Talk:Dimension

First of all, you've just combined a bunch of articles into one pointless article. Second, the Aether is a mod. I vote we delete this page. --Captain_Clam 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's also a copy of User:1234567890Number/Dimensions 2. Combining information into a userspace article for easy reference is fine, but we don't need duplicate mainspace articles. -- Orthotope 01:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I can fix the page, and instead of combinding a lot of articles, make links to them. I can write about dimensions in general: "Dimensions are different worlds with different terrain generators..." or something like that, but more measured. metarmask 18:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what he meant was this page isn't needed anyway; the link directory at the bottom of each dimension's page already links to all the other in-game dimensions. Cobalt32 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I Yes, but there's no information on the wiki that explain what a dimension is, just about dimension. There's no information about in what map each dimension is saved. I think the page is needed. metarmask  Metarmask.png 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "dimension" isn't used in-game, and if there's no information on where data for the Nether or End is stored, then you might as well add that information to their respective articles rather than write a redundant article combining them all just so you can add a couple extra factoids that weren't there before. Cobalt32 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, thank you. metarmask  15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Log Entry No.8564:Blanked and turned Dimensions into a redirect page. --1234567890Number 22:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal: "Dimension (disambiguation)" → "Dimension"; "Dimension" → "Dimension (data file)"
I think the primary meaning is still the concept of dimensions itself. The data pack-related article can't be primary because it defines instances of the concept "dimension".

It has been said that it's a disambiguation page, but I don't think it's required to name disambiguation page with "(disambiguation)" if there is no primary meaning that has its own, separate article. And in this case, the disambiguation could itself be viewed as related to the primary meaning.

The "(data file)" suffix added to the data pack thing is not final; I'm very willing to change it upon feedback as I'm not sure what to call it. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 11:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm personally neutral to slight oppose, only because it'll be the only instance where a disambiguation page is the "base" page, while a non-disambiguation page with the "same" title would not be the "base" page. The only other exceptions are functions, and there it's only the case because java and bedrock function pages are separated. FVbico (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how being an "only instance" is bad? Relying on precedent is hardly a good point in wiki discussions; it may be so other implementations should be changed for the exact same reason as this one. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 11:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because then it's inconsistent with the rest of the wiki, but as I said I mainly neutral on this. FVbico (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think? Like FV said, it's inconsistent. Not sure though, I have mixed thoughts on this. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . I'm basically restating, in a more detailed and "reader-relatable" way, what you say about the pack-related article not being the primary topic. I think this is a case where you have to look at the situation from a reader's point of view, rather than an editor's; after all, the wiki is meant for the readers. Obviously I can't back this up with statistics, but I'm almost completely sure a reader searching for "Dimension" is far more likely to want to know information about the individual dimensions or dimensions as a whole, rather than the data files. When I consider what a disambiguation page should be titled, I usually think about what readers are most likely to search for, rather than what's consistent with other pages. I believe that's a good practice in general. Like I said, the purpose of the wiki is to inform readers; therefore, it makes sense to organize pages in a way that's the most logical and convenient and for the majority of readers.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just adding a note here; why is inconsistency a reason to not change something in this case or even a bad thing at all? The fact that this is the "only instance" of something is because it's a different situation from other disambiguations. Each instance should be considered individually. And if a similar situation is the case for another disambiguation page, maybe that one needs to be changed; but I certainly don't think that simply "other pages don't do this" is a strong argument for changing a page just in general.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * . --dr03ramos Piston.gif (talk) Admin wiki[pt] 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)