Talk:Basalt

Probably Trivia on appearance
Its surface appears to me similar to "Pillar Lava" - if flat, of course - as it's a bunch of equidistant hive-like circles /equal-length of sides, polygons. And definitely igneous, yeah. - Yilante 2 /6 /20. 6:33 p.m. 76.209.248.192 02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the page
Recently, split this page into Basalt and Polished Basalt. However, as there was no discussion on this, the pages were re-merged. So, should we merge them or not?

I'm gonna say. My biggest issue is the inconsistency, as other pages with polished variants (and things such as stone and smooth stone) are combined. If they were split, I'd agree to split this as well. However, as it stands, basalt blocks don't have more differences than those polished versions, so they don't really have a reason to be split while the other pages stay together. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * a split as a trial to see how the wiki community would handle having such an article split. Currently such blocks are kept tightly together, but there doesn't appear to be much benefit at all to having them being on the same page aside from their naming and appearances. Basalt is found in basalt pillars, whereas polished is not, polished basalt can be obtained through recipes, whereas regular basalt cannot be, and both have different block IDs alongside differing histories, so the amount of information duplication that would result from such a split would be minimal. I don't see how having this article split into two, one per block, would be harmful at all. - User-12316399 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rest of your reasoning, but the trial thing doesn't make much sense. That's not really something we do. I don't think we'd ever have any *issues* if we split every single thing on this wiki, it would just be wildly inefficient, inconvenient, and generally unreasonable (though I don't think that would be true in this case). -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)