dead variants are somewhat different. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting coral species variants should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe history.  Oppose splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Soft Oppose 1, the dead/alive variants are in the same boat as oxidation variants to me. I'm genuinely unsure about 2 though, I don't have a full opinion on it. - Harristic | Talk 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft Oppose, same as Harristic, - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft oppose 1, as of now there are no concrete gameplay differences between alive and dead corals, we might consider splitting them in the future if they become more unique.  Oppose 2, they are just visual variants, absolutely 0 differences among them.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose both per Capopanzo BDJP ^(t|c) 23:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support 1 - I feel dead coral should be split into its own article. It's different from the live coral, and it never spawns natuarally, as the player has to obtain live coral, place it down, and wait. Live coral, you just have to find and break it. I think this should be split. That being said, I  oppose 2. Coral varients are exactly the same with the sole exception of appearance. Therefore, if they were to be split, it would be basically the exact same as the coral pages that exist right now. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I didn't even notice that dead coral dosn't spawn naturally on Java since it's buried with all of the information about live corals, hence I now  Strong Support 1 splitting live from dead corals. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose both per Capopanzo. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support for 1, indecisive for 2. Dead coral variants are functionally different from their live counterparts. I'm undecided on splitting up the coral types, because they are functionally exchangeable in every aspect but color and pattern, so the pages would be identical except for the name and images. I guess the features the coral blocks generate in have different general shapes, but there is no difference for coral and coral fan generation.– Unsigned comment added by Wormbo (talk • contribs). Sign comments with ~~~~

 Comment, Good reasoning for #1. Live coral and dead coral are about as different as blocks of copper grates is to chiseled copper. There are 6 types of each coral variant, so there should be 6 articles on the types of various blocks of coral. It would be consistent given the two dimensional nature of coral blocks (5 coral species, 6 coral blocks). Delvin4519 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support 1 & 2. Dead coral blocks are variants that are irreversible changes to their living variants. If a player wanted to change them back to being alive they won't be able to, similar to copper blocks to cut copper, or from hyphae to stripped hyphae. Regarding color variants, these aren't interchangeable in anything: different IDs, visual differences. I would say that as a reader, individual pages for these would be better. --Supeika (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support 1 - dead coral has significant differences from live coral. Any further splits should follow the colored block decision. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Definite support for 1,  unsure about 2. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support splitting dead coral (they're distinct building blocks),  Weak oppose splitting coral color variants, there's literally no difference between them apart from texture. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support 1,  Oppose 2 Dead corals have different sounds, block ids and history from the alive ones. As for all variants, that would be duplicate information and we would have create one more article for the base dead coral variant, which got removed during Update Aquatics' development --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Undyed variants

Things that have both undyed and dyed variants should have separate articles for the undyed variant. Note: Glass/Glass Pane has already been agreed to be split into Stained Glass and Stained Glass Pane

Things like Terracotta, Glass, Glass Pane, Shulker Box, Candle, Illager Banner

 Strong Support - A block about colored items should only have 16 colors. There are only 16 colors of dyes. Case studies: undyed candles can be dyed, but dyed candles cannot be dyed. Dyed shulker boxes can be undyed, but not undyed shulker boxes. Undyed shulker boxes have different crafting recipes from dyed shulker boxes. This follows the policy of "information in obtaining and usage must be majority (>50%?) relevant for the reader's item of interest" policy regarding granularity I am suggesting. (Note: I place heavy emphasis and heavy penalty for irrelevant crafting recipes in raw percentage, since they are attention grabbing and consume a lot of screen space)

Another example: Dying terracotta would belongs in the "usage" section for undyed terracotta, as it is a use of undyed terracotta. For dyed terracotta, the crafting recipe for dying terracotta belongs in "obtaining", since one has to dye undyed terracotta to obtain dyed terracotta.

Inventory pages already differentiate undyed entries from dyed entries. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: Undyed variants of glass, glass pane, terracotta, shulker box, and candle, currently use the default unprefixed title. For the overview page on all variants to exist, we would need overview pages titled "stained glass", "stained glass pane", "dyed terracotta", "dyed candle", and "dyed shulker box". There will be "colored" prefix redirects redirecting to the "dyed" prefix. The overview pages should not cover undyed variants anyways if dyed variants are split into 16 colors. Undyed variant pages can fetch and load content from these overview pages for the "usage" sections. The complexity of doing so isn't too signficant. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Idk, it seems like already has been decided, and it doesn't seem like anyone is going to listen to me, so  Support - GXDdcZ123 | talk 21:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear your take on things Mudscape (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Dont worry, now, i  Support - GXDdcZ123 | talk 22:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose candle and shulker box, these are unique blocks with special properties and usage which don't change between the undyed and dyed variants - the average reader is interested about that, by splitting these pages you'd end up with either duplicating a large chunk of the page, or redirecting the reader to the undyed page for the information they are actually interested in. I think it's better to have all of them on the same page rather than splitting them simply because dyed shulker boxes have a minor interaction with cauldrons or dyed candles can't be redyed, that can be described just fine in the general shulker box and candle pages.  Support stained glass, stained glass pane, and stained terracotta because they are simple building blocks and their usage is different enough to warrant a split.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

All the duplicate content is only found in the "usage" section. One can just simply set up the noinclude tags, and then transclude the proper information accordingly on the "dyed candle/shulker box" page. However, IMO, undyed vs dyed shulker box and candles have barely failed to pass the test of "majority of information in obtaining and usage applicable for all variants". Less than half of the obtaining section would match for the undyed variants and dyed variants, plus it also has the same issue of the "dye the item" recipe is supposed to appear in different locations for the undyed version and the dyed version. The "dye the candle" recipe is supposed to appear in the "usage" section of the undyed candle page. We also don't even explicitly mention the fact that dyed candles can't be redyed. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I simply think the stuff in common between undyed and dyed candles/shulker boxes is much more important than the unique features dyed candles/shulker boxes have compared to their default variant, and those minor differences are not enough for splitting undyed and dyed variants. Crafting recipes for dyed candles would simply appear once in the obtaining section of the candle page, no need to list it again in the usage section - technically yes it's a recipe that uses candles, but you have to be a little flexible.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Transclusion of content from the shulker box page to the dyed shulker page is ridculously easy as it is all from conseutive sections in the "usage" section. The same goes for candles. For all the other proposed page splits, those would cause a lot more touble than it's worth due to the more complex nature of all the other proposed splits. Also it is inconsistent with the style guide for regular candles to appear as a recipe in the obtaining section as it is used as "usage" to make a dyed candle. Also, to get to dyed candles and shulker boxes in game, one has to first craft the regular shulker box and the regular candle in order to access any of the dyed shulker boxes or dyed candles. I suppose dyed candles generate naturally in the wild, but via crafting, one has to go through the undyed variant before getting to any of the dyed variants. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The obtaining section in candle is perfectly clear as is without having to split it between obtaining and usage.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 00:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still not in compliance with the style guide as the use of undyed candles and undyed shulker boxes are not in the correct section. Once one crafts an undyed shulker box or an undyed candle, the crafting process to create a dyed shulker box or candle should be in "usage", not "obtaining". Please refer to MCW:Style guide/Features. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The style guide is not a law set in stone that needs to be followed rigorously all the time, a bit of flexibility to make pages more straightforward doesn't hurt anybody. In this case I feel there's absolutely no need to split (or even worse, duplicate) the recipes simply because the "style guide said so", it would just make information slightly more annoying to access for readers. Splitting these pages on the sole basis of "well the style guide says the dyed candle recipe using the undyed candle should be in usage, not obtaining" is frankly ridiculous.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 00:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Even then, it would still not properly reflect the level of progression in the game to get to dyed shulker boxes or candles. To get to deepslate tiles, one has to go from deepslate bricks, via crafting. We don't merge deepslate tiles with deepslate bricks. Why should dyed candles be merged with undyed candles (and shulker boxes)? Deepslate bricks and tiles have identical functionality and can be crafted into stairs, slabs, and walls, and they can also be smelted to be cracked. Yet they are split. If deepslate bricks and tiles can be split, then we should split undyed shulker boxes and candles from dyed shulker boxes and candles. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Because dyed shulker boxes and dyed candles are just the same as the undyed variants, and unlike building blocks they have very special and unique behavior that readers will be interested in. Yes you can just transclude stuff, but still IMHO it doesn't make sense to split color variants when the main information readers want is completely absolutely 100% identical. You can split building blocks as much as you want, because they usually have no specific behavior and readers will check those page specifically for the obtaining methods and usage recipes. If I check a shulker box page it's because I want to know how shulker boxes work in general, the fact I need a regular shulker box to craft a dyed version is something I can see in obtaining, and the fact dyed boxes can be washed in water cauldrons is a single line in usage. Having two "shulker box" and "dyed shulker box" pages when the main meat of the page is identical - regardless of transclusion - is unnecessary. I don't think we're ever going to agree and I really don't want to repeat my same opinion all night, I think we can just agree to disagree here.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 01:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

If Mojang had still retained the data value formats prior to the flattening, undyed candles and shulker boxes would have to be located in a different resource location than the rest of the dyed variants. For exmaple, undyed terracotta had to be located in a different resource location from every single other 16 colors of terracotta, pre-flattening on Java. The same would have been true for shulker boxes and candles had we used the pre-1.12 system for longer time. Undyed shulker boxes were added in a completely different update from the rest of the other 16 colors of shulker boxes. On Legacy Console, shulker boxes came in the exploration update 1.11, but undyed shulker boxes were only added on PS4 edition before it's discontinuation, but after the discontinuation on xbox 360, PS3, etc. There is a whole variant of shulker box missing on some of the legacy discontinued editions. New 3DS Edition doesn't have an undyed shulker box either. On Java, undyed shulker boxes were added 2 updates after the rest of the shulker boxes. If we leave the current articles as is, it would be inconsistent with progression of the game (see deepslate bricks/tiles), it is also inconsistent with the style guide (undyed -> dyed recipe should be in usage vs. crafting for undyed/dyed articles), and it also wouldn't accurately reflect the fact there is no undyed variant on some of Minecraft editions. We'd also be making things more inconsistent by splitting glass, glass pane, and terracotta; but not doing undyed shulker boxes or undyed candles. Right now it is all consistent since all of them is grouped in a single article. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I completely forgot to mention that illager banners are grouped in banners. Perhaps we also we'd need to split that.  Strong support splitting illager banner. 90% of the crafting and usage information is completely irrelevant for illager banners. They're also in completely different tabs in Creative. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment (again), per another secondary test that can be used to test for page splits, we can't put the crafting recipe for undyed vs. dyed crafting recipe into a combined animated crafting recipe. This fails the test too and would support splitting undyed vs. dyed variants. Illager banners don't even have a crafting recipe since it has 7 patterns. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose splitting out regular glass panes, as I don't find the single case of them being used to lock maps enough to make a crucial difference. Their other unique functional usage is just an alternative way to craft dyed glass panes.
•  I'd however support splitting out stained glass blocks however, because regular glass has many recipes that stained glass can't be used in.
•  Not really sure about terracotta, the only recipe that requires raw terracotta (that isn't crafting dyed variants) is duplicating some armor trim templates. Also, if we split out dyed terracotta variants, we'd have to come up with an invented name for the dyed variants - "Stained Clay" is no longer a thing since Java Edition 1.12 and its Bedrock equivalent.
•  Oppose splitting dyed candles and shulker boxes, for the similar lack of functional differences that aren't related to applying or removing dyes.

— BabylonAS 06:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment Regular variants should only be split if colored variants get individual articles. Otherwise, my opinions stand as they were, with an additional argument against splitting dyed shulker boxes being the fact they can be undyed, unlike candles or glass panes. Oh, and I definitely  Support a separate article for the Illager/Ominous Banner. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - Visual differences are not inherently less important than functional differences. That is an editorial choice that should not affect whether a block gets a page. Choosing to group block pages by function would, however, be a good candidate for an overview/category page, as long as it is made explicit what function(s) are necessary for inclusion in that page. | Enbyd (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - Per Enbyd. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a case-by-case basis. The pages we already have (stained glass, stained glass pane) can remain as-is. I'm  opposed to splitting Shulker box, candles and terracotta as they remain unchanged in function dyed or not. Additionally, other than the texture, properties like hardness don't change. I'm  in support of splitting the Illager banner, however, given it has properties unique to the other banners, like raid members can become captain if they pick it up from the ground and the fact it has eight patterns, which makes it unobtainable in survival. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support on the basis that the undyed variants of these blocks usually have fundamentally different ways of obtaining and usage. For the ominous banner in particular, I'd support the split as well, since it's a banner that cannot be created by the player and has special in-game meaning. Wormbo (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - per all the above Ishbosheth (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose splitting shulker box per Capopanzo; this block is primarily known for its functionality and isn't likely to get used as a building block, and it seems really unintuitive to have separate pages just because of the color. I'm not convinced if transcluding content between pages will lead to an intuitive editing experience or resolve the duplicate content issue. I'd probably oppose candle as well due to the similarities and lack of differences. –Sonicwave ^talk 01:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support splitting of ominous/illager banner (deciding on which lemma to take will be fun),  Support all others. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Shulker boxes and candles per Capazone,  Neutral about all other splits --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Individual dyed variants

Things that have 16 color variants should have separate articles for each color.

Things like Wool, Carpet, Terracotta, Glazed Terracotta, Concrete Powder, Concrete, Stained Glass, Stained Glass Pane Candle, Shulker Box, Bed, Banner

 Soft Strong support, except for Banner. Some of these examples aren't even the proper in game name, since the item/block only exists in dyed form. The Dyes page is already split into individual colors and they are clear and concise pages that are easy to parse for information. Banner is a special case where there are far more available designs than just the 16 colors and I don't see any reason to split that. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing how I myself use the wiki, and how I think other readers are likely to use the wiki, I have updated my stance to strong support. It is immensely important that we do things at the level that readers are expecting, and I would expect to be able to see "Orange Wool" information on its own, if that is what I was searching for. Mudscape (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose. This seems like a pointless task. The dye used in the recipeand the visual is the only difference. I also believe that search terms like "aqua wool minecraft" are almost non existent. Comparing it to Dyes is a bad argument, every dye has a different unique way to obtain it. What more can you say on a "Red Wool" page than "This is wool but crafted using red dye. It has a red color."? Misode (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose. An extremely pointless task. There is nothing different other than the dye itself. Note that even though wood stuff have some slight, very minor differences; dyes, corals, and wood need to go all at once. If we split wood, we must split dyes and corals. If we don't split dyes or corals, we can't split wood variants.

Also very inconsistent that banners aren't split, but other dyed blocks are. Dye items are okay since the way to obtain dyes is different. However once you have the dye, the dyed blocks are all exactly the same. There is no need to split dyed blocks.

Note that undyed versions of glass, glass pane, terracotta, shulker box, and candle have different recipes, and in some cases, its uses and crafting uses differ from dyed variants. Suggest splitting for all 5 undyed variants. For example, dyed candles can't be re-dyed, and undyed candles are obtained with a crafting recipe different from dyed candles. Dyed shulker boxes can be undyed, but undyed shulker boxes can't be undyed, and it also has different crafting recipe. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Note: splitting these pages should require upgrades to MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc. to allow these pages to auto-generated and auto-updated from a single source/copy of text, except for maybe natural generation and history.  Oppose splitting without the necessary updates in place ready to go for MCW wiki templates/modules/scripts, etc.

Undyed variants of glass, glass pane, terracotta, shulker box, and candle, currently use the default unprefixed title. For the overview page on all variants to exist, we would need overview pages titled "stained glass", "stained glass pane", "dyed terracotta", "dyed candle", and "dyed shulker box". There will be "colored" prefix redirects redirecting to the "dyed" prefix. The overview pages should not cover undyed variants anyways if dyed variants are split into 16 colors. Undyed variants are different anyways for obtaining and usage. People should not have to shop for a exact variant of dyed shulker box to find out how to undye a dyed shulker box. Hence an overview page called "dyed candle", "dyed shulker box", and "dyed terracotta", etc., etc. should all still exist. Sometimes one wants to find how to undye a shulker box or smelt dyed terracotta, without having to shop for a specific color. Plus, we should auto-load content from the overview pages, or have an overview page fetch content from the individual pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why "If we split wood, we must split dyes and corals. If we don't split dyes or corals, we can't split wood variants." is true? For example I might be in favor of splitting corals, but not wood or dyes. I see no conflicts or problems with this. (I'm also assuming when you say "splitting dyes" you mean "splitting dyed variants, since the dyes are already split) - Misode (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If you do a Creative inventory test, look at all the stuff in the Creative inventory. It should be more than clear that wooden items, dyed items, coral items, and copper items, should all be grouped together. This makes it easier to know for what the reader to expect when they go onto the wiki. They'd know to expect that anything about planks, signs, wool, copper doors, dead coral blocks, would all be grouped together, when they go onto the wiki. Also, see my note regarding SEO. Most people will search up "planks", "coral blocks", "wool", or "copper door". Less people search "oak planks" or "yellow wool". Also, the argument about most people playing survival, go take a look at the recipe book as well. Dyed and wood items are all grouped together. Even Java's disorganized recipe book still groups stems and logs together. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. Dyed blocks are the definition of completely identical apart from appearance. Everything about them will always be identical apart from sometimes one or two variants appear in chest loot, but that is it, and I don't think that could warrant a split on its own when everything else is identical. - Harristic | Talk 19:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose, same as Harristic. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 No Way. Harristic summarised it all. — BabylonAS 19:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Amendment I'm no longer quite sure on this one. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose functionally identical, the only thing that changes is the dye used in the crafting recipe, and some minor information about natural generation or chest loot which can be described just fine in a general page.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 opposed as mentioned above. ManyOursOfFun (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per above signed. Köpleres (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support. Groups of dyed blocks make perfect sense for an overview. Grouping by base block is an arbitrary choice. It is just as reasonable to consider grouping dyed variants by the color of dye used. To enable this grouping flexibility, it is necessary to be able to address individual blocks and group information about them up in different ways depending on chosen rules. | Enbyd (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly consider another possibility. We can review and restart a new discussion of Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 28#Color disambiguation pages, and suggest undeletion of of the <color name> disambiguation page, and have that page list all items with said color. Given the fork and several changes, this would be an alternative worth considering. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose per Harristic. We'd have 16 identical pages barring the color. If one thing changes, you'd have to make 16 edits to get these pages up-to-date and the chance one is overlooked is large. If you really, really must, you might as well make a template for them, that's how identical these pages would be. Splitting these pages would be the definition of "splitting for the sake of splitting". DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also makes tracking the recent changes page more difficult if each edit is in 16 edits. That increases the risk of vandalism slipping through, in addition to colored pages and individual pages having less traffic and split traffic on split pages making it take longer for it to be noticed. Someone could literally add a false statement on pink wool, and noone would probably notice for a while. I also mentioned the issue of texture updates would be much more cumbersome for experienced editors if articles are all split. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose, absolutely not, please... This is so much pointless work. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose. The only part that could make sense IMHO is treating white wool/carpet as the undyed variant of those block types and treat them under that split decision. Wormbo (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - I've thought about this some more, and I've actually had a close look at the wool page. Now let's do a little thought experiment, let's say I've just searched for "magenta wool", let's see everything that is either irrelevant or just strange to me on the wool page, from top to bottom:

1) The rather hideous infobox with 16 separate tabs for each colour that I don't care about

2) Literally the entirety of the natural generation section

3) Literally the entirely of the chest loot section (takes up nearly the entire screen on my 1920px display)

4) The first crafting recipe

5) The second crafting recipe, it's rather confusing as the constantly switching images can make it a bit difficult to tell what is actually being conveyed here, just having the matching dye and wool colour animated and not having this third wool colour that is also animated and generally throws things out of wack would be much nicer

6) Literally the entirety of the trading usage section

7) I get to deal with animated recipes when I otherwise wouldn't have to as much

8) The data values section takes up sixteen times as much space as it otherwise would have if it just listed the block I searched for (that takes up my entire screen on my 1920px display, oh wait...there's two tables, if my screen size were doubled it would still take up the entire screen)

9) And finally, we of course have the very long history section that could've been otherwise shortened

10) Literally the entire gallery section

Almost all of these points will apply to the other dyed block pages. It is always going to be better for the reader to just get a page on the block they searched for, no matter how similar they seem. Dyed blocks seem like the prime example of identical apart from appearance, and yet just by taking a closer look at the page (yknow, thinking like a READER), I have found all of this. Please understand that managing to find 10 things on a page that would be completely irrelevant for someone searching up simply a block name, even assuming that person cares about every single detail about that block, is just bad. Unlike with copper oxidation variants, you can obtain different wool colours without having touched the "original" variant (which we'll consider white wool), and people will search for the thing they have found. If you obtain bamboo wood and you wanna know what it does, you'll search bamboo wood, the same applies here. - Harristic | Talk 19:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As for point 1 and 10, renders were supposed to be removed from infoboxes and there should be a link linking to the "Renders" section with renders, but somebody added renders back to the infobox. --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

To my understanding, it was User:Mudscape, the one making the proposal, the user themself, that added the infobox with 16 tabs. See here. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I think the 16 tabs in the infobox are fine – when it gets over that limit it becomes to messy (i.e. slab). If there's too many blocks to show in an infobox, it is a clear indicator that the page should be split though. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Per Harristic - Im Wired In (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - This is probably the most drastic of changes, and I'm unsure where I stand. On one hand there are benefits to the split like Harristic said, but on the other hand most of the time I don't think I would want to be by default directed to these individual pages, like I said with potions. If we split this we should split pretty much everything else, with few exceptions. (the main exception I would think of would be copper varients). Ishbosheth (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're only going to directed to these individual pages if you're searching for individual colours, an overview page would still exist (it would be so silly if it didn't), we could also have a "For an overview of all wool, see wool" thingy at the top of each page. - Harristic | Talk 14:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This does not work for undyed terracotta, shulker box, and candle as their in game names don't have a prefix. Where would the overview pages be located for dyed terracotta, shulker box, and candle; be located at? If I type in "shulker box", I will be taken to the undyed shulker box page. "Shulker box" is the in game name of the undyed shulker box. What should the overview page for 16 colors of shulker boxes be titled as? Delvin4519 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Shulker box (overview)" possibly? Similar to how egg is the name of an item but we have egg (disambiguation). - Harristic | Talk 14:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Shulker Box (dyed)" is my immediate thought, where "Shulker Box" is the undyed variant. Although is there really a need for a dyed shulker box overview? "Its a shulker box that is dyed a color" can just be on "Orange Shulker Box" etc. - Mudscape (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I do want such a page titled "Dyed Shulker Box". Where can one find the information to undye a dyed shulker box, if it's not in the undyed shulker box page? Otherwise one has to go shopping for a specific color of shulker box to get this information. Also, where would this information be transcluded from? One shouldn't have to update 16 pages of "Shulker boxes can be undyed in a cauldron", should Mojang decide to change this functionality into something else. Plus, the undyed shulker box would only contain a crafting recipe of dyeing an undyed shulker box into a color. Dyed shulker boxes can also be re-dyed into different colors. Where would this information be found, aside from shopping for a specific color of shulker box, or updating 16 pages of it? This applies for all dyed shulker boxes.

If there is no overview page for dyed candles, dyed shulker boxes, or dyed terracotta, I will be  strong opposed to splitting dyed variants. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Updating 16 pages isn't hard, even for new editors. Figuring out transclusion is very difficult for new editors, to the point I believe many would just not edit. Undyed "shulker box" page would include undying as a method of obtaining a shulker box. You also cite "go shopping for a specific color" but how do you end up wanting to know how to undye a shulker box without first having a specific dyed variant in mind? Transclusion in general is just changing where the problem is, there is a balance between maintainability and accessibility and I think too much transclusion pushes that balance too far away from accessibility to new editors (I believe the reader experience would be identical between transclusion/manual prose so that isn't a factor here) Let me put together a mockup of some pages so we can actually see how it looks and I'll let you know when the mockups are ready. Mudscape (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why have an overview page for all wool, if there isn't an overview page for dyed shulker boxes? I am very confused. The introduction of this forum states that there will be overview pages. The only way to keep that promise provided in the forum, is to promise an overview page for dyed candles, dyed shulker boxes, and dyed terracotta. We will have one for wool. I don't see any good reasoning why that can't apply here. It breaks the promise in the forum, that dyed blocks will have overview pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not mean to say we definitely won't have an overview page for colored shulker boxes, I am simply exploring options to see what is best. I've created User:Mudscape/Shulker Box and User:Mudscape/Orange Shulker Box as a quick mockup of one way it is possible to have these specific pages be made. In my editing I could not see a need for something like "Colored Shulker Box" page, but I also haven't seen what it would look like. The (mockup) shulker box page itself covers just about everything I can think would go on a colored shulker box page. I cannot imagine nearly any scenario where a user would be looking for a colored shulker box without having at least 1 specific color in mind. By the way, one area of notable improvement in my mockups would be easy links to the other colors, maybe this is enough to warrant a colored shulker box overview page, or maybe a thematic navbox would work better. I am happy to be proven wrong, I'm just going off my own experiences. Mudscape (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Per discussionn is discord, mockups of User:Delvin4519/Dyed Shulker Box and User:Delvin4519/Dyed Candle have been made. Pages like these and "Wooden Trapdoor", "Wooden Fence", and "Wooden Slab", etc. are still valuable to have as disambiguation/overview hybrid pages. These pages can contain links to all colored/wooden variants, show common animated crafting recipes/breaking times in a less cluttered format than the top-level overview page, and show up in search results, unlike redirects. These pages can utilize auto-transcluded content. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose at least for now. I don't feel like there's enough differences between each dyed variant to warrant a 16-way split. We can maybe think about this again when we have split all the other stuff. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - All these blocks are functionally the same with only different textures and different dyes in their crafting recipes. There are also some differences in natural generation, but this information will likely be unimportant for the majority of readers. They will probably be more interested in the general properties of wool, candles, shulker boxes or whatever. Though, do keep in mind, this is just an assumption... ZacNVR (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"There are also some differences in natural generation, but this information will be likely be unimportant for the majority of readers." This sounds like an argument for splitting. - Harristic | Talk 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so. In my discussion, I'm more than happy to address points from both sides, but ultimately, I do not consider this to be significant enough to warrant a split. Looking at the articles themselves, these sections alone wouldn't warrant a split, as there would only be very little unique information.

However, I am now a little  Unsure after looking at the data values sections. They are rather unwieldly with 16 (sometimes 17) different items (especially Wool#Data values). Of course, we could make the tables collapsible, or perhaps it does warrant a split after all. ZacNVR (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Misode --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Copper

1. Blocks that oxidize should have one article per oxidation level.
2. Blocks that can have waxed should have separate articles for waxed and unwaxed.

Things like Block of Copper, Cut Copper, Copper Bulb, Copper Door, Copper Grate, Copper Trapdoor, Chiseled Copper

 Oppose 1 & 2 - Copper can freely be waxed/unwaxed and oxidation is similarly easy to change. There is no major gameplay difference between any oxidation state. The copper bulb has a varying light level with oxidation, but I do not think that alone warrants a split. - Mudscape (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose 1 & 2 - There's a catch. If we're splitting wood, then we also have to split dyes, corals, and copper blocks. If we aren't splitting copper blocks, we shouldn't split wood. I can make the same excuse as "nether wood can't be used in a furnace" for every single wooden product, with the same excuse as "only unwaxed copper can be waxed", etc., for all of the copper block families. It's literally the same exact use case difference. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - I suppose copper variants, and amethyst buds are really weird to have growth stages have individual blocks, unlike stuff like wheat growth stages and redstone dust strength levels. Then again, if MCW gains the ability to auto-generate pages for wool, I suppose it would be consistent if these pages are auto-generated and auto-updated (aside from like history). Manual page splits, on the other hand, are pointless, so  Oppose manual page splits for these. Also, copper bulbs have different light levels, so only unoxidized copper bulbs can melt snow. Unoxidized copper blocks can't be unoxidized, but oxidized variants can't oxidize further. There's also the issue of where should the overview page go? This is due to article page names using the same title as the unoxidized, unwaxed variant. So we will need a new name for the overview page if split. Maybe make the overview page use a plural title, or suffixed with "blocks" "(overview)"? This one is slightly harder to deal with than wool, coral, and wood; however I would still suggest if possible, that these go with them if possible. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but I think the difference between these examples is rather obvious. Logs and stems are not variants of each other, they are clearly separated by their name, their dimension of origin, and their flammability. Oxidized variants of copper blocks are just that, variants, and they can literally only be obtained by placing down the original first stage and waiting. Waxed copper blocks are basically just nbt variants of copper blocks but Mojang implemented it poorly. - Harristic | Talk 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Logs and stems are grouped together when crafting in the Java Edition recipe book in survival mode, when crafting wood and hyphae. It's not just Creative. It's clear Mojang thinks that these have very similar and identical functionality in all but name. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What's the relevance? They are definitely not variants in the same sense that copper oxidation stages are variants, the copper oxidation stages literally can't exist without the original. - Harristic | Talk 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Mudscape. - Harristic | Talk 19:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose Same as Mudscape - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 19:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - Unlike so many other cases, here I find Mudscape's opinion to be right. — BabylonAS 19:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose This doesn't feel like it would add anything of value, and would create many more fairly short, or even basically duplicate pages, and make navigating information regarding copper blocks confusing and tedious for readers. While having a hard split between some pages, like logs and stems, makes sense, this really doesn't. Jjlrjjlr (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per Mudscape and Jjlrjjlr. Köpleres (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose Too many similarities. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 16:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - For obvious reasons. --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose both, as the only difference is the oxidation state (and the accompanying visual). If split, these pages would basically come down to "<oxidation level> Copper <thing> is the <nth> stage of Copper <thing>'s oxidation". The effect of waxing can (and is) mentionable in one or two sentences. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Soft oppose as both oxidization and waxing are reversible changes to the block that just happen to persist into its item form and can propagate through crafting/cutting operations. The recipes themselves don't change, with the exception that the basic copper block only is craftable in unoxidized form. The names of the oxidization stages and that a waxed state exists should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph at the top of each of these articles. Splitting here is basically purely for SEO, without much usability benefit. The copper bulb may change functionally (light level), but that kind of change is also known from candles or sea pickles, so the bulb should not get a different treatment from other copper-based blocks. Wormbo (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose - splitting info about stuff like the copper bulb light level among several pages would be horrible for user experience. I don't think an overview page would help here either - I can imagine a reader sometimes being directed to the overview and sometimes not and just ending up confused. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose per points given above. Logically, I would think of a copper item as still remaining the same item after being oxidized, instead of suddenly turning into a different one. –Sonicwave ^talk 23:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong oppose – seems obvious that this would be too much, they act as the same block that has different states. The fact that it's technically 8 different blocks each is an implementation detail which I don't think is really relevant for the average reader, and on the contrary would make things more confusing. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose per all above --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Signs and hanging signs

Split signs and hangings signs into two separate pages.

 Support - Signs and hanging signs have different crafting, different placement mechanics, different sounds, different text space, and hanging signs have collision while signs do not. The sign page is incredibly long because having these two blocks on the same page ends up meaning the sounds and data values sections are comically long. The infobox and galleries also have to display a ton of renders because there are 11 variants of these 2 blocks. The actual usage section is not that long and can be easily duplicated between pages. These blocks are very different and their similarity is their main use, which can be easily described on both pages without issue. - Harristic | Talk 20:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support - This is such an obvious split I forgot to even include it in the original proposal. Mudscape (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not so obvious for others like me. — BabylonAS 08:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support Same as Harristic. - GXDdcZ123 | Talk 20:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support - This is more than an obvious split. The gallery is already a mess with standing sign, wall sign, wall hanging sign, celing hanging sign. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per Harristic. Köpleres (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support Same as Harristic. --Wilf233_zhMCW（论▪功） 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support I agree with Harristic's summary. These pages would do well as category/overview pages for the various individual sign blocks. I say a bit more on this topic in wood product variants. | Enbyd (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Support per above. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support - Drour1234 (talk) 08:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

why? Ishbosheth (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong Support Seems strange to me they were combined in the first place. Ishbosheth (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Unsure. Maybe separating hanging signs could work well if the hanging sign article piggybacks on the article about regular signs, which I guess a player would encounter more frequently. This would be a relation similar to boat and boat with chest, though the latter is actually crafted using the former. Note however that this is affected by the discussion on splitting stuff depending on the wood type: if we do split signs by the type of wood, not splitting them along the regular/standing line would definitely be weird. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support – different shape, different amount of text, different placement styles, different crafting recipe, different materials; different articles. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong support Different blocks, different crafting recipes and different variants of hanging signs. --TreeIsLife (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support Signs and hanging signs are two different blocks, which only share the functionality of having text, but they have completely different positioning, mechanics, crafting recipes and sounds. The triple g (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Regular and sticky pistons

1. Sticky Piston should get a separate article from Piston.
2. Piston Head and Moving Piston (formerly known as Blocks 34 and 36 respectively) should get separate articles.

---

•  Support #1 — Two types of pistons have varying use cases, with the sticky pistons having crucial functional differences from regular pistons. Many contraptions strictly require one type or the other, with the wrong type potentially being able to break the mechanism. A separate sticky piston article could possibly make it harder to mix the two up. For shared information, I believe we should treat a sticky piston as a subclass of piston, much like a boat with chest is a subclass of boat, and have the sticky piston article refer to the regular piston one but add information on where do they differ, such as the inability to pull glazed terracotta or blocks that would be broken during a push attempt.
•  Strong support #2 — Block 34 and Block 36 have very specific technical niches and not normally obtainable in Survival at all. Their main selling points are various curiosities arising when they're somehow placed separately from pistons. They are also relevant to both piston types.

— BabylonAS 06:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support 1 & 2 - Per Babylon. Sticky pistons are fairly different compared to regular pistons (especially in comparison to several of the topics here) and the technical significance of block 34/36 is certainly significant enough for those who wish to search for it. Ishbosheth (talk) 06:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

 support both – although I was initially unsure how the "sticky piston" article might look, I do believe this is better overall, as it allows for readers to first learn about the piston and how it works without getting distracted by the inticracies of the sticky piston. It wouldn't be necessary to re-explain how a piston works on the sticky piston page. The technical blocks seem irrelevant to the piston themselves and absolutely deserve their own articles IMO. | violine1101 ^(talk) 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support no #2 proposal to split moving piston (block 34 and block 36).  Neutral on no #1. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong supportDrour1234 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Red and brown mushrooms

Split red and brown mushrooms into two different pages.

 Support. They are different items used in different ways. There are crafting recipes where you need exactly one of each type, which feels very weird if they go to the same page. — Misode (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support - They are two different items. --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose - This falls into the category of overview pages that cover only two blocks or items (the others being deepslate ore, beehive, nylium, fungus, nether roots, sponge, suspicious block, item frame, piston, and map). Mushroom has a very long history section with changes that applies to both mushrooms. Currently leaning towards  strong oppose, athough some of them do have some differences, given the long history section applying to both mushrooms.

I would keep both mushrooms together and keep both fungi together.

Recommend waiting until a final decision is made for fungus and saplings.  put this on hold.

Related items to this topic includes Nether Roots, Nylium, and Nether Wart Blocks, these are extremely inconsistent. Nylium is merged but it makes sense (too similar). Nether Wart Blocks are split and do not have an overview page. Nether Roots have an overview page and split articles so that thing has 3 copies of the same exact information (yikes, no good). Either delete the overview page and turn it into a disambiguation page, or re-merge crimson and warped roots back into nether roots.

Delvin4519 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong supportDrour1234 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support them being on the same page is misleading since they often cannot be used interchangeably in the game. | violine1101 ^(talk) 03:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Mushroom block variants

Split mushroom block into three different pages: red mushroom block, brown mushroom block, and mushroom stem.

 Support. They visually three very different blocks. They drop different items (different color mushroom). Even though they generate as part of the same feature, we also don't put logs and leaves on the same page. — Misode (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose, There are 4 mushroom blocks using only 2 block IDs in Bedrock Edition. On Java Edition, placing any of its 3 types of mushroom blocks together can create the 4th variant of Mushroom Block that exists on Bedrock Edition. These variants are too intertwined and not easy to separate out. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment. I have double checked the mushroom block page and I don't see what makes the mushroom stem signficantly different from the mushroom blocks. The texture placement is the same with Mushroom Stems and Mushroom Blocks on Java Edition. On Bedrock Edition there is the same functionality of Mushroom Stems with Mushroom Blocks when mining and using the composter. There is no functional difference of Mushroom Stems on Bedrock Edition. Hence I now  Strong Oppose splitting mushroom blocks. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support splitting stem from mushroom blocks - I would support splitting the stem from the mushroom blocks, as the stems are different from the blocks. However, I'd  Oppose splitting the two mushroom blocks that remain. They are just too similar. --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Strong supportDrour1234 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Support if we also split regular mushrooms. If not, it doesn't make much sense to split this, as the blocks are functionally identical. | violine1101 ^(talk) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Final Thoughts

Minecraft used to be a much simpler game, there was only one tree, one log, one stair, one slab. This is the era when many of our current pages were created, a simple page detailing everything a reader wants to know about a simple block. We have since taken some of the simple pages and added “just one more block” many times over (up to 56 times!) until they are a jumbled mess of edge cases and special features all stuffed under one name.

As the old proverb says, “The best time to split slab was 4,632 days ago. The second best time is now.” Jokes aside, the point is it doesn’t matter how things have been done historically if there are better ways to do them now. Split pages are better for information accuracy, much better for search results (which is how most users get to the wiki), and better for attracting new editors. A first time editor is most likely to edit if a page is obviously missing information. Of course having terrible pages isn’t our goal, but it will be beneficial to everyone when a block with terrible coverage is on its own, unable to hide behind unrelated information.

This is a major opportunity for us to improve this site that we love so much. We are past the eras of technical limitations, slow page loads, and ads taking up more space than our content. It is time for us to become the #1 source for up to date, correct, and consistent Minecraft information.

Written by Mudscape (talk) & Enbyd (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Overall Discussion

Somewhat off topic but I wanted to say thank you to Enbyd and Mudscape for working on this proposal, this has been a topic of tons of discussion in the discord and it's great to have a clear and well laid out proposal about all of this. This also proves how much we needed the forum, a topic this elaborate and large just wouldn't work on the comportal. - Harristic | Talk 21:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

General granularity guideline

I think in general people on this forum are missing the point of creating concrete guidelines that apply to the wiki as a whole. Stuff like the cobble/mossy/stone stuff needs have consistent granularity across all pages. Having a random mixture of split and merged pages is the same as we have now which is inconsistent and confusing for everyone. Mudscape (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me across my replies my rough guidelines for granularity is approximately landing on the biggest one:

• 1) "A majority of the information in the "obtaining" and "usage" sections should be relevant for all variants".
  • Are the majority of information in these 2 sections relevant for all variants?
  • Does the page use animated crafting recipes? Other minor factors to consider:
• 2) "Gameplay progression": The item in of itself shouldn't appear in "obtaining", if it's a "usage" of said item (see style guide).
• 3) "Recipe book/nventory test":
  • How do players have to browse the item menus when crafting in the recipe book in Survival, or Creative inventory?
  • How would this affect the items they search for when browsing the wiki/searching on the web? (More people search up "planks" not "oak planks").
    • Things considered in the "inventory test": Related items (wooden items, dyed items, coral items, copper items, all grouped in inventory/recipe book) Generally consistent to have wooden, dyed, coral, and copper items together, given their block families consume a lot of space in the inventory, Mojang opted to lump them in submenus in the game.
    • To address "just one more block" problem: recommend capping wiki articles at 16 blocks as the max before splitting, as the game the wiki covers, Minecraft, had a historical precedent of being unable to have more than 16 variants in a single block ID prior to 1.13, and the 16 dyes never have the issue of "just one more block" yet, for the 16 colors of dye.

The text below is quite long, but is a detailed analysis of my above opinions, but in one place: (I may re-edit this as needed)[show]

I do not have an exact way to do this test other than each article has to be evaluated to see if the information is applicable to all variants. Note that for instances like swords, stairs, and walls, the tables are needlessly duplicative if the common process is exactly the same "i.e. 2 materials top and center, and stick at the bottom for sword; 3 full blocks for a slab". If thats the case, then the page is weighed heavily towards "majority of information is relevant for all variants". Note for swords, armor, and tools, acheivements are also weighed as well and contribute towards this weight. For example, the "Time to Strike!" acheivement works for all swords. Same with the pickaxe achievement, and crafting 3 of all tools doesn't matter the material. Based on how I've conducted the test, swords, tools, armors, stairs, walls, etc. all barely pass the test (ranging between 60-70% passing. Note: a passing grade means = do not split; failing grade = split article).

In the case of corals, dead corals don't generate on java, and also, the info about keeping coral blocks alive is irrelevant for dead coral blocks. Since there's no crafting recipe, they get penalized heavily on this test, and so they end up weighed to "split coral/dead coral". For grass/fern/large fern, a lot of the usage and obtaining info are specific to only for one block, so they also get split.

For wood related items, no nether fuel and no nether boats... barely contribute to the beheamoth that is over a dozen crafting recipes still applicable for all overworld and nether wood. As such, those exceptions barely contribute toward the percentage, so all wood articles passes this test and can stay together. Also most people do not come on the wiki for sounds, so cherry and bamboo sounds aren't a good justification for splitting, at least not yet (too early).

I also consider other things, such as style guide. For example: diorite and polished diorite: The crafting recipe for polished diorite would go in "usage" for regular diorite; and for polished diorite, it should go in "obtaining". This would suggest that the page should be split. Also the same test above would also suggest a split, since the crafting recipe for regular diorite is irrelevant for polished diorite, and polished diorite can't be used to craft andesite, granite, or walls. Therefore, diorite fails both tests and would require splitting polished diorite, as by that point, a majority of the info would be irrelevant for the polished variant and it also failed the second, minor test. Note that for unwaxed copper vs. waxed copper variants, waxing is more akin to the oxidation mechanic, and they don't have different textures for waxed variants, and also the lack of unique information, means that can't ever justify a split.

This also matches the consideration of gameplay progression and "not throwing info about unrelated blocks to readers". For example, to get to deepslate tiles, one must go through deepslate bricks to get to deepslate tiles via crafting. The same is true for undyed shulker boxes/candles to dyed shulker boxes/candles.

I'm still torn as what to do with walls/stairs/slabs, for "polished blackstone wall", the crafting recipe for that would go in "usage" for polished blackstone, and in "obtaining" for wall. Splitting them up would mean creating almost 100+ pages for them alone. I'm still leaning towards "oppose" for splitting them.

Other factors I consider are the article's question in relation to other related items. "dyed blocks only cover 16 blocks, cannot cover undyed variants in same page". All wood blocks and dyed blocks should stay together, using the "Creative inventory/recipe book test", where wood items and dyed items are always grouped together. This also has a rule of "no more than 1 copy of each variant/color", to keep articles covering variants simiplified, and matches the existing test above well. This test also would suggest splitting stripped variants from unstripped variants, hanging signs from signs, and dead corals from corals. Plus, their obtaining and usages differ quite a bit, matching previous tests and supports such splitting. (Note: inventory test supports keeping swords, shovels, chestplates together, but supports splitting turtle shell. A lot of info about helmets is irrelevant for turtle shell, so the original "majority of info relevant test" fails for turtle shell in combination with the "inventory test" also failing for turtle shell).

At this time, I do have a suggestion of trying to keep articles under 16/17 blocks total count, but it is not part of this test, and I'm still somewhat torn about it. That idea allows leaving the door open to splitting woods in the future if need be, or looking for other solutions for stairs, slabs, etc. It also allows keeping things consistent for readers if woods have 20 variants and are split unlike dyed blocks, and if woods have 11 variants, they are still together, like dyed blocks are (16 variants).

I believe this test does a good job of keeping wooden items, dyed items, coral items, and copper items grouped together. It also allows splitting of buttons and pressure plates into wooden and stone/blackstone? button/pressure plate articles, as those fail this test. (different activiation methods/usages, different breaking/natural generation times). This test does a decent job addressing the issue of "not throwing info about unrelated blocks" to the reader looking for info on a specific block, allows a good portion of blocks/items to be split, and keeps blocks/items that should be grouped together, together.

Delvin4519 (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I now support splits using a easier methodlogy of splitting, using the recipe book on Java Edition as a guide, with the catch that copper oxidation variants shouldn't be split, and that copper block families should be a single article. Note: stripped variants of logs and wood should still be split. These are my only two exceptions to this guideline that I have, as for now. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case of conclusion, I would be  significantly opposed to treating wooden variants of all wooden materials downright compeletely differently, from what the final treatment would be for dyed variants, coral species, or copper variants. That would be a huge, signficant, gargantuian significant inconsistency in the new guidelines proposed for granularity, and make the Minecraft Wiki, extremelely incosistent and potentially confusing for readers. Such a scenario should be avoided, and it is more than preferable to avoid such scenario from happening. If dyed colors, coral species, copper variants, etc., are split, go ahead and split wooden variants. If the first 3 aren't split, do NOT split wood variants. If wooden variants grows in the future (we can't predict it) to be larger than dyed colors, then fine, go ahead and split, but we can't predict that future. Delvin4519 (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I have published a full list of about all MCW articles covering merged blocks and items, and their respective statuses whether I support or oppose such a split:

List of MCW pages with or without my support for splits:[show]

• Leaves -  oppose wood variants,  split azalea/flowering azalea leaves
  • Sapling -  Oppose
  • Log -  Oppose
  • Stripped Log -  Oppose
  • Wood -  Oppose
  • Stripped Wood -  Oppose
  • Planks -  Oppose
  • Wooden Stairs -  Oppose
  • Wooden Slab -  Oppose
  • Wooden Fence -  Oppose
  • Fence Gate -  Oppose
  • Wooden Door -  Oppose
  • Wooden Trapdoor -  Oppose
  • Wooden Pressure Plate -  Oppose
  • Wooden Button -  Oppose
  • Sign -  Oppose
  • Hanging Sign -  Oppose
  • Boat -  Oppose
  • Boat with Chest -  Oppose

---

• Fence -  Done
  • Wall -  Done
  • Stairs -  Done
  • Slab -  Done
  • Door -  Done
  • Trapdoor -  Done
  • Pressure Plate -  Done
  • Button -  Done

---

• Block of Copper -  Oppose
  • Cut Copper -  Oppose
  • Cut Copper Stairs -  Oppose
  • Cut Copper Slab -  Oppose
  • Chiseled Copper -  Oppose
  • Copper Grate -  Oppose
  • Copper Door -  Oppose
  • Copper Trapdoor -  Oppose
  • Copper Bulb -  Oppose

---

• Dye -  Done
  • Wool -  Oppose
  • Carpet -  Oppose
  • Stained Terracotta -  Oppose
  • Glazed Terracotta -  Oppose
  • Concrete -  Oppose
  • Concrete Powder -  Oppose
  • Stained Glass -  Oppose
  • Stained Glass Pane -  Oppose
  • Shulker Box -  oppose dyed variants,  split undyed variant
  • Bed -  Oppose
  • Candle -  oppose dyed variants,  split undyed variant
  • Banner -  Oppose
  • Bundle -  oppose dyed variants,  split undyed variant
  • Firework Rocket -  don't split b/c of BE Creative menu
  • Firework Star -  don't split b/c of BE Creative menu
    • Shield -  don't split b/c of banners

---

• Coral Block -  Oppose
  • Dead Coral Block -  Oppose
  • Coral -  Oppose
  • Dead Coral -  Oppose
  • Coral Fan -  Oppose
  • Dead Coral Fan -  Oppose

---

• Horse Armor -  Neutral
  • Helmet -  Neutral
  • Chestplate -  Neutral
  • Leggings -  Neutral
  • Boots -  Neutral
  • Sword -  Neutral
  • Axe -  Wip
  • Shovel -  Done
  • Pickaxe -  Done
  • Hoe -  Neutral

---

• Tipped Arrow -  Oppose
  • Potion -  Oppose
  • Splash Potion -  Oppose
  • Lingering Potion -  Oppose

---

• Mushroom Block -  Oppose
  • Mushroom -  Oppose
  • Wart Block -  Done
  • Fungus -  Oppose
  • Nylium -  Neutral

---

• Ore -  Done
  • Coal Ore -  Oppose
  • Iron Ore -  Oppose
  • Copper Ore -  Oppose
  • Gold Ore -  Oppose
  • Redstone Ore -  Oppose
  • Emerald Ore -  Oppose
  • Lapis Lazuli Ore -  Oppose
  • Diamond Ore -  Oppose

---

• Amethyst Cluster -  Oppose
  • Flower -  Done
  • Tulip -  Neutral
  • Eyeblossom -  Neutral
  • Froglight -  Neutral
  • Anvil -  Oppose
  • Decorated Pot -  Don't split b/c of pottery sherds
  • Painting -  don't split b/c of JE Creative menu
  • Head -  Done
  • Infested Block -  Oppose
  • Bucket of Aquatic Mob -  Done
  • Goat Horn -  Oppose
  • Music Disc -  Done
  • Egg -  Oppose
  • Suspicious Stew -  Oppose
  • Banner Pattern -  Done
  • Pottery Sherd -  Done
  • Smithing Template -  Done
  • Enchanted Book -  Oppose
  • Spawn Egg -  Oppose
  • Command Block -  Oppose
  • Test Block -  Oppose

---

• Sponge -  Neutral
  • Map -  Neutral

Tasks needed to complete before any of my "opposes" can switch to "supports":

• Automated fetching and saving of DV (is it possible to save DV info via using blocks/items infobox for individual articles?)
• Automated sounds (for blocks, should be queried from infobox, or can be queried via table for overview pages)
• Automated mob loot (just like chest loot, or use a system similar to DV to "save" info on individual split pages; for querying from other pages)

Delvin4519 (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Any opposes in the list above may be reversed if MCW can update infoboxes, templates, modules, and other possible methods, to allow split pages to be vast majority and almost all, auto generated and auto updated; save for maybe the history section. This is especially true for pages like dyed blocks, woods, corals, and coral blocks; which all combined stack to almost or in excess of 500 pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea how you could view dyed blocks, coral, copper, and wood as entirely exactly the same situation with zero difference or nuance, most agree that this stuff should be decided on a case by case basis. No, the creative inventory is not relevant, sorry. You have also hyperbolised so extremely that I cannot take the sentence seriously as it has lost all of its meaning to me. - Harristic | Talk 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there any more block families that can warrent such templates like these: User:Delvin4519/Sandbox3#Section 2? (tools and armor are not blocks) Delvin4519 (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - Your point "More people search up "planks" not "oak planks"" while technically true, is misleading. The combined searches of "[variant] planks" is higher than just "planks". Plus (extremely enormously important distinction) we wouldn't lose a single "plank" search by adding other pages, so there are actually massive search benefits to split pages, that we lose by having merged pages. Mudscape (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Readers do not have to browse the "planks" page if there is a page about "birch planks". So we could still lose some searches. Plus, having so little traffic to variant pages could again, make vandalism, or other outdated information, harder to spot, if readers and editors do not always browse both pages. If a page has content relevant for all variants, that is not a page split, but instead a content duplication, which results in the concern I have stated the sentence immediately before. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how that would possibly lose searches? We would show up equally for both search results, nothing would be lost. I do not know of any data to support your claims of increased vandalism coming from us creating more pages. Outdated information is actually easier to spot and easier to fix on smaller pages, as explained in the initial forum post. Also no one is ever suggesting that we put content about all variants on the variant pages, at least not in any appreciable form. (more than a few sentences) Mudscape (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned before, readers and editors do not always check both the general article and the overview article, which means if there is conflicting information on both articles. it might not get fixed. See flowers again for reference. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it makes sense or if it's even possible to establish a general guideline that applies everywhere. I think everything should be considered on a case by case basis, but IMO we should prefer to have smaller pages about a single item each rather than bigger articles about multiple items at the same time. Though that is quite a paradigm shift for the wiki as a whole, as it's previously always preferred to group things together (much to my disliking) so it does make sense to codify that somewhat. I just don't think it needs to be very specific. Something along the lines of "every item has its own page unless consensus decides it makes sense to group things together" for new pages. Older pages we'll now have to decide and that's done above. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose creating a general guideline with any specific criteria for now, except for a very general one as proposed at #Paradigm shift (similar to what violine said). –Sonicwave ^talk 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor concerns regarding editor maintainance

This is one of my greatest concerns, especially with splitting wooden, dyed, coral, and copper items. Updating 11+ or more pages with a new crafting recipe for each type of wood may lead to certain wood variants being forgotten to have added a crafting recipe. For example, if Mojang were to add a new crafting recipe for "<wood type> bookshelf" for all 11 types of wood, and each wood and "wood type bookshelf" has their own article, we'd have to add a new crafting recipe on 24 articles, since I'd assume the overview pages would still exist for both the origin and destination articles (so x12 not x11). That is 12x more editor maintainance load to update, and it would be even worse with more wood types in the future. Having a single planks page and a single (example: boats) page ensures all crafting recipes for wooden items, and the same goes for dyed and copper items, remain up to date. If we just have one planks page, it's easy to add if wood can be used for a new crafting recipe.

There has also been issues with page splits needlessly be duplicating content. A page split is a page split, the info should be split, with the exception that crafting/smelting/etc. recipes have the proper origin and destination page set up. (The other alternative is transclusion of content via templates/noinclude tags/etc, but there's concerns about site performance, so they should be limited in that regard). If a vast majority of the content is relevant for all variants (like logs, planks, fence gates, and wool, etc.), it can't be split without everything being copied. That is not a split. Splitting wooden items while having the general wooden item page still having the crafting recipes would result in having 4 crafting recipes for editiors to keep track of, instead of 2, doubling editor maintainance. The same goes for history sections and other related pages. For example, I had to delete Fence/Asset History and redirect it back to main page, as it was outdated and people only updated Fence#History. Also, flowers were not split, but instead duplicated, which resulted in updates being all over the place and editors confused on what to update.

Theres's also the concern that minecraft could add more variants, but the minecraft wiki could lose editors, making the editor maintainance issue even worse. Having more pages to keep track of (see the wood example above), could make things worse as time goes on. My proposal about how to split pages properly ensures this issue doesn't get too severe.

Delvin4519 (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest and say I think this concern is irrational, at least to the degree you have the concern. If there are 11 pages (and this applies for basically any amount of page counts, unless it's like, comically large, but nothing will have that many variants) that need a crafting recipe put on them, and that crafting recipe is identical apart from the plank type is different, it will take like three minutes to add the recipe to all of those pages. You click edit source on the obtaining section, you copy paste the recipe, you change the name of the wood, and you save. This applies to adding basically any information these type of pages. To be blunt, unless you're a really inexperienced editor, this just isn't a significant work load. Saying "that is 12x more editor maintenance load to update" is incredibly misleading because it leaves out the fact that the original work load that is being multiplied by twelve is next to nothing.

Also, Mojang have literally only gotten more gradual with their releasing of features. 1.20 features were released super gradually and even its biggest snapshot didn't come close to the first snapshot of 1.16. 1.21 snapshots have been even more gradual so far, with the first snapshot being just the crafter. So why is that relevant? Well it's relevant because the less stuff that's in each individual snapshot, the easier it is to focus on and update the pages for each feature. The first snapshot was only the crafter, so we could focus on just the crafter page, for example. And that is relevant because things are much less likely to be forgotten about if there's less stuff released at once.

The worry that we eventually don't have enough editors to maintain stuff is always going to be a worry about everything on the wiki even if pages were super merged or super split. You could use this as an argument to oppose most things, and you'd kind of be right, but it still shouldn't be used as a reason to oppose at all in my opinion. - Harristic | Talk 14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but we already have had the issue of the crafting recipe page showing duplicate recipes due to duplicate recipes on duplicate pages, especially for the 1.21 articles and the dye articles. We already have lots of issues of editors forgetting to put the history footer at the end of like all the 1.21 pages. All the specific 1.21 stairs, slabs, and walls articles, none of them had the history footer before I fixed it. If we are having duplicate origin and destination crafting recipes, it's gonna cause plenty of issues where the same crafting recipe appears twice, and figuring out which one to keep and categorize, and which ones need a noinclude flag to put in the crafting recipe. Not a lot of editors know how to use the noinclude flag for crafting recipes. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate recipes is fixable though? The SMW rewrite will fix it completely AFAIK and we can already manually fix it. Personally I did not touch the individual pages for tuff stairs etc. because we have not decided if we're going to go through with splitting all stairs etc. You've cherry picked the example of the stairs etc. pages being jank, while forgetting to explain how those issues were caused by them being individual pages for stairs etc. The real reason in my opinion that they were jank is because pages for new content always attracts new and inexperienced editors, therefore there are a lot of edits that are questionable, but we can fix those issues easily, so what exactly is the issue? - Harristic | Talk 14:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See the response re: Mudscape, below. Also, if we change the style guide in the future, and we split all of these articles, it would be much, much, harder to change the style guide after the fact. We would have 1,400 articles to update to a new style guide, rather than just 300 or so block articles like we have right now. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That fails to take into account that the resulting pages would generally be significantly smaller, and thus bringing each individual page would be a much smaller editing burden. Duralith (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see the example: re: boats, in the subsection below. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with what Harristic has said above, work required to update pages is largely a non issue. Smaller pages easily make up for the extra minutes of copy pasting by attracting more new editors, and being easier to keep up to date in general as outlined in the original post of this forum. As brought up in discord, transclusion performance is a complete non-issue. I am unsure what point you are making with Fences/Asset History, as that is already a very large page, which contributes to its lack of editor activity relative to its size. Mudscape (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See the issue regarding re: 1.21 articles, duplicate crafting recipes. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We already have a system in place to not duplicate crafting recipes, and a crafting module rework is in active development. I don't think editors formatting mistakes (I believe I was the one who made most of the 1.21 pages and simply missed copying the history footer) have any real bearing on what users want to be covered on a single page. Its a trivial fix and mistakes will happen regardless of any other factors. Mudscape (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The same is true for forgetting to fix the "nether fuel can't be used in a furnace" sentence. This goes the other way too. It's just switching one set of problems for another, in this case, an editor could forget to update one particular variant of wood to add that potential "all wood" new crafting recipe. More pages means splitting traffic, and meaning it could be easier to miss that error if more pages results in traffic being split across multiple pages. It's also more content to check for errors, so it could increase the risk of it being unchecked. Mistakes can happen either way. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that the current state of combined pages just being absolutely massive makes it really easy for mistakes or omitted information to fly under the radar. Smaller, shorter, more specific pages would make it far easier to spot when something is missing or incorrect, and keeping a small set of pages aligned with each other is generally pretty trivial. It's easy enough just to go through and edit a handful of related pages in sequence when something changes, and in fact it's something I do quite regularly with no issues on other wikis. Duralith (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think the extra editor maintainance is worth the extra amount of time to edit pages in sequence is worth it, or to duplicate content on a main page and the split page, if it results in page traffic being split on multiple pages. Again, I also raised the concern that players wanting to learn about how to make a boat, the reader shouldn't have to choose between oak boats or birch boats, or oak planks and birch planks. It is an extra amount of barrier for players trying to find out how to make a simple boat. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

From experience, I believe you're significantly overestimating the additional amount of work that would be. Especially with how relatively infrequently the game updates, an extra 2-3 minutes of editing is trivial. As to your boat example, please review the "Cases" section of this page. As proposed there, the wiki would retain, in your example, a simplified and more general "Boat" page with a broad overview, which would include general crafting information. Duralith (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Having more split articles means the recent changes tracker page is more difficult to scroll through, when every update for wool and carpet textures requires 34 edits appearing as 34 entries in recent changes, versus only 2 pages with just the merged pages. Again, with traffic on a more centralized page, this would make vandalism easier to spot and revert with merged pages, such as a less clogged recent changes page, with merged pages. If there is little traffic to a page like polished blackstone stairs, and every article split requiring dozens of edits and dozens more of entries in the recent changes page, the risk of vandalism being unnoticed for a longer amount of time could be higher. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The entire forum post is about how the editor effort required is relatively low in comparison to the benefits to readers (and editors) that come from having specific pages matching what they are searching for. You even agree that we should have pages matching what people want to know, and no one is suggesting that Boat absolutely must not have an example crafting recipe. It seems very likely to me that any overview boat page would have an example of how to craft it, since as you say its something that people are looking for. They are also looking for specific information about "Birch Boat" since that is the name of an item in the game. Without experience in the game its not obvious that Boat is going to bring you to the boat entity/item page instead of, lets say, a shipwreck. Mudscape (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Some discord members have raised the idea that MCW has "room to spare" since we are "slightly larger than other wikis" or have "some extra capacity to spare". Just because we have some extra capacity to spare at this moment in time doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into the ability to maintain individual block variants in the future. We shouldn't just be more wasteful or slightly more inefficient just because of it. It is a good thing probably if MCW has some slightly extra capacity than other similarly sized wiki. However, many of our language wikis are not so fortunate (some are too small to survive a fork). Minecraft is actually currently decreasing in popularity at the moment from its COVID-19 peak. source. So we are seeing more and more blocks and items, but less and less interest in Minecraft. The only reason we have editors now is literally from the fork publicity. I only came back to the wiki since MCW announced an intent to fork. Not all of these editors will stick around to update 34 pages with new textures of wool and carpets in 2027 if Mojang decides all 16 colors of wool need a new texture then. We also can't be sure if Mojang has decided if bamboo will be the last and final type of wood at 11 variants. We can't predict that. There is no certainty for sure that Mojang will indeed add a 17th type of wood.

What was the whole point of the operation sprite ender, if we're just gonna upscale all the sprites from 16px to 32px? Just because screens have gotten larger in the past few years doesn't necessarily mean we need to upscale all the navboxes from 16px to 32px. Not everyone has a 1920px screen or a 4k monitor. Sure, the fixed width gadget can have the size rescaled, but not everyone knows or wants to tinker with CSS. MCW also has animated crafting recipes. They have been used for a long time and they exist for a reason. The whole point of the animated crafting recipes is so that they can be used on pages like wood, dyes, etc. These pages make it very clear to readers that the variants all have identical functionality. When a player wants to cross the ocean, they’re gonna think “I want to cross the ocean, I probably need a boat, Can I craft a boat?”, and then go “how to craft boats in minecraft”. I don't think it's all worth it to have a page called "birch boat", "crimson stairs", or "red wool". I do agree some pages need splitting, but we're splitting the wrong pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I will respond to this since I am one of the "some discord members" - we aren't "slightly" larger, we have almost double the active editors of the OSRS wiki, while having 30% as many pages. OSRSW has roughly 63 content pages per active user, we have 12. And yes, its not directly equivalent, but when the major argument against granular pages is "editor effort" it is helpful to look at how much effort is required per editor from a pure statistics point of view. I genuinely believe, as stated in the forum post, that having more granular pages will bring us a significant increase in readers, and therefore an increase in new and active editors. Minecraft is not a dying game and we are not a dying wiki. You say in one sentence that we wont have enough editors to update the new block textures in 2027, and the very next sentence is saying we can't predict what mojang will do.

As for the sprites, I'm not sure what possible relevance that has to the current discussion? I feel like the navbox and crafting comments are specifically directed at my comments from discord and the disagreement on what icons to use on the navboxes I have been working on. The specifics of those topics are largely irrelevant to the currently already long and deep discussion. Mudscape (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well article count is not a perfect comparison. I bring up sprites since that there is a whole field of editor maintainance for sprites and isometric renders. Part of ensuring accuracy on the MCW wiki is documenation of sprites and the history of texture changes. This means that plenty of editor maintainance goes towards updating sprites and texture changes history, and whatnot, versus creating more articles. Having more articles would make future efforts to document the history of each blocksprite and itemsprite more difficult, with more pages to put the history of textures and each sprite on all of those split articles. This could potentially deter editors from working on documenting the history of sprites on this wiki. Plus, for wooden and dyed items, it was common for many of them to have their textures changed all at once, further supporting those (woods and dyed blocks) pages to stay together. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Your point has devolved a lot into undermining how active we are. You've shown you read what Mudscape said yet you twist his words and say we are "slightly larger than other wikis". We are a very active wiki and we will not have problems maintaining large amounts of pages when those pages are easily updateable because you can just copy and paste and update 11 pages in a couple of minutes. But I'm just repeating myself aren't I. You're also saying the only reason we have editors right now is because of fork publicity, which is just a complete lie, we were active and easily kept up with new content back when 1.20 stuff was being released, and that was one of the more inactive periods of the wiki as a whole.

Your point about Minecraft being less popular than it was during its peak is also meaningless, literally everything online was more popular during Covid for obvious reasons. Minecraft will always be extremely popular even if its not as its peak. Whether or not core editors leave or stay does not depend on if Minecraft is feeling a slight dip in popularity. The wiki is at a peak in activity right now, but to say that we would be completely unable to maintain many similar small pages unless we're at this activity peak is incredibly strange and nonsensical.

You talk about a 17th wood variant being added in the future as if it's some kind of point. So I ask, how is making individual pages for a 17th wood set harder than updating the large combined pages? I will tell you how, it is literally easier to do the former, because it is far more editor friendly and simpler for new editors.

I think you already know why the “how to craft boats in minecraft” point is null, because we'd have overview pages, we have already done splits and made overview pages so why is this point being made? - Harristic | Talk 17:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Was the point regarding flowers and fence/asset history not addressed? The Flowers page still hasn't been properly reformatted to have content deduplicated. Again, it would be too confusing for readers if content on the overview article has different values/conflicting statements from those in the split article. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The flower page wasn't properly changed after the split, so...? What point is being made exactly? Mistakes exist, this is not proof of your hypothetical future where the wiki falls apart because you have to do a couple more edits when updating things. - Harristic | Talk 22:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Some readers may find it jarring if like 60% of the blocks require jumping and hopping back and forth between two pages. The same goes for editing. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Each blocks page should display the relevant information specific to it with no need to hop around or skip over information about different blocks. Having some duplicate info between a disambiguation page and each specific variant is perfectly acceptable. As someone who read the wiki prior to the fork, but didn't edit, the combined pages are many times more confusing/jarring compared to a more concise article about the block I actually searched for. As an experienced editor on other wikis, I've seen a few changes I wanted to make on this wiki, but after opening the mess that is the pages source, I decided it wasn't worth my time to actually make the edit. As a few others have already mentioned in previous replies, if experienced editors don't want to touch some of these pages, how can we ever expect new editors to contribute to those same pages? - Im Wired In (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I now support a potential split of much of the stairs, slabs, and walls page, and possibly the tools and armor pages as well. Tuff stairs is a good example of a split that actually splits info, and have very, very, little duplication of information. I am still wary of all the other splits, especially wooden ones, since I don't know how those can be split without 80% of written content being duplicated (written = not transcluded). I still think there is probably a way to deduplicate and cut down some of the duplicate info in door, trapdoor, fence variants and the overview article. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding transclusions being a solution to duplicated content: Part of the benefits of the patrol system we use is to keep pages in sync if one is updated by a new editor. The new editor is more likely to give up if they have to figure out how transclusions work to edit the page they are looking at, but its only a few minutes for a seasoned patroller to copy over new information as needed. Of course this would likely require a few extra patrollers to offset the extra work but I believe we have enough editors to find some willing, as some have already openly expressed loving doing such maintenance work. I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for any "prose" type content, although I do see the merits of continuing to transclude (or just link to) heavily formatted things like sound tables. Mudscape (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What to do with the original page?

 Comment I just want to add that although we all agree on more granularity, there isn't a policy on what will happen to the original page. IMO the most sensible thing to do under previous practice is a disambig, but apparently people have some problem with that (and I agree with them). We should have an official policy on what should be a disambig page and what should be an "overview" (or you can come up with a better name), just like what we've done for Flower. Furthermore, what can we do to make "overview" pages easier to navigate? Should we prefer the users go to the more granular page and direct them to do so? -- Dianliang233 (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The stated goal of this forum post is to arrive at a clearly defined policy (or set of policies, likely) for granularity based on the discussions above. In my responses, I have suggested that any page that compiles information about multiple blocks/items/entities at once should have a sort of "scope of information rule" that clearly describes which information is to be covered by that page. I mentioned some examples above, but all of them were mainly stand-ins to illustrate the concept of having a rule for what to include in the first place. For defining these rules, it may be helpful (and sometimes necessary) to rely on how the game defines mechanics and interactions per each block/item/entity and then group things by those logical relationships (instead of relying primarily what is generally observed by a player in the game). As for navigating: thematic navboxes are a great example of a tool that assists in moving between pages of a similar granularity. See the "Deepslate" example on Chiseled_Deepslate, for an example. As an idea: if each navbox is also associated with an overview page (and vice versa), they could also be used to move to a less granular (more general) page by clicking on the category itself, where you might find that page part of another group you can move around in. Pages for individual blocks/items/entites should always be allowed to exist on the basis that they exist as an object in the game. Whereas pages that generalize information that applies to multiple game objects should have to justify which rule ties its information together, and be regrouped as necessary to fit. | Enbyd (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am also definitely concerned about this. If we turn "Planks" and "Boats" into a disambiguation, that would force readers looking for an information about "how to craft a boat" would have to choose between "oak planks", or "birch planks", or "oak boat" or "birch boat", just to find a crafting recipe for a boat. We get more searches for "planks minecraft" than "oak planks minecraft". We also get wayyyy more searches for "boat minecraft" than "oak boat minecraft". If we turn the pages into disambiguation pages, we'd just be burying information, and making it, so, so, so, so, much harder for readers to find even basic information, like how to craft a boat, and what the crafting recipe for wooden trapdoors are. The reader would come on the wiki to find information about planks, or boats, and land on a disambiguation page with no content. If I was a reader looking for information on how to craft a boat, I shouldn't have to choose between oak planks or birch planks, or oak boats and birch boats. If we don't use a disambiguation page, but instead keep an overview page, that would mean more than duplication of content, but a tenfold duplication of content for editors to maintain, or even more. Delvin4519 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 Comment - I think we should keep the articles we have now, but just for general use. We'd split all the pages that need to be split so that readers looking for "Copper Stairs" would have an article about copper stairs. However, if a reader just wanted to know about stairs in general, and not a specific type of stair, they could use the current stairs page. ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is largely answered in the first sentence of the Cases section, although not in great detail. We have been having success with the overview page format so far, with Ore being that way for a long time, and Door and Smithing Template being recent examples. These pages function as an "enhanced" disambig page, giving readers the relevant shared information while avoiding the confusion of trying to address every single variant at once. Mudscape (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as we don't delete pages like Wooden Trapdoor, Wooden Fence, "Wooden Slab", "Dyed Shulker Box" or "Dyed Candle"; after giving oak trapdoor, birch slabs, pink candles, etc., their own articles. There should still be pages like "Copper Stairs (overview)" or "Copper Bulbs (overview)" that cover all 8 types of copper stairs/bulbs, etc., due to "Copper Bulbs (overview)" using the same name as "Copper Bulb" (individual block variant). Delvin4519 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, nobody has proposed deleting such pages, and the very first version of this forum page that was published specifically discussed keeping such general pages around in the form of overview pages. I would encourage you to review the information under the "Cases" heading, especially the first few sentences. Duralith (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

If we're okay with having "Trapdoor" then "Wooden Trapdoor", then "Oak Trapdoor", then sure. However, some users have suggested that 2 levels of overview pages were "bad", and that "wooden trapdoor" should be deleted, since having 3 levels of pages would be undesirable. Dozens of pages would have 2 levels of overview pages. Namely: copper stairs and slabs; wooden stairs, slabs, fences, doors, trapdoors, pressure plates, and buttons; and dyed terracotta, dyed candles and dyed shulker boxes. All of these would have 2 levels of overview pages. Would it be okay to have an overview page, then a sub-overview page, before the individual pages; for all of the stuff listed here? Delvin4519 (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Delvin we talked about this yesterday on discord, I believe I was one of the main people saying 2 overview pages are bad, but you walked me through some examples and I've changed my stance. As long as a reader isn't required to read 3 pages (2 overview pages + the specific page) to get all the information available for a block I don't see any problem with 2 overview pages. My only concern was the 3 way fragmentation of information that I initially thought double overview pages would provide. But through our conversations we agreed that the pages such as "Wooden Trapdoor" would act as both a disambiguation page (perhaps unofficially) and a place for shared attributes and recipes. I'm feeling very good about that as a solution. Mudscape (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Per discord discussion regarding crafting rework, it was noted that due to coal and charcoal being split, it results in duplicate recipes. Categories should be set to only point to overview pages, and to ignore split pages, to avoid making the crafting list long, hence pages like "Dyed Shulker Box", will be used and needed in crafting recipes. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

General thoughts (DarkShadowTNT)

First and foremost I wish to thank Mudscape and Enbyd for starting the discussion. It's apparent this is very much needed, even if I don't agree with a good chunk of the proposals (largely for reasons already given in earlier responses). In general, though, I believe splitting should be done on a case-by-case basis. For example, at non-wooden block variants I oppose splitting all but two (of which one only in a specific way), because these blocks are similar in nature and/or otherwise in my opinion don't warrant their own page because the differences are easily explained in a couple of sentences. Of the two exceptions, in the case of the Nether Bricks I only support splitting off the Red Nether Bricks portion, because it's now more an afterthought to that page. Prior to the addition of the Nether Bricks variants, though, this wasn't the case. In the case of sandstone I support splitting off red sandstone, as the latter isn't naturally generated in structures and what does naturally generate, only does so in a different biome to sandstone. In the glass and glass pane cases, both already have a page dedicated to the plain glass and stained glass variants. A similar case also exists for the Nether Brick Fence. I'd leave these pages alone, rather than attempt to merge them into the glass, glass pane and fence articles, respectively.

I think keeping articles limited to 16-17 blocks mentioned in Delvin's test at overall discussion is inherently flawed. What if Mojang adds a couple of new dyes? The added colored blocks would still be the same to the already-present colored blocks; only the texture changes. If we'd adhere to that 16-17 block rule, we'd end up with two identical pages - the only reason they're there is because of that rule. That's pointless. I would rather base splitting upon similarity/dissimilarity overall (and thus case-by-case), where I'd assign more weight to the obtaining and usage sections than, say, data values and sounds. The first two have a way more profound effect on a player than the latter two. I'd therefore, for example, keep the planks page together, in particular because of the usage section, which shows every type of planks can be used with any other type of planks to make something. The only exception is where the type of planks affects the output type (e.g. oak stairs). Splitting would only become interesting in this case if new planks are added which have exception upon exception (e.g. can't be used interchangably with other planks in recipes such as for the crafting bench), if existing planks get exceptions to them in usage or major differences in obtaining (take the buckets of aquatic mob, for example - you can't get a pufferfish in a bucket from a cod). It would also be for consideration if all plank types get different sounds, for example. It'd be inconvenient to have eleven sound tables in that section, but I wouldn't consider splitting if six use the same sounds and the remainder doesn't. If a bunch of new planks are added, which otherwise act identical to the other planks, but have different sounds to them, then I'd also consider splitting. On the contrary, the slabs page I would strongly consider for splitting. Not only do the discussed blocks have vastly different properties, there's also no similarity between most of them other than they're slabs. I would therefore split it into brick slab, wooden slab, andesite slab and so forth, generally along the lines of the crafting recipes. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"If a bunch of new planks are added, which otherwise act identical to the other planks, but have different sounds to them, then I'd also consider splitting." This has literally already happened. Nether wood and bamboo wood have different sounds, but they have clear differences from regular overworld wood. Cherry wood, however, having unique sounds proves that all future wood types will have new sounds even if they are functionally identical. So this hypothetical sound scenario you talk about has already happened. Unless you think a specific amount of new sound types need to be added before a split can happen, which I would find incredibly arbitrary since four sound types is already three too many for one page. That's all I'm going to respond to from your message, I want to write my own general thoughts. - Harristic | Talk 19:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I don't care about it anymore (or do I?)

Lacking any substantial arguments to prove that having separate articles on red wool and wall signs is not worth it (an opinion which I still uphold), I hereby abstain from participating in this discussion further. I don't care anymore if wall signs are going to get their own articles because some newcoming editors decided this is better for SEO. I only ask to not break the wiki while I'm not here. Have a good day. — BabylonAS 06:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing to split wall signs to my knowledge. The reasons for splitting articles are clearly outlined on the top of the page: it's not just for SEO – it's to make the wiki more accurate and friendlier to use for readers in general. If you have actual arguments against splitting articles, you should definitely voice them, as there's a balance that needs to be struck. But keeping everything as is just because it's been that way forever is not really a good argument. Splitting articles won't break the wiki, it'll just be organized a bit differently. The game has been growing massively in content, we need to adapt and haven't really in a good while.
I understand that it can be a bit emotional if things change, as you're a long-time editor and helped shape the wiki for a long time, but please contribute to the discussion constructively after thinking about it a bit, and don't just attack users because they're newer to the wiki or have different ideas about the wiki than you do. | violine1101 ^(talk) 06:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of my concerns stem from that I am not aware of good systems yet to lessen the impact of duplicated content. I am however, encouraged that pages like tuff stairs have very little, if any, duplicated content. If there are systems in place to auto generate, auto-compile, and/or transclude content. Things like moving more info into infoboxes, modules, DB, or other various formats, can make auto-fetching values and auto-updating values a lot easier without rummaging through 1,600 wiki articles about blocks or items to do it. There are over 200 related wooden materials, over 200 related dyed materials, and over 100 blocks related to copper and coral variants. Having such systems in place, and seeing those systems set up, working, and up and running, I would be more open to more page splits. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've changed my mind, and updated my stances on numerous cases, though in many cases I still don't have confident support for splitting. — BabylonAS 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Paradigm shift

Over the past few days the number of responses to this forum have greatly exceeded my expectations, and hearing from so many different editors on so many different subjects so far has led to me having a paradigm shift in how I am thinking about page granularity. Many many comments here bring up the concern of "not enough content for a page", but what is not enough content for a page? Why does that concept even exist? What does a short page hurt, as long as it has the information a reader is looking for? I believe the editor upkeep concerns have been addressed with the strategies of overview pages, transclusion of things like sounds and data values, and the simpler infobox entries making bot updates for data possible. Since editorial concerns are not a major issue, and the wiki is meant for readers anyway, why don't we meet the readers where they are? Our host, Weird Gloop, is in the process of gathering the concrete data of on-wiki searches, but my intuition, experience as a reader, and experience from other games makes me think that readers are largely searching for the actual names in their inventory. Answering readers questions effectively and clearly should be our #1 goal as wiki community, and giving them pages that match what they are searching for is a massive step in achieving that goal. I invite everyone to look at this forum conversation from a reader perspective, what are you searching for? What do you want to know? How can we get that information to you as clearly as possible?

I am now proposing a paradigm shift in how we approach pages (for blocks and items, as is the scope of this forum discussion)

The base rule for this proposed guideline is as simple as I can possibly think:

• Each Block/item page covers one resource location.

Thats it. (Note I am always referring to Java resource locations in these discussions for sake of clarity) There are exceptions of course, but by changing the base formula from "we have to justify this split" to "we have to justify this merge" we immediately get much closer to the level of granularity that our users are looking for. A non-exhaustive list of proposed exceptions:

• X_standing_sign & X_wall_sign would likely be on the same page, since they are just slight model differences of what is functionally the same block.
• pumpkin_stem & attached_pumpkin_stem is the same story, just slight model difference. (same for melon stem)
• I'm sure there are more, but the fact they are relatively hard to find is refreshing.

- Mudscape (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I support this idea. However, I believe that the page names should be what names are seen within the creative inventory itself rather than commands in chat and the game files. this would eliminate the two exceptions you named as they are not valid page names to begin with since there is no name in the creative inventory corresponding to "standing_sign" and "wall_sign". They are both just called "Sign". While those two names would not get seperate pages, "Hanging Sign" would get one because it is named in the creative inventory.Drour1234 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The actual names of the pages would absolutely be their actual names, not the string with underscores. I really like the direction you are going with the creative inventory being used to indicate what resource strings are actually the same thing. That would create other inconsistences though, since the creative inventory doesn't cover all blocks, like Nether Portal (block) Mudscape (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate this response. I've left a follow up regarding the tipped arrows/potions thing, but I will resweep this here since it's more general. I do vastly agree that was a horrible way to format the wiki with the brewing potions for readers, and so I have that data point to inform that situation for splits. Ideally I would never want to see a situation where "oak planks" reads "oak planks can be cooked in a furnace" and "spruce planks" reads "spruce planks can be smelted in a furnace". However, things like infobox upgrades, etc, etc, could allow for things like auto fetching DV/sounds/brewing recipes/crafting and whatnot. That could allow for things like the brewing page fetching recipes from all the potion pages, or a script/template/etc. that could be used on an overview page to fetch DV values, or other content, from the individual articles; or vice versa. Tuff Stairs was a good start, and I noticed it when I got the chance to look at the page very closely.

In 2020, there was a significant surge in editors due to COVID, whom put Legacy Console version histories into a template transclusion format for about a hundred-ish pages or so, covering LCE version histories. However, we would need to replicate this across potentionally across thousands (1,000s) of articles with more significantly complex content structures regarding how much of the sections are relevant for all specified pages, such as origin and destination crafting recipes, DV values, etc. I am still a bit concerned about the ability to execute that, or whether this solution is possible. It was good to see to try to find some solutions, and I think it might be possible to see and use some, but ideally it is best to have these solutions ready for rollout onto the split articles from the get go, before performing all these splits. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I do not know how to approach this from the reader perspective, given my activity as an editor in the recent months, I'll probably have to defer to other commenters here. I would possibly suggest maybe the arrangement of content could be tweaked slightly (such as moving sections like acheievements or crafting recipes higher up if they are more relevant). If readers think the crafting recipe is more important than mob loot, then potentially we should re-format the style guide to allow this. I previously opened a forum thread about this. Plus likely obvious things like the brewing recipe for the potion for a page about the potion. (This was brought up in the last comment regarding tipped arrows/potions). Delvin4519 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

>"What does a short page hurt, as long as it has the information a reader is looking for?"

Something I haven't seen mentioned is the benefit that the combined pages give - I could read a really short article on a single thing, but provided that information isn't hard to find in a slightly larger article full of relevant and similar information then I as a reader gain information that I wouldn't have necessarily known to search for. An example of this might be the copper bulb, if I search for an oxidized copper bulb I could just get the info that is has a certain light level and whatnot, but the combined copper bulb page tells me about all the light levels. I pick that as an obvious example but I think the principle applies to a slightly lesser degree across the other pages. Another really important example would be ore pages, where splitting up generation information could actually be considered a net negative. On the whole I think the idea behind "1 feature, 1 page" is great, but there are some rather important exceptions in my opinion Ishbosheth (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely there are a number of exceptions to combine multiple resource locations on one page, and also creating overview pages can help greatly. To get more specific, and using your example, I could see multiple options for handling copper bulb, and I think I would probably need to see them in action to really decide. Options that immediately come to mind:

1. Keep copper bulb as it is now, its an exception to the rule for reader clarity.
2. Split all of copper bulb into 1 page per resource location, copy/paste or transclude the information about light level raising and lowering with oxidation.
3. Split all of copper bulb into 1 page per resource location, also create "Cobber Bulb (block)" to describe its common functionality as a block, such as its varying light level. This would also be the "overview" page and describe its unique redstone behavior as well.

Most of these decisions come down to "what are users asking" which, frustratingly, we don't have a clear picture of yet, but I believe we are heading in the right direction. Mudscape (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I  Support one page per resource location as a basis for which articles are made. - Harristic | Talk 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment – I'd probably support a very general guideline about having individual pages per resource location, item, or other metric as the default. It seems a bit unintuitive to use a technical definition as opposed to in-game item names, I'm not sure what the particular pros and cons are. I find it difficult to get more specific than that; this discussion is huge and daunting if not for the fact that different cases are split up into separate discussions.

Consequently, I don't think a general guideline can be used as justification for splitting existing pages, although coming to a consensus on it might influence the nature of these individual discussions going forward. And conversely, if we wanted anything more specific (which I'm not yet sure is a good idea), then we really need to flesh out the individual discussions first and see what commonalities we can draw from them. –Sonicwave ^talk 23:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

General thoughts (Ishbosheth)

I think splitting pages is generally a good idea, but I wanted to mention two things that I think should go along with that.

1) Pages that are split should have very clear links to their overview pages, I think even more so than the "see also" links at the top. We don't want readers to think these pages have disappeared, especially since it will be a lot harder to search for them (due to most search terms going to the new granular pages). And we especially don't want them to think information is missing, which this could help alleviate. I feel rather strongly about this point.

2) I am a strong supporter of automation for this sort of thing. One of the first errors I remember catching on this wiki was an issue where some flower information was inconsistent with another page that was very reasonably missed when the feature changed. That is part of why I think the links are so important, and doubly so why automation is important. I've seen people dismissing the editorial load concern, but I think that concern is very valid. Splitting pages like this opens the door to inconsistency issues that I have already seen happen on the wiki, and will only become more likely with more splits like this. That being said, it isn't an insurmountable problem, and automation can go a long way towards this end.

Automation will likely take away much of the benefits the splits have for new editors since transclusions, templates and the like are not at all intuitive, but I think it is very important for the long term.

Thoughts from Harristic

Isn't this cute we're all doing our own little thoughts sections.

I think this conversation has gone unfortunately for a couple of reasons, which I want to talk about.

Wikis are for readers

Overall there seems to be more of a focus on the editors in this conversation, and I think that's a good part of the reason why so many splits that feel rather obvious have managed to get opposed. Because if you really think about the wiki as if you're a reader, you start to realise how obscene some of these merges are, mainly stairs and slabs. I went through the wool page and thought "I am a reader who searched for magenta wool, how much of this is irrelevant to that search" and I picked out 10 entire things. Which I find funny because I always assumed that dyed blocks like wool were the true pinnacle of "identical apart from appearance", but what doing that has shown me is that every single combined page is going to have irrelevant information to readers even if functionally, in-game, those blocks are essentially the same. And when overview pages would still exist after splits, you really have to think, what is the negative of splitting wool? Because personally, I have no idea what that negative is.

Editor maintenance has been brought up countless times as an opposing point, not only is this fear incredibly exaggerated as has been explained multiple times by now, but it's also pushing the conversation to stop thinking about readers and instead to think about ourselves. Obviously, when making decisions like this, most of the time editors can't be the focus.

A non-existent threshold

Lots of opposing responses consist of "not enough unique information to split", but I find that this mystical amount of unique information needed to split is completely arbitrary and nobody actually seems to know how much information needs be unique to a specific type for a split to happen. Notably, saplings and leaves have clear cut multiple differences between each type, yet have been somewhat strongly opposed because people are going off of this non-existent threshold of uniqueness when deciding their opinion on the split. I think basing our opinions on this is rather strange even if it feels like the natural thing to think about.

Duplicate information isn't the devil

People seem to want to avoid duplicate information across articles at all costs. I don't have much to say on this point other than I am yet to be provided with a convincing argument as to why duplicating information is truly something to be avoided. There is one argument against it that I felt was compelling, but that I still don't agree with much. That being that it would be somewhat easy for duplicate information to become out of sync if an editor edited one page but not the other. As I said I find this argument compelling but I still don't see it as a good reason to be against duplicate information so strictly. This is because I don't think prose needs to be 1000% in sync across these pages, the only issue would be if a change in-game is made and not all of the pages are updated, but we as a wiki are not short on hands and there will always be people available to fix these things. There are always people around on snapshot days who will be checking these things. So in general I see no need to entirely avoid duplicating information.

Additionally, short pages aren't the devil either, this is self explanatory hopefully.

- Harristic | Talk 16:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not all wikis have the English one's level of activity. I've brought up the Great Split topic on the Russian wiki's Discord server some time ago and the response is mostly negative there. Even though there is a bit of resurgence in this regard, the Russian wiki's activity still feels like a bad joke to me. However, we are yet to fork and thus yet to see the same influx of new editors the English wiki has seen.

FYI: using semicolons for bold text is incorrect from the HTML semantics point of view, though arguably so is using colons for indentation... — BabylonAS 16:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is 100% about what the English Minecraft wiki should be doing, no other language wikis are being asked to follow suit and should not be a factor in any discussions here except for editors sharing their own past experiences as editors. - Mudscape (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, all the language wikis are about the same thing and many factors behind the Great Split are relevant for any language wiki, which means such a suggestion could potentially be proposed for other wikis. My comment was more about the "we have enough editors to maintain identical text across a dozen articles" part. — BabylonAS 17:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Language wikis don't need to be identical to a tea. The English wiki has enough editors to maintain everything, the conversation is happening on the English wiki. (Also I picked up using semi-colons for non-section headers from MCD namespace using them everywhere, though yeah I realise it's a bit odd). - Harristic | Talk 18:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For the entire history of this wiki, the entire goal was to make language wikis as consistent as possible, so the users will be able to use interwikis to read articles in their mother tongue. We shouldn't kill language wikis or make them irrelevant. I know we have been on Fandom for too long and it's possible some may have grown accustomed to how it works on Fandom, where language wikis are completely different communities. But our wikis will be on a single domain (which is focused on a single topic - Minecraft franchise) and having issues with interlanguage links would be a shame.

I don't say we should make it 1 to 1 copy, but the style guide should contain the same rules the EN style guide has. --TreeIsLife (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just false. Language wikis all had their own stylistic differences even before the wiki moved to Fandom. I know the German one at least deviated significantly. In particular, I find that merging articles aggressively was much more common in the English wiki than the German one. Some similarity between the languages is desirable (and I would like to have EN and DE pretty similar), but some language communities prefer to tweak things in their own way, and that should be okay. So if they feel like they want to split or not split a page despite the EN wiki doing it the other way, that's perfectly fine and has always happened like that. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't said they don't have differences, but the goal is to have it at least somewhat consistent. I do respect that communities can make their own decisions, but it should not result in huge differences, such as the one between Fandom's Archived MCW and Spanish Minecraftpedia. --TreeIsLife (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I must remind everyone that Russian and Polish wikis started off as independent projects, until joining the international Minecraft Wiki in 2011. Though nobody from the original Russian team remained to this day (most in fact did not remain beyond 2014), we continue to value our ability to do things as our community prefers. — BabylonAS 20:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Even the bold and italic tags (<b> and <i>) are not advised to use and we should use <strong> and <em>. --TreeIsLife (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is MediaWiki itself substitutes the double and triple apostrophe tags with <i> and <b>, instead of a more semantically appropriate <span> tag with an italic or bold class. — BabylonAS 20:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

There is some discussion and confusion on Discord about how to move forward and close the discussion. I believe Mudscape's idea (paraphrased) was to close the entire discussion on a date like this upcoming Sunday (Nov 5), acting on the topics that have reached consensus and allowing the others to be revisited separately, in part so there can be a more focused and visible discussion on having a general guideline.

Personally I don't think this makes sense per my comment under #Paradigm shift. I don't think we can come up with a universal guideline that applies to all split discussions, and don't see the need to close the unfinished discussions and have to restart them later in a separate place. I am much more in favor of closing topics individually, moving them to separate sections or subpages if needed. –Sonicwave ^talk 23:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The intent of this forum post was never to be about specific pages, but about how the wiki handles pages generally. Contributors are meant to think of the wiki as a whole, not 23 separate discussions. This worked fairly well, but by fragmenting the discussion into open/closed a significant portion of the purpose is lost. Sadly we didn't really accomplish the goal of a unified guideline from what I can tell, they are still generally being looked at as individial pages and not looking at the wiki as a consistent whole. This is fine, and a step in the right direction certainly. But I wouldn't want this topic left partially open to muddy the waters of another editors drive towards reaching a full consensus. They shouldn't have to compete with the leftovers. I don't think this forum will continue to be used, whether officially closed or not. It has seen a significant downturn in activity and at this point it is unlikely to see a major shift in any opinions. The late coming ideas already have significantly less participation than the initial post. Keeping it open only serves to weaken future authors pitches, chaining them to the original post regardless of their ideas or pitch. Mudscape (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

With Minecraft content being as diverse as it is, I don't even remotely believe that we're going to have an easy and clear guideline on splitting/merging articles without a bunch of ad hoc exceptions. We may only have a common starting point, like the aforementioned "one resource location = one article" principle, which by itself is not adequate to deal with things like wall & standing signs, copper oxidation stages, and potentially more cases that have a chance of favoring an article covering multiple blocks in one. Especially since a resource location is a technical identifier that not all players are usually going to bother with. — BabylonAS 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think a good way to go would just to flip the current rule on its head, so instead of "pages must have enough content to not be merged" it should say "pages should generally be separate unless they are functionally identical with a different block/item/mob/whatever". Exceptions can obviously be made, it's not a rule, it's a guideline. | violine1101 ^(talk) 09:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The date of closure is also up in the air. The Sunday date is meant to be a minimum, with it being extended as long as the conversation is ongoing. It was looking like the conversation had concluded, but given the upturn in participation (and new participants) within the last 24 hours I am supportive of a partial closure, allowing editors to begin work on the sections that do have consensus, with the hope that when the conversation eventually stops the post will be closed completely. Mudscape (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds as a reason

I frequently see the long list of sound tables in articles such as Slab being used to justify splitting a page. However, a long list of sections is not the only way to present sound tables. They can also be automatically collapsed and loaded in when the user presses a button, such as on Wall. Although I don't necessarily oppose splitting of pages like Slab, I don't think sounds are a good reason for splitting pages. - CrowdingFaun624 (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the same applies to the data values section as well. But there are more and better reasons to split these articles. | violine1101 ^(talk) 04:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)