Talk:Enchanting

Split each enchantment off into its own page
Following the split of Biome I feel tempted to propose that we also split the pages listing out status effects and enchantments. Currently:
 * all 30+ enchantments are crammed onto a single page, making it long and difficult to navigate,
 * the section for each enchantment is also relatively short, and the amount of information each section conveys is limited (for sections with extra information, especially Silk Touch, it makes the section look extremely unbalanced and unsightly, whereas a unique page for it would have that information neatly tucked into a section of its own),
 * the history section is also relatively disjoint from the actual relevant sections it concerns, which results in a lot of unrelated information being crammed together, and so on.

I hereby propose that every enchantment should be split off into unique pages. This would allow for more information about each enchantment to be elaborated upon, for only directly relevant history to be listed on the pages, and potentially other useful information (e.g. what level of Efficiency on a diamond pickaxe would be required to mine a given block instantly when paired with Haste II).

Any thoughts? - User-12316399 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I any arguments for splitting pages. There's no reason to cram so much information into massive pages. – Nixinova Nixinova sig image 1.png Nixinova sig image 2.png 19:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * for the reasons stated above. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , mostly per above. This is desperately in need of splitting, imo, even more so than status effect. Information is all over the place and trying to cram 37 topics into a single page is clearly not working out.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 20:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * . FVbico (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * and . Some of the enchantments simply don't need their own page while some could possibly use one.  What you could do is take the list of Enchantments with the short information blurb, make that a new page linked back to this page and add new pages for enchantments that could use separate pages that are more in-depth.  This would cut down on the length of the current Enchantment page while preserving the list as it is for ease of use by the user since the basic information would still be present and that's what the vast majority of people need.  If there is a need for an in-depth look at specific enchantments separate pages could be created and linked to from the parent page with the list containing brief descriptions and a link back to that page.  Otherwise it'd involve a lot of unnecessary page loading to go back and forth between a list of enchantments and different enchantments just to find a basic description of what they do and max level and exclusionary enchantment interactions like Loyalty and Riptide or Infinity and Mending. DigitalNacht (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , Splitting the page would allow for more useful information on individual enchantment effects and faster access to information on specific enchantments from google. 122.58.30.46 07:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * . It might be worth considering grouping some of the enchantments. For example, it would make sense to group the protection variants on one page and the sharpness variants on another. Since the variants are all mutually exclusive, it would be helpful to have them on one page so they can be compared easily. jahunsbe (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I, it it more convenient to have all the information in one place. If you do split it into multiple pages please leave the original as well.174.125.28.157 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, if this goes through this page will turn into just general information about enchanting and different enchantments. – Nixinova Nixinova sig image 1.png Nixinova sig image 2.png 22:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * . splitting out related enchantments makes sense. It would enable a writer to compare and contrast features or mutually exclusive enchants to help a player decide what do when trying to work out what tools and armour would be best for different situations. I do feel that this page with its master list of all enchantments is still needed so that finding an enchantment when one might not have its name is possible without a multi page snipe hunt. Enchantments that are of special importance in game play should also have their own pages .. like silk touch. A protection is easily explained in one line "it reduces XXX type of damage" but silk touch enables a different approach to mining. --Bytebasher (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * . This page is currently huge enough to deserve being split. An infobox with all enchantments would be nice. 181.223.180.76 19:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I because I think it is super convenient to have all the content on one easy so look through page where I can see it all displayed together. I think that the idea of splitting up big pages into smaller pages is purely bureaucratic and anti-productive because then you have to look through many pages to find what you need. Sure, if you are a moderator, or someone who paroles the site daily, then of course you will know where everything is. But, for the rest of us, it is easier to have it all on one page because we do not have the entire site map memorized. Perfect example of this are the pages about mine-carts. There is one page for each mine-cart plus one or two pages about the logistics of minecarts. These two pages about the logistics of minecarts would be much more helpful if they also had the crafting recipes and general information (not specific stuff like version-history, Easter-eggs, and trivia). Sure, from a bureaucratic standpoint it would be abominable to have repetition of content across multiple pages. But, from a practical stand point as a commoner, I think that collectivizing content and repeating convent across multiple pages is more productive because no one reads the whole page thoroughly top to bottom: they came to the wiki for a reason and all they want to do is read about what they are looking for.

--74.133.51.189 00:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't add weird HTML and it's not hard to navigate when split: you are just searching the enchantment name which you'd do anyway. And this is not about buerocracy at all, it's about splitting an annoying page. – Nixinova Nixinova sig1.png Nixinova sig2.png 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong opinions on splitting or not splitting, but I still think your argument is flawed. You say that having all the content on one page is convenient, but in practice, it becomes a laggy mess.  An example of this is the pre-split commands page -- now it's simply an overview of command mechanics with links to each individual command.  And if you go to that page looking for, say, the meaning of   in /fill, you won't immediately find the information you need, but you can easily find the link to information about /fill and get information from there.  Versus trying to find the information specifically about it on the massive page: you either look in the table of contents for the relative section (which is exactly the same as with the split page) or you try to ctrl+f for replace in it... which goes horribly, because there are other commands that also have replace.  There really isn't any usability in having one article with details on a large number of mechanics all at once. And to be clear: the overview still would exist, it's only the specifics of each enchantment that would get split off. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As a newer to MC player I find it to be intimidating and hard to digest this entire page of Enchantments. Frankly it’s so larger that it makes me not want to even bother using this page at times. I’m simply trying to look up an Enchantment and want the information quickly and clearly from an official source without having to dig deeper through one page about 30 different things. BrianGlory (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * . -BDJP (t 23:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Kind of. I don't think every enchantment needs its own page, but a lot would benefit from it. Maybe keep this page here, trim it down, and have a "Main Article" link for the enchantments that need/have their own page. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Should I go ahead and start splitting? This discussion has been going on since January.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 13:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't vote here because I'm on the fence. Consensus favors splitting. If this is done, I recommend keeping this article with its table of 1-line summaries of each enchantment. I think this would address the concerns of opposers who prefer having information in one convenient place. ~ Amatulic (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: I have just finished modifying this article to get it ready for splitting, so that key information isn't lost: I added new columns for primary and secondary items to the summary table and moved the description of attributes above it. Now all the detailed descriptions are in a separate section called "List of enchantments" which can be split out into separate articles as needed. ~ Amatulic (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . What you did is perfect, imo. Fwiw, I was planning on keeping the table anyways. I agree that there shouldn't be any accessibility issues considering there is an overview of each enchantment and a link to the page. Will start splitting now!--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 22:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I experimentally tried to move one of the longer sections (Silk Touch) to its own article and realized I had to create Template:Infobox enchantment before I could do so (this article for some reason refers to one of its own subpages for the infobox). Once that was done, everything worked. To prevent disruption, the "Silk Touch" section here has a "main article" link to the new article. Once they're all moved, the whole list can be removed. ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for moving that template I made to Template:Enchantment. For attribution purposes, you might want to do a history merge from the sub-page Enchanting/infobox to Template:Enchantment also. I've just modified this article to use the template instead of that sub-page, so nothing links to that sub-page anymore. ~ Amatulic (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, also changed your talk message to link correctly again. :) FVbico (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The deed is done. All descriptions are split out to different articles, all associated anchors changed accordingly, and all associated redirects updated. My, but that was tedious work! ~ Amatulic (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! Splitting pages is indeed tedious. I'm going to look through the pages and see if any formatting changes need to be done (e.g. on the Minecraft Wiki we generally divide pages into sections because lead sections are only a few sentences long).--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Also I suppose I should add the ID(s) of every enchantment to the infobox?--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I basically just split out whatever content I found, making (sometimes significant) copyedits for clarity. It occurred to me that I could have separated the content into sections as I went along, but that would have just lengthened the process.
 * I was looking at that big id table at the bottom of this article and wondering what to do with it. The infobox is a good idea. ~ Amatulic (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Protections are worded confusingly (or they're just wrong)
I don't understand this wording in the Protection section (and it's also in the other 3 protections): "If multiple pieces have the enchantment, only the highest level's reduction is used." To me, this means a helm of protection IV beats boots of protection III and suggests they do not stack to form protection VII. All 4 areas also read:

"Damage reduction from Protection, Fire Protection, Feather Falling, Blast Protection, and Projectile Protection stacks up to an upper limit cap (see Armor)." Which clearly states they stack. So which is it? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.96.103.20 (talk) at 14:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * It does seem confusing, but careful reading reveals the meaning. Your understanding as shown in the helm example is correct: You cannot combine armor pieces with the same enchantment to have an effect similar to a higher level of that enchantment. However, Protection (which reduces all kinds of damage) does stack with any of the others, and their combined effect is used to calculate the damage points for each kind of damage. The results are them summed to a final damage value, and this final value is capped before being subtracted from your health. It may be that a rewording could make this easier to understand, but an explanation like what I've just given is too wordy to add into each of the four X Protection sections. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 14:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on the information in https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Armor#Enchantments, they all stack together, with the individual types only applying to their damage types. This is stated and linked in all of the articles.
 * Fire Protection decreases the time that the player is on fire and taking burning damage, and only the highest level is used. That is clearly stated.
 * Blast Protection decreases knockback from explosions based on the level, and only the highest is used. This is also clearly stated.
 * However, neither Projectile Protection nor normal Protection list any special abilities, and thus should not have "only the highest level is used" since they provide no additional abilities where only the highest level would be used.
 * If I have that wrong, then please provide a clear example where Protection III on a Helmet would be ignored because I also have Protection IV in a chestplate.. VT 14 (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Mending 411
So, someone told me that this article is incorrect, saying that you can get Mending from enchanting items in an enchant table w/o any special plugins nor mods... I wish for some clarification here? 66.96.79.214 01:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can not get it from enchanting tables at all. FVbico (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You can get it from fishing, though. And skeletons and zombies will occasionally drop something that already has mending on it. ~ Amatulic (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've observed how enchanting breaks down after level... was it 30? Anyway, at least on legacy console edition, enchanting after level 45 seems to be exactly the same as how the game enchants random loot books-e.g. you can have a book that ends up with Sharpness V, Smite II, and Infinity. Not sure yet, but Mending probably isn't possible this way because of it being a treasure-only enchantment.--50.107.82.167 17:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
Three of the enchantments here contain this paragraph:
 * Sharpness, Smite, and Bane of Arthropods are mutually exclusive. If commands are used to have two or more of these enchantments on the same item, the effects will stack.

This is contradictory. "Mutually exclusive" and "effects will stack" are contradictory statements. Either they are mutually exclusive without stacking the effects, or they can be combined so that the effects stack. Which is it? ~ Amatulic (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem contradictory to me. "Mutually exclusive" means "cannot be applied together" [i.e. via an anvil, even in creative mode which bypasses the normal enchantability restrictions].  The second claim is about if it's forced via commands.  Granted, I haven't actually tested that, but that's what I assume it's referring to. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that out eventually. It's more clear if the second sentence starts with "However", so I changed them where I found them. ~ Amatulic (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Jackolanters
Can jackolanters be enchanted with curse of binding and curse of vanishing to? If so, add those.73.208.227.101 17:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect or reverted info in history section (re: applying book to item with no change)
In the Java history section, under 1.11.1 it says "Anvils no longer allow enchanted books to apply to items, if no change in enchantments would take effect. This can occur if all enchantments on the book are incompatible with existing enchantments on the item – or if the enchanted book has no enchantments." that appears to not currently (1.14.3) be the case. I'm not sure about the examples given but I was able to use a book with Efficiency III + Power ? on a pickaxe that already had Efficiency IV on it with no change to the pickaxe and at a cost of 11 XP levels. So either the change was reverted, didn't take place at all or the text is unclear. Hexalobular (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the enchantments details missing?
before each of the enchantments are split into their own pages, there are some specific details that explains about the enchantment effect if it's exceed its normal level (via give command). for example "what will happen if you give flame II enchantment to a bow? is the fire damage will be stronger or something?"
 * The enchantments have already been split into their own pages, and in nearly all cases, additional details were added. I should know 'cause I did this splitting (it was a big job) and I don't recall removing details. While I was splitting them out, however, I did notice that some enchantments had sparse information. If you have details to add to anything, please do so. This has been done by other editors in some cases. ~ Amatulic (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Chart of what levels the different enchantments become available and/or more likely to show up?
I looked around for a good amount of time to try and find this, and can't seem to find it on the wiki or any other site. What I'm looking for is a list/chart that shows what level your enchanting table (how many bookshelves you need) has to be for different enchantment to actually show up. Maybe I just wasn't searching the right combo of keywords or something, so if this exists please point me to that page. If it doesn't exist, it would be cool to have.


 * The weight infomation on this page can provide some help. Also try Enchantment Mechanics, which is also linked on this page. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding "Tertiary Items"?
These would be items that enchantments cannot be obtained on in Survival mode, but still function if placed on an item via commands or creative. Should we add these? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * All items can be enchanted with all enchantments, and would behave properly, mine with fortune enchanted dirt works, and item put in head slot with binding works.
 * Only specific item exclusives (infinity, quick charge, sweeping edge) wouldn't function, which is better to explain it on the enchantment's article instead.
 * Generally speaking, all enchants work on all items, making such an entry redundant. FVbico (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Probability chart
Can someone please update the book enchantment probability chart? It seems to be stuck in 1.7, for example it doesn't even include Depth strider. And the probabilities have changed as well, for example in 1.14. But I don't know how these numbers were figured out in the first place. Fabian42 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you referring to the enchantment summary table? Depth Strider is in there. If you're referring to the Weight column, those weights are in the individual enchantment articles, and if they change in those articles, they should change in the table. ~ Amatulic (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the image: https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/File:Book_Enchant_Probability_Chart.png 91.34.45.103 12:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. That's in the gallery, not really an integral part of the article. That was last updated in 2015, over 4 years ago, and should probably be removed if it's so out of date. You would have to ask the creator if there's a newer version. Preferably, this should be a Wikitable, not a graphic. ~ Amatulic (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Stating if an Enchantment is treasure only on its page?
I noticed that the enchantment pages do not state if an enchantment can show up in the table, or if it is treasure only. I would find this information quite helpful ~ Brkntl 15:06, 08 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support adding a parameter to the enchantment infobox. The BlobsPaper.png 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about if it's possible to combine enchantments with an anvil into an enchantment that an enchantment table can't do?
What I mean by that, is it possible to combine 2 Sharpness V's into a Sharpness VI? Or 2 Protection V's to a Protection VI? It would be nice to have an overpowered sword obtainable by Survival mode, and an overpowered bow to defeat the Ender Dragon... –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Blobs2 (talk • contribs) at 5:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * The information is on the Mechanics/Anvil page. The BlobsPaper.png 05:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Shown enchantment in the enchanting table's interface
I was wondering whether there's any specifications that can be made about this fragment of the article.

"hovering over a presented enchantment shows one enchantment to be applied."

Specifically, I would like to know whether there are enchantments that have priority on being shown in comparison to others. Speaking from experience, I have often found myself looking to get a Fortune enchantment on my pickaxe, but I almost always find myself with the Unbreaking and Effiency enchantments. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that these enchanments have a higher chance to be applied to a pickaxe overall, but I was just wondering whether I might have missed a lot of opportunities to get a Fortune enchantment just because it doesn't show up as often (even if it's going to be applied).

Combat enchantments secondary for axes in JE
Based off of information from other parts of this Wiki (axe enchantments table, creatable enchantment list) as well as a small validation test, it seems that Sharpness, Smite, and Bane of Arthropods cannot be attained on an axe via the enchantment table. To account for this, I have modified the first "Summary of enchantments" table by moving the axe under the three enchantments in question from primary to secondary.

Note that the enchantments appear to be primary in Bedrock Edition; however, I have not verified this. To reflect this assumption, I have left a '[JE only]' note on the axe icons. The third 'hand slot items' table is left unchanged, since it does not provide a convenient way to include discrepancies between editions; as such, it currently more closely reflects supposed BE functionality. --4bddn (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Why can't you do it? though you are correct---HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 20:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a table for level 30 enchantments?
Is there a table telling which of the enchantments can only be had once one has a full complement of bookshelves, i.e. enchantments which require level 30 to create?

I'm interested in both the enchantments that can't be obtained before then at all (like Silk Touch), and those which are only available at max level (like, Fortune III, vs. Fortune I or II, which have lower requirements).

Alternately, a table with minimum player level requirements for all enchantments might work, too. SirDaddicus (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Move to "Enchantment(s)"?
The scope of this page seems to be broader than the process of enchanting an item; it seems to be more about enchantments in general and how to access/manipulate them. I think having this page at "Enchantment(s)" (with or without the 's'?) makes it more clear that this is an overview of the enchantments and how enchantments can be applied, moved, and removed. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)