Minecraft Wiki talk:Projects/DIG:Design to Implement Granularity

Current Editor / Page layout

It might be helpful to have a table per section, with the resulting overview page(s) listed at the top and a column for "Edit status" or something that can list which individual pages are finished or being worked on by someone. Example:

Overview page | Edit status:

Page name	Edit status
This one
That one	Enbyd (talk)
The other one

There are a lot of pages and I'd like to jump in somewhere (and while there are still entire "unclaimed" sections) it is unclear whether putting your name at the top of the section indicates that you are working on some of the pages in that section, or all of them. I don't want to start working on one or two in a section and then make it seem like nobody else should jump in on that section too. Any opposition to per-page-claims? I would go ahead with the change already, but I don't want to assume who is working on what page when converting sections that have been started already. | Enbyd (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If noone has their name at the top of a section then per-page claims are totally good. I didn't put a lot of thought into the huge sections like slabs and stairs, those are too big to be done by one person anyway. The idea is to only claim it for a couple of hours at a time, just however long it takes you to get some of the pages done. The stairs/slabs/wall can probably be permanently split into like 4 sections each since they are so large. Mudscape (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the intent now. I missed that detail on my first readthrough (sorry!). I suppose with relatively few people working on things, it is easier to do direct contact when resolving confusion. How would you personally sub-section stair/wall/slab? | Enbyd (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally? I would just go from the top and put like 5-7 in each group. If you want to section them, go ahead. Its just a page for organization, so make whatever changes help with that. Mudscape (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a sortable table to the Walls section. Will likely do the same for other long sections, but need to check in with the editors who have already started them. Enbyd (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly not a fan of the table, makes it needlessly complicated. The old layout worked fine, if you only want to mark your name on one or two walls you could still do that. No need to create strict formats for this temporary project. Misode (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It helps me to better visualize what's actively being worked on, and I hoped it could help others too. The previous layout was ambiguous to me, so I tried this. I was just trying to organize in a helpful way (following what Mudscape suggested), though I understand that what works for me may not be what works for you. You are of course free to revert / edit / update it to your liking. | Enbyd (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Idea for "current editor" area

So, what I've been thinking of is, instead of having the "current editor" section placed on the top, which signifies that said editor will be doing the entire section, I'm thinking of implementing a system where there is a "current editor" area beside the specific page. If we implemented this, it could signify that the editor in question will only be working on that one specific page. There are two things I was thinking we could do if the first idea is implemented.

1. We could remove the "current editor" section at the top entirely, and only leave said sections with the pages needing split.
2. We could leave the sections there as a signification that the editor in question is indeed going to work on all the pages in the section that they put their name in. This would signify no need to write their name in the page-specific "current editor" section, as they have already signified that they will work on all pages that have not been done yet.

The reason for doing this would be because, like what has been said in the topic above, some sections are too long for one editor to do, but writing your name there may signify that you will do the whole section. I do know that the editor can signify they are done editing that section by removing their name, but people sometimes forget. I just think implementing this system would be easier for understanding what editors are going to do what.

LIVE EXAMPLE: Editor A decides to only work on the "Golden axe" page. Therefore, Editor A writes his name under the "current editor" section under "Axe". Editor B then comes down, because he wants to work on the "Diamond axe" page. Editor B then sees that Editor A is already working on the "Axe" section, and so therefore, he does not work on the page he came to work on. If we implemented this new system, Editor A would write his name in the "current editor" section for only the "Golden axe" page. Then, Editor B would see that Editor A only wants to write the page for the golden axe, and so he does the same as Editor A did, only for the "Diamond axe" page.

Support, oppose, comments, questions, anyone? --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't have to be a table, as mentioned above, if the table would be too sloppy. --ThatOneWolf ^{(talk|[[Special:Contributions/ThatOneWolf|contribs]])} 16:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this would be nice, if you want to do that in the future you can. This doesn't need a large proposal really, so don't worry. - Harristic | Talk 20:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll change it later to put this in, but I don't have the time right now. -- ThatOneWolf ^{Time for a chat?_{See my edits?}} 20:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harristic: What do you think we should do about the parent/overview page creation? Should I make it, or not? It'd be like "Parent page editor:", "Overview page editor:", or something like that, at least that's how I'm envisioning it. What do you think? -- ThatOneWolf ^{Time for a chat?_{See my edits?}} 15:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello ThatOneWolf, I've had to move the current editor tags to the slabs, walls, and heads section. I grouped all of the equipment stuff so that way it would make scrolling through the list easier. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, if you place your name on the current editor tag for the entire section, it implies you intend to work on the whole section. To save time, there is no need to put your name on the page current editor tags. :) -- ThatOneWolf ^{Time for a chat?_{See my edits?}} 18:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

More clarity for future splits

Several items which were previously missing have been added to the list. However, given the lack of clarity for these, I've opened a second discussion at Minecraft Wiki:Forum/Further article split discussions to get additional clarity on whether the consensus is to split them or not. This is due to the original forum discussion by Mudscape, being unclosed, and the author going MIA/AWOL, as well as grouping unrelated items in one discussion. Additional discussion and feedback in the revived forum post would be greatly appreciated! Since it would assist in the ongoing project to split additional articles. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that the split of stairs and slabs are essentially complete. The next course of action should be to address walls and heads. If these two splits are done before Sunday, I'll look into closing any unanimous discussions in the forum post early. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How to join this project?

Hello, I saw a link to this on the community portal, and I would like to join the project to help it. How do I do this? Can I just sign my username under the users involved section? MinecraftExp123 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, if you don't like the way a project page is written, just change it. It's a constant work in progress, and edits in MCW:Projects/... are taken as communication between users. As long as you're being polite, you can put any edit you want on a projects page, and you don't have to follow the Style Guide very strictly. Of course, not following the style guide is sometimes rude, but my point stands. If you want to join a project, just slap you name down on its page. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 06:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I just started working on the part about swords, and I made a draft in my userspace. Can I do that and later copy all the source code to the actual page?

Edit: it is at User:MinecraftExp123/wooden sword, and I would let anyone edit it as long as the edit is helpful (even though it's a userspace

MinecraftExp123 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@MinecraftExp123: Please fix the indentation above this line. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Simanelix: I have just finished creating the wooden sword page. Can I just leave the pages for the other languages alone? I could do the one in Chinese because I speak it fluently, but definitely not the other ones. Please reply because I am currently very confused about whether I can just move one to making the stone sword page. Also, there might be errors and incorrect usage of templates, so I would like someone who understands templates very well to check the page. (I don't have a discord account so I can't join that server) --MinecraftExp123 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@MinecraftExp123: A few things:

Firstly, don't worry about other language (i.e. Spanish: en, German: de, Chinese: zh, etc.).

Secondly, has anyone discussed splitting the armor and tool pages yet? I see a section for them, but I can't find a discussion on it. Nontheless, I do support splitting those pages.

Thirdly, I believe that splits like sword need to be done all at once; we can write pages in userspaces / in subpages of this page one at a time, but we should publish the changes to the wiki (i.e. the main namespace) all at once. See § Multiple edits at once – There is a message box I put there that says exactly this. I think it used to be on MCW:Projects/DIG but got moved.

Fourthly ^{and finally}, you don't have to worry User:MinecraftExp123/wooden sword being a userpage. The {{Message box}} at the top tells other editors that they can edit it. {{WIP}} can be used in a similar way on user pages.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much about this! I will start working on stone sword in another subpage of my userpage. I have fixed the indentation of that line. I know that there doesn't seem to be a discussion for splitting the armour and tool pages, but someone is working on Axe, so I decided I will work on sword. (I am confused why only the wooden, stone, and iron axe pages are split but not the rest)MinecraftExp123 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Simanelix: An IP editor just reverted your revert on the wooden sword page, changing it back to the edit I made. Should I revert that IP editor? MinecraftExp123 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The editor explained it in their edit summary: "Revert per BDJP's reasoning". BJDP reverted my reverts to Wooden Axe, Stone Axe, and Iron Axe because their is no point in removing pages that users might be familiar with. Of course, Wooden Sword might be different since it has only been there for a day, but I still think it's reasonable to keep it up. As I said before though: Stone Sword, Iron Sword, Golden Sword, Diamond Sword, and Netherite Sword should be posted simultaneously. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

After 24w11a dropped, should we classify the mace as a type of sword? I know it isn't crafted and doesn't look like a sword, but it has 1.6 attack speed. I understand that the mace has very different mechanics. MinecraftExp123 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No. The mace is a miscellaneous weapon, just like the trident. In fact, it really is a land-equivalent of the trident, which makes the new update truly wonderful. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 12:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. How do I use the DIG draft template? I can't seem to change any values, and it always says 'wooden sword'. For now, I will use a regular message box on my new draft page, User:MinecraftExp123/stone sword. (I did not increase further indentaion because it already looks very broken on my laptop) MinecraftExp123 (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Simanelix: I noticed that you haven't responded yet. I am just following up because the Steps section specifically asked me to put that template in the beginning of my draft. MinecraftExp123 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's why the tools and armor being half split is incredibly confusing. The reason why some tool and armor pages were half split was since the original proposer of the DIG project proposal started the discussion, got a ton of support, did the first split, and then became inactive (missing in action), and we end up with a situation of half-split tool and armor pages. In addition, many other editors who commented on the original proposal supported such major large scale splits of tools and armor without being committed to actually carry them out. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In the cases of tiered tools and armor, they need to be deployed all at once, per Simanelix. Having some tiered tools and armor be split and others not is just plain confusing and inconsistent for readers. I'd even go as far to say that those tool and armor pages that have been split (sans Turtle Shell, no equivalents) should be re-merged until all split pages are completed within a draft project-space, then deplay all 68 split/overview pages for tools and armor all at once. Delvin4519 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Multiple edits at once

I saw this very helpful note:

And I was thinking: if we split a page, like Door, should we try to publish all of the subpages at once and then very quickly publish the original page as an overview page?

The idea would be to use a bot, or just client-side JavaScript, to publish multiple edits in a short time-span, like 1 second, or 0.02 seconds. I know there are a few bot-runs the admins do this kind of stuff, so it wouldn't be a very strange occurence.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 06:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Consider removing some split suggestions

• Dyed shulker boxes and candles should not get a separate article due to no functional difference from undyed ones.
• Also, unlike terracotta, shulker boxes can be easily reverted to plain form using a cauldron — roughly similar to the landmark case for wet sponges (1, 2), though the wet sponge itself actually has little utility outside from being a stage in the sponge’s usage process.
• Colored tulips are not some generic flowers of different colors — they are meant to represent varieties of the same genus, as suggested by their name and visual appearance.
• Froglight variants were mostly turned down here. I see no conceptual difference between froglights having individual articles for each of its three colored variants (or, for that matter, tulips having the same for its four colors) and wool having the same for sixteen colors, yet we’ve decided against articles for colored wool and the like.

Also, I am still tempted to propose re-merging some of the articles that were already split. See also Talk:Stone Pressure Plate#Merge? — BabylonAS 07:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose Some of these suggestions are already confirmed, and people are already working on them. See Minecraft Wiki:Projects/DIG:Design to Implement Granularity/More Block Articles. Also, I personally believe that this project should split almost every block or item that have different identifiers (rather than block states or NBT), such as the different tulip types are 'red_tulip', 'orange_tulip', 'white_tulip', and 'pink_tulip'. I know it says not all pages need spliting, but saying that their functions are the same is not a valid reason, since pottery sherd has been split. Also, I believe the different wood types should be split because sometimes their usage is slightly different, such as some doors are partially transparent while some are not (i.e. you can't see through spruce doors, making it good for traps, but oak doors have an open window on the top so it would not work). MinecraftExp123 (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Commenting on this:

1. Dyed candles cannot be reverted back into a undyed candle.
2. Shulker boxes are not like "sponge - wet sponge" or "unlit redstone lamp - lit redstone lamp". The dyed state of shulker boxes has 16 colors, not a single state like that undyed. It should be treated as a undyed/dyed block and not an unpowered/powered, dry/wet stage.
   1. If one reads the current pages of shulker boxes and candles, the first thing they'll notice is the hideous and awful infobox with 17 different tabs in the infobox. 3 rows of invicons below the picture. Why 3 rows of invicons and not 2? Well the 17th invicon doesn't fit in the 2nd row of invicons. Then follow that with the obtaining and usage sections. Half of the crafting section is in the wrong place (should be "usage" and not "obtaining" for dyed recipes), ditto for usage. Now trying to read the history and block state sections for candles and shulker boxes? First one needs to scroll past 34 different data values to get to the history section. Then once getting to the history section, it is hard to read through the history section since the 17 different textures clogs the history table and is a huge distraction.
   2. Read through my 4 user pages for candles and shulker boxes (Candle, Dyed Candle, Shulker Box, Dyed Shulker Box). If reading the articles for undyed shulker boxes and candles, it is much simplier and easier to understand. One can read about shulker boxes and candles without dealing with the 16 colors of junk cluttering the page, but still be able to learn that these are dyable blocks. Then if they visit the dyed block page, it is more compact since the information about their functionality was already displayed in the undyed page. The dyed page is focused on showing the textures, data values, and texture history of the dyed blocks. It is similar to how some asset history pages are in separate pages: Special:Search/intitle:"asset history", to declutter the original page.
3. This one is open for debate, I'm mostly  Neutral on this, but very so slightly in favor of the "one flower = one page" to keep things simple.
4. Moved froglights and sponges into "splits were opposed" section of the main page.
5. I will, or have had, comment(ed) on pressure plates inside the talk page.
   1. I do think some page splits were problematic. I think the best pages to merge back together is all tiered tools and armor (sans turtle shell). Most of the differences stem from tiers and so I think they can best be described in the tier page, and the respective tool or armor page. They are all the same tool but different tiers and the differences from those tiers. The splits of these have been problemtic, there are not enough editors who supported the splits to be committed to finishing them, as tools and armors are an extremlylarge and major split, which results in half of the tools being split and the other half not split, which is just plain confusing for readers.

Delvin4519 (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Dye overview

I noticed that the dye pages are already split. Then why isn't Dye changed into an overview page yet? After someone confirms that this is a mistake and that there isn't a reason for it to not be an overview, I will start changing it into an overview before continuing to work on tiered tools and armor (the section I'm currently working on). MinecraftExp123 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Dye articles were split back in 2011 or 2012, before even the Gamepedia migration, let alone the Great Split. At some point it was even proposed to re-merge them back into one article. BabylonAS 05:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean I should change Dye to an overview page? --MinecraftExp123 (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 No. It looks like the prose in Dye's Usage section actually describes what it does. Do not modify the Usage section. The only section in need of a cleanup is the Obtaining section, which is easier to clean up then you'd think. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 09:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Simanelix: Okay, then I won't change the page that much. I will just add a 'Variants' section with links to the subpages, but the rest of the page will remain unchanged. Please revert my edits if I shouldn't add that section. --MinecraftExp123 (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

• Simon: don't edit the Usage section.
• Also Simon: rewrites the Usage section.
• Also also Simon: rewrites the Obtaining section to be more like an overview.

I decided to rewrite the Usage section, but you will notice that I didn't seriously change anything. By the way, the Usage section should be similar to how it is now because all dyes have the same exact uses. Bonemeal, Lapis Lazuli, and Ink Sacs are not dyes, but they do share crafting recipes (see Dye § Crafting). --Simanelix ^(T|C) 12:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit: Actually I won't as there are already links in the Obtaining section. I was thinking about to make it somewhat similar to the style of an overview page, but as the links will be redundant, I won't. --MinecraftExp123 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Split abandoned village from village

Hey Harristic you are a big contributor to the minecraft wiki, I know that you participate in the DIG project. And have an idea to separate abandoned village page from the regular village page. It will be useful and please give me a update if the answer is yes or know. ps you can use my talk page Thanks. Amysteryman Amysteryman (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not the decider of what gets split, so I can't give you a yes or no answer. I don't have any strong opinion on whether or not we should split abandoned villages into a separate page. Let's wait to see what other people think, and then it could become a larger discussion on Talk:Village. - Harristic / Talk 18:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also a sort of unrelated comment but how do you claim a category such as types of horse armor Amysteryman (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I want to do that Amysteryman (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/DIG:Design_to_Implement_Granularity#Tiered_tools_and_armor and just put your username right below the link to horse armor, theres a comment on the line it goes on. Thanks for being willing to help! Mudscape (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Axe pages chest loot section

I noticed that all the pages split from Axe have an incorrect §Chest loot section. For example, Diamond Axe only contains damaged-random-enchanted-diamond-axe(trial vault loot) in the LootChestItem template, but not other diamond axes, such as damaged-diamond-axe(bastion loot). I've already changed Iron Axe to make it how it's supposed to be, but can someone help change the rest? I will eventually change them, but I'm currently on vacation, so it might take a while for me to do so. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 09:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up, I will get them fixed soon, enjoy your vacation! Mudscape (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

All fixed Mudscape (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 02:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot for interwiki on pages already created on the PT wiki

I would like to know if I will be able to count on RostingerBot or others to make interwikis on the DIG pages available on the PT wiki and probably without interwiki here. :) - CraftianosHard(falar) Administrador|Director 02:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Overview pages should still have an infobox

From the About section:

> The general format is a page without an infobox

I'd argue that an infobox is useful in most cases, allowing for quick access to information such as hardness/blast resistance of blocks that come in multiple variants (e.g. ores, slabs etc) or durability of tools and armor. We can avoid renders, especially in pages like slab which cover like 60 different blocks, but the infobox should still be there IMHO. I'm bringing this up because the infobox was removed from Axe due to the guideline above, and I don't think this was ever properly discussed and agreed upon.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 12:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to keep the infobox. Though I think there's bound to be overview pages that don't fit an infobox (I think slab and stairs are examples of that), so I'm not sure how we should go about deciding which get the infobox. - Harristic / Talk 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Support Inclusion of infoboxes. They are not disambiguation pages, so they are treated regularly and therefore should have infobox TreeIsLife (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Ditto  Nixinova   T   C   11:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Depends. I personally think Armor shouldn't have an infobox, because they belong on Helmet, Chestplate, Leggings, and Boots, but other tiered tools and armors should. However, variants of blocks like Fence and Slab probably shouldn't. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 11:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Split Abandoned Village page from Regular

Soo to keep it simple, the abandoned village page is included within the village page, but since that they are two different structures I think that they should be split. What do you guys think? Amysteryman (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk about splitting Abandoned village page here?

So I know as I was told to put the idea of splitting the Abandoned village from the regular Village page in Talk:Village. But I do not think that too much peoplek th checat page, so I think that we should bring the discussion here. – Unsigned comment added by Amysteryman (talk • contribs) at 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

The village talk page is a more appropriate place. People should respond to any talk page message since recent changes lists them and we also have a bot in the wiki discord that notifies for every talk page edit. Mudscape (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

idk if anyone is going to check it Amysteryman (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's more likely that someone checks it there than here. - Harristic / Talk 23:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm looking to join a project, as I'm nearing my 1000th edit. So, I'm wondering, should I join this project? What would I be doing? How active would I need to be? How much work would I be doing? What would be a good reason to join? Thanks, -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 03:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to join if you're confident. You can work on any page you want, at your own pace. Just sign your name at the Contributors section and you can start working on it. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I knew you'd be the first to reply. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 03:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about my new ides on User:MinecraftExp123/Villager Trade Rebalance? I posted another comment on the talk page. I feel like something might not work, but it most likely should. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

What might work might work, I suppose. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 03:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@MinecraftExp123 I'm going to try to split plains. Is anyone working on that one? -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 03:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, biomes take almost no effort to split, as Plains already has a very explicit section for sunflower plains. So for Sunflower Plains, just copy the entire article and keep everything except for the section about regular plains, and maybe change a few sentences so it makes sense. For the new Plains article, just do the same but remove the sunflower plains section instead. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Because it takes almost no time to split, chances are no one would be working on it, because it's either done or not done, with no "WIP" phase. Unlike splitting pages like Sword (which I did), each sub-biome has an indiviual section, so no one would spend a lot of time on it and create drafts, so you can always assume that no one is working on the biomes. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 09:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Right. I'm in! -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And I finished the sunflower plains biome page. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Now, how do I implement it? -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

How exactly do you edit redirects? I can't figure it out. I'm trying to implement the split. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 03:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, go to https://minecraft.wiki/w/Sunflower_Plains?redirect=no (or just add ?redirect=no to the end of any URL of a redirect page) to see the page. You can then replace it with the contents by typing {{subst:User:Nerdyguy2000/DIG}}, or just subst: followed by the name of the page you want to replace. Then, go to Special:WhatLinksHere, enter "Plains", and choose to hide transclusions and links, so only redirects will show. You should change any redirects that you think should now redirect to Sunflower Plains so that they do. For example, "Sunflower plain" (without the "s") currently redirects to Plains, but you should change it to Sunflower Plains once that page is done, because that's where it belongs.

Another thing to note: please also remove the #Sunflower Plains section from Plains before creating Sunflower Plains. This is to prevent readers from thinking that you haven't created that page yet. Also consider adding a hatnote on the Plains page, similar to the one on Swamp (the first sentence). Remember to use the {{about}} template!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 05:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm done! Now I'll work on oceans or something... -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you think, should I work on oceans now, or maybe a different biome? -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure! Do whatever you want. Note that I won't have much time to edit from now on for a while, because summer holiday ended for me. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: Is it okay to replace one child page at a time? Like, if I have the contents of the ocean page at User:Nerdyguy2000/DIG, and I grab all the warm ocean content and put it in [User:Nerdyguy2000/DIG/2], then I blank /DIG/2, and put the contents in warm ocean without having the other variants finished first, would that be okay? (I should probably just make several pages for that, shouldn't I?) Note: summer also ended for me last Monday (the fifth), so I also may be busy sometimes. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm just going to do the same as you did with the sword pages. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 23:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Other question: should there be an "Ocean (disambiguation)" page? -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 23:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Because there are so many ocean variants, a single hatnote is not enough, so you can just put something like {{about|the default variant of oceans}}. An alternate solution is to make Ocean an overview page, and making the first section #Variants, where you could then list each variant. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 04:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

But then, how do I document the regular Ocean? Do I just have "Ocean" and "Ocean (overview)"? -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 14:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No, just document the regular ocean at Ocean, but add a Variants section on that page and list the other oceans there. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 02:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And put see also: Ocean on the other ones? I'll do that. -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you should always put biome variants on the See also section. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

“	If that is what I should do, then that is what I will do	„
	— Nerdyguy2000 on Aug 18, 2024 4:03 UTC

-~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 04:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's very funny. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:) Kind of a modified quote. And apparently it's a way to outdent without a full page edit, although a weird one. :D -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nether fungi

I propose splitting pages Huge fungus (4 support, 0 oppose), Nylium (no discussion) and Fungus (no discussion) into crimson and warped like we've done with biomes, wart blocks, roots and vines. Miner(talk contributions) 13:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I can see where opposition would come from. Nevertheless, I  Support. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  13:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Delvin's comment...  Oppose nylium. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Support Huge fungus only as all other "trees" have their own pages (huge fungi are structures and not blocks).  Oppose on Nylium and Fungus. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Huge fungus but oppose on fungus. Mushrooms are not split and fungus should not either. Also support nylium, if the exact probability of vegetation generation when bonemealed is supplied, otherwise neutral. Hxy123abc (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Current numbers:

Huge fungus: 7 support, 0 oppose (if you wonder how did I get seven people, look here)

Nylium: 2 support, 2 oppose

Fungus: 2 support, 2 oppose

So I think we're going to split huge fungus. I've created these drafts: User:Miner/Sandbox/Huge crimson fungus and User:Miner/Sandbox/Huge warped fungus. Should I copy them into main namespace or do something else? Miner(talk contributions) 13:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Splitting Villager

As Villager is now being split, I think we should standardize what should be split. I don't have a full idea, but personally I think all sections except for Trading should be very short and have {{main|Villager#[section name]}} instead, to prevent repetitive information. History and Gallery might be unique though. Sounds could be different, so maybe all that information should be on the individual pages. The schedules for nitwits are different, so it should be different only on Nitwit. That is my proposal, please reply some opinions or ideas. I feel like this is quite necessary as it isn't obvious how the page should be split. Before a consensus is made, I'll first work on the potions. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 08:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

 Support your idea Miner(talk contributions) 17:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Potion history section

For the earliest potions (Fire Resistance, Speed, Slowness, Strength, Weakness, and maybe a few more), they were technically added in Beta 1.9 Pre-Release 2, but they only existed within the code but not within the creative inventory, or obtainable in survival, or with /give (I'm not sure commands existed back then). Should I say that it was added in the next version when brewing stands were added, or this version? Both seem inaccurate. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that it was added, but wasn't obtainable. It's technically an addition, but not an implementation. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I will do that. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 05:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The proper potion of fire resistance, potion of swiftness etc were added in pre-release 3 and in my opninion this is the earliest version that should be noted in the split potion pages. Pre-release 2 had a bunch of prefixed potions (e.g. "bulky potion", "buttered potion" etc) with various effects (often mixed, and including effects that were later made unobtainable via brewing), but these were technically not the same as the proper potions implemented in pre3.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! That makes a lot of sense now. I will implement that later. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Consistency

I noticed that the potion pages I'm splitting, Poletucha is splitting, Harri is splitting, Miner is spliting, and 245e is splitting have some significant differences, especially in the History section. I'm thinking maybe we should agree on what to do exactly, like a generic potion subpage, and we just change the details. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 03:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Although I'm not actively engaged in this project anymore, I'll say: I agree, I did wonder about this when I saw everyone splitting these. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No issues found for split potion pages

I noticed that there are no found issues for Potion of Fire Resistance, as seen below:

Issues relating to "Potion of Fire Resistance" are maintained on the bug tracker. Issues should be reported and viewed there.

Now I'm wondering if we should just remove the section entirely, as it's unlikely to actually have issues for individual potions, since any bugs would probably pertain to every potion type. Should we keep the issue list as is, or remove the Issues section? --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep it as is. There might be issues in the future. You can also add additional search strings like "Fire Resistance Potion". GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks! --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 04:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Minecon cape availability in Bedrock

I think stating these capes are available in Bedrock is a bit misleading. They are part of skins included in a couple of skin packs, but cannot be used as an actual cape on any skin/character. I suggest moving the "Bedrock Edition" section out of "Obtaining" (it could be a new section called "Skin packs") and changing the "availability" value in infoboxes to "no" or "partial" with a note.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 15:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)