Talk:Tutorials/Block and item duplication

Dirt duplication is not duplication
I would not count dirt 'duplication' as duplication, as it costs gravel. I didn't want to just remove it though, in case people disagree with me


 * Dirt duplication can be considered "duplication" for the following reasons:


 * Very few people are aware of the full potential to be exploited
 * Gravel can be duplicated as well
 * Many servers frown upon dirt duplication


 * Also, all the other duplication methods also cost something (redstone, time, zombies, etc).


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe dirt duplication should be under "obtaining" for dirt, as this is a reasonable thing to do for certain custom gamemodes, such as skyblock and thus shouldn't be removed entirely, but "duplication" makes it seem like you can obtain infinite dirt with nothing required from this strategy, which is just not true.

However there is another type of "dirt duplication" that does, in my opinion count. It doesn't work anymore but should still be taken into account. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaiFAjcZUaw

AmazedKevin (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that this is duplication, it uses intended game mechanics to obtain an item. It would be similar to calling crafting fence posts from wood "fence post duplication". FelisCatusMeows (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Crafting bench duplication
No mention of the crafting bench bug in 1.12? or the ender chest dup while dropping items in 1.11.2


 * There's no information about it here because I have never heard of those duplication methods before. If you have information on them, I'd be interested in hearing about it!


 * Whatever information you add, make sure the method works in the current versions on Minecraft.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the recipe book duplication glitch hit the news pretty hard, but Mojang kept it hidden in their bug tracker. Here is a thread on the Minecraft forum which showcases the problem. I can confirm that it worked. Just to show the seriousness: people even developed a Recipe book dupe patch to counter the effects on Spigot. However, this is also old news right now because 1.12.1 fixed this issue. - ShelLuser (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

TNT Duplication
Does this still work this way in the 1.13 snapshots? If so, can someone update the page to better explain how to do this? --MCweb 20:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it is impossible to do in 1.13. If it’s still impossible by the update, then that section will be removed.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possible to do so it should remain on the wiki. AmazedKevin (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Bedrock/Java differences
It should be made clear which methods apply to which version (Bedrock, Java, or another), and noted which version update disabled them? None of these have ever worked for me and I don't know if it's because I'm just doing it wrong or if I'm on the wrong Edition. Jariesuicune (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are now separate sections for Bedrock and Java Edition exclusives as well a section for techniques that work in both editions.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Version Compatibility
Maybe we should include which update versions (ex. Java 1.2-1.3.4 or Bedrock ??-2.5) any glitch works on. A person may choose not to update/revert to a previous version (when possible, depending what hardware you are using) to be able to make use of that update's exploits? Putting the current/most recent at the top of a list, and past versions in order, putting a placeholder for when it's not apparent when it started being available?Jariesuicune (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"The recommended build is not automatic (but that certainly can be done)"
The above quote references an AUTOMATIC piston chest duplicator but the section only describes a manual one. Having built a working manual duplicator and tried and failed to rig up an automatic one with a hopper and two chests, I'm curious if that claim is theoretical or supported by experience? Is there a trick to it I'm missing? ImmanuelCAN (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if an automatic chest duplicator can be built; I don’t play Bedrock Edition. However, the fact that you did not succeed indicates that such a build might be impossible to make automatic.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Player Data Editing is not duping
Player data editing, or in this case, duplicating the player-specific files in order to have two copies of the profile, should not be considering duping. Making the copy is on the same level as opening up MCEdit to copy a shulker box or just using an NBT editor to give yourself the items, being that you edit the files directly instead of through MC. 71.129.228.9 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting this page

 * The following discussion &#32;of a proposed deletion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to keep the page.

The opposing arguments appear to be both stronger and more popular, and despite this being open for many months there have been few valid rebuttals to the numerous strong arguments made in favor of keeping. Opinions on splitting the page or just removing the outdated information can be expressed in the discussion below this one.--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

. Even today, the day after nether update released and all the dupe methods are apparently patched, I feel this page still has a place on the wiki, just like the java removed features page found here;

https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Java_Edition_removed_features

So the question is should this page remain seperate or should it be added to that page?142.163.79.117 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

. This page blatantly contradicts both the wiki's philosophy and how Mojang wishes to treat these bugs. All duplication bug reports are marked as private, meaning they aren't visible to most users. We've even had discussions about hiding the names of these private reports on version pages. And yet, we have an entire page dedicated to something Mojang has explicitly said is an exploit. The wiki is not meant to document blatant bugs in this way either. Not to mention, a great amount of the glitches here have been patched and most working ones will likely be patched soon. I very strongly believe that this page has no place on this wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)174.116.217.190 19:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , not much to add other than what you said above. Even leading aside the fact that the glitches listed here are almost always intended to be private, most of them have been patched in recent updates and the others will be soon, making this page pretty much useless.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But then where can the players get information on how to duplicate items? Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not the wiki's job to tell players how to execute game-breaking exploits. If someone wants to, there are usually videos on duplication methods. But again, providing this info is not the job of the wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the wiki's job exactly? Last I checked, it's information shared and edited by the community. Google and YouTube can provide any and all information contained in this wiki, wiki's are always just nice collective focused information points.174.116.217.190 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It is the wiki's job to provide information on all aspects of the game, though. The page should stay up because, despite discussing an unintended portion of the game, it still discusses things that are or were in the game at some point. 67.143.192.220 05:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We also don't list crashes as if they were mechanics of a feature. Stuff like this usually gets documented in some form as bug fixes, but having a page dedicated to exploiting private issues is unnecessary and, in my opinion, inappropriate. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * How is it inappropriate? It's not like it's intimate secretive information? A quick google and YouTube search will yeild results.174.116.217.190 07:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the wiki's job to document as much as possible about the game, but imo it's not ok to document game exploits. If Mojang eventually fixes these bugs, they will be documented as a bug fix in their respective fix version's page. Elite hog (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add to the initially provided reasons. FVbico (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add. User:Goldenghost1000 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . We shouldn't document exploits on the wiki. If this somehow doesn't get deleted, at least clean up this abomination of a page. — Thomanski | t | c | 20:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

. Unsure why some mods are approaching this on a personal biased view; every wiki of every game has a bug/glitch/exploit section as they are just that; it's the nature of games. Discussions on the morality of items is not a matter of the wiki; it is here to document all information of the game. The broader issue is if it's of benefit to seperate it from the other bug reports or have its own article like it currently is. It's apparent some users have a personal grudge against the topic as opposed to actually supporting why it should or should not be present. No where in the terms of service of a Mjoang account does it actually say you're not allowed to take advantage of exploits or bugs; they actually acknowledge they will happen.

https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

So using buds before observers, and using cart boosters before powered rails were an unintentional use of a feature in the game; were they not listed in redstone components and minecart components? Lastly, there are ways to detect duplication with negative block value ID's, so also including on this page a means to help servers detect and prevent *may* be better then removal, as it appears that's why people are upset on the information of duplication. Otherwise you're going against Wikipedia's foundation of sharing knowledge regardless of content and moral view of said content. Yes, this may not be wikipedia, at the same time, it is in it's heart.174.116.217.190 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Tbh from several comments made here I've been switching back and forth, still leaning towards supporting deletion. I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular? I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in the final decision, but I'd be curious. However, I'm not sure why you're assuming that we're approaching this on a personal biased view; my support certainly wasn't due to a "personal grudge." Just because we're considering what Mojang would think of this page doesn't mean we're only supporting for personal reasons; after all, this is the official Minecraft Wiki so it's indeed something to keep in mind. I would like to note as well that if we were to keep this page it would need to be heavily rewritten; currently most of the bugs listed on the page have actually been patched.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * By making a comment like "I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular?" Is a biased view. They have expressed they have no control over the content included in the gamepedia or anything else out there, as it's not wrote or maintained by them. As far as duplication itself is concerned, they've expresses in Podcasts and twitch streams that they personally don't care for it, at the same time any unintentional bugs try to get squashed eventually - they view it as any other bug.


 * I also made an assumption on saying people (Pancake) are taking it personally by throwing around things like breaking terms of service, when they haven't read the terms of service, and "how to execute game-breaking exploits" as a form of stiff arming or threat. Duplication bugs are not marked private; you can view them in the bug tracker for any of the related blocks (popular one being piston and chest) - Mojang initially removed the ability for pistons to move chests because of that bug, then they re-added that capability without patching the bug. Clearly, they don't care, or it's low on the radar. It's also not game breaking; anyone's choice of how to play a game is their own - only time it's game breaking is on a server, and servers have ways to detect, prevent, and punish if they have a rule against it. Lastly, Mojang has confirmed them not to be exploits, but bugs ; that's a key and significant difference in discussions around convincing if an article should exist.


 * I agree the page should be rewritten - there are many that need to be. It should still exist, in my opinion.174.116.217.190 04:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're putting a lot of words in my mouth and making a lot of assumptions about me and what I think. First off, I never once mentioned Mojang's TOS. Second, the fact that Mojang doesn't directly control the content of this wiki is not necessarily an excuse to operate directly against how they (the company, not the devs, as they do not speak for the company as a whole) have shown how they want these exploits to be treated. (not saying we have to follow their every whim, but yknow). Third, duplication exploits are not just "any other bug"; all duplication exploits are marked as private on the bug tracker. I'm genuinely not sure where you're getting your information, because it's false. Any duplication exploits you've found on the wiki that are not private should be made that way; I've just asked multiple Mojira moderators and this is the information they've given me. (Edit: Seems you're likely referencing the Bedrock side of the bug tracker. According to the mods I talked to, this is just a result of less moderation on the Bedrock tracker, not a statement about the status of "exploit" of these issues.)
 * In addition, the wiki does not even show private report titles, which are usually extremely vague anyway. It seems deeply inconsistent to not even display those titles, which rarely (if ever) give details on how to perform the exploit, while we have a page on the wiki documenting the intricacies of executing these exploits.
 * Also, we have no rules or policies stating that discussions should be absolutely devoid of opinion, and your automatic dismissal of points because they're "biased" is inappropriate and unfounded. There'd be no need for discussions if opinions weren't allowed.
 * Finally, whether or not Wikipedia does (or does not do) something is not a valid point in favor of or against something. See WPNOTWP. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing as in the terms of service of both Mojang and Microsoft have no issues with taking advantage of exploits or bugs, there is still not valid reason to remove this as it is information on the game. As others have expressed TNT's bore machine's, flying machines, all taking advantage of bugs and Mojang encouraging people to use them in creative ways. I'll quote Jens talking about the nitwit "Whenever we discover we have a bug which is used by the community we just see it as 'undefined behaviour' - and ‘fix’ it by making it a feature." And you mentioning how the bugs are tracked on Java vs bedrock again, further shows how Mojang and Microsoft don't care. Bedrock is now their bread and butter seeing as it contains the monetary revenue system that java will not be incorporating so you'd figure anything that's "ruining the experience" would be removed asap. Again, it's up to a person to decide how they want to play a game. There's no justification on deleting this information, just wether it should be reformatted.174.116.217.190 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are a few other pages that document advantageous glitches. (breaking bedrock, resummoning the ender dragon with fewer crystals, xray glitches to name a few.)Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, we would probably have to get rid of any other article or section covering glitches as as well, since they are also ‘against Mojang’s philosophy’. 184.96.242.82 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd support removing exploits. Like I said above, duplication issues are not merely "any other bug". -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . Some stuff like TNT dupers are probably as important as flying machines in the construction of Rube Goldberg-style machines in vanilla minecraft. These redstone-powered tunnel bores and farms are in every way consistent with the Mojang philosophy (SciCraft interview by Mojang). The same can be said of speedrunners breaking records with or without glitches and people opening on SkyBlock with vanilla for the thrills of it. Let people play and say wow. --Arthur200000 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the whole point of this not being an unofficial wiki. Not everything we say here has to agree with what Mojang says. Minecraft thrives on being a free and open game, let players have this knowledge. If they don't want to use it, it's up to them. There is no reason to censor ways to get large amounts of virtual items. I do think we should remove the outdated ones though. --MMK21stream (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , since this page provides legitimate technical insight into how certain mechanics of the game work. Also, most of the duplication glitches documented here no longer work on current versions of Minecraft, so I find the rationale for deletion to be kind of moot anyway. I would support removing currently working dupe glitches, that is, dupes that work in the current stable version of Minecraft (1.15.2 Java as I write this, with 1.16 on its way, dunno about Bedrock), but only if they're either recently discovered or already have a private bug report on the tracker. But don't throw the entire page out simply based on how the developer company wants to treat the bugs. --Letcreate123 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Review
Points made:
 * 1) [Delete] Dupe bugs/exploits are against ToS.
 * 2) * Apparently, this isn't actually true. Outright bans on exploit use are common in MMOs (for more or less obvious reasons), but this seems to be different for Minecraft.
 * 3) [Delete] Mojang wish to treat dupe bugs/exploits as private, apparently even having been criticized in the past for revealing issue names.
 * 4) * While the Bedrock issue tracker marks such bugs as private less often, this is alleged to be due to less functional moderation in that bug tracker section.
 * 5) [Delete] Dupe bugs/exploits are unethical to disclose to other players even if allowed as this may help with griefing.
 * 6) * Notably, there are no ethical concerns with single-player cheating (to the point that I'd say the word "cheating" shouldn't even apply to SP). I can also imagine how some player maps are based on the idea of using game exploits to win. (I can't say any such maps exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.)
 * 7) [Ambiguous] Dupe bugs/exploits tend to be fixed. A major portion of them in the page are outdated.
 * 8) * While this means they are less relevant (as in, not modern info), they are also less harmful for this exact reason.
 * 9) * As an inversion of the previous sub-point, people may choose to play on less-than-newest releases. For example, they may dislike newer changes or play with mods (both single-player and multiplayer).
 * 10) [Keep] This is relevant information with no apparent reason to delete outright (not illegal). Such information provides valid insight and should be kept.
 * 11) [Keep] This page helps server owners fix these dupes through plugins, as this wiki gives them well-documented information. Removing this page may end up helping the exploiters by making it harder for server owners to discover.

In the end, I see this discussion as converging to a conflict of two points: 1) delete as contributing to unethical behavior; 2) keep as relevant and accurate information.

I'm not sure which one's more important though. Thoughts? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For point 4, bullet 2, documenting because "people may choose to play on less-than-newest releases" is directly contradictory to keeping it updated to the latest version. If one is purposely not updating this page because it is useful information, then wouldn't that make it not consistent with every other example on the wiki where a similar logic applies? Does the fact that this is a tutorial page make it immune to the need to be updated? I haven't read the style guide in full but a quick look through for the word tutorial turns up no such exception. -EatingSilencerforBreakfast (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're correct in each post needing to have updated information. So as previous people have said, we are totally ok with whatever updates to this page are required to have it meet the standards of other pages. And you are allowed to play not up to date versions of the game; that's why Mojang has them available for download on their website.

142.163.79.117 12:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deletion of this page is highly dangerous and unethical, as doing so will be taking steps to assist multiplayer hackers and cheaters by obfuscating information about these issues. Ironically, the best way to protect server owners from these duping glitches is to make information on said glitches as well-documented and easily accessible as possible. Not only does this give server owners insight into what the "popular" dupes are and how to fix them with plugins, but it also makes it easier for Mojang to see which glitches require the most attention. If there is clear documentation on what duplication glitches exist in the game and why they work as they do, not only does this give Mojang an area to focus on, but it also lights a fire under them to provide a fix to the vanilla versions.


 * Hiding these exploits doesn't help anybody except those that want to use it. By deleting this article, you are actively supporting the parties that wish to use this information maliciously by making it so that THEY are the only ones that have proper documentation. 73.63.206.163 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if we take your statement as true and valid, the point still remains that only a tiny fraction of the page is relevant, and that makes it violate the style guide, unless it is given some sort of history section which mentions patched bugs, but then it would be a stub and mostly empty. — Godslayerchickennugget (talk | contribs) 16:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is still a good amount of up-to-date stuff that can remain on the original after a potential split between the existing page and an outdated methods page. The singleplayer only section is active and growing, and isn't considered a bad exploit as it is just a singleplayer world. The multiplayer item duping section (including perfect timing) would pretty much all be moved to the outdated section. So what would remain? First the singleplayer item dupes, the block and entity dupes (which are mostly patched in only paper servers), and a good amount of Bedrock Edition dupes still remain. I imagine the split to be like a 50-50 or 60-40, and both sections would still have a good amount of content remaining. Not like anything would be completely removed, as 73.63.206.163's point is pretty valid against whether we should keep multiplayer dupes there. In the end, I feel like this page shouldn't be deleted, but split into a subpage with the dupes that no longer work as of the latest vanilla release. Blockofnetherite (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

, not too much to add from the previous arguments, but I do respect that Mojang doesn't like these exploits. The thing is, not all of these are exploits and some are well-respected, like TNT dupers. Any current working multiplayer 1.16.1 (the latest version as of now) legit item dupe doesn't have to be here, just that it is just too much to completely get rid of this page. Outdated dupes (which is most of this page) shouldn't be deleted, just moved to a subpage like "Tutorials/Block_and_item_duplication/Outdated_methods" --Blockofnetherite (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

. I've added a working method for Java Edition that in theory should never stop working since it involves basic manipulation of the save folder's contents. I suggest moving nonfunctional methods to their own section that's normally hidden to save space and unclutter the page. Personally, item duplication is a reliable QoL function that compresses potentially hours of effort into minutes. I also see it as a method for players to backup their valuables in the event that tragedy strikes and they lose it all - better to have a backup in the worst cases rather than leaving these players to despair and have to start over from scratch. Note that my opinion is mostly in regards to single player since that's basically all my experience in this game - in the end it'd be up to the player whether they want to duplicate their items or not. --Ghostly Owns (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

. The main reasons provided for deletion are "it encourages players to cheat" and "some don't work". Neither of these provide any reason to delete the page; only to clean it up. Firstly, Minecraft is a sandbox game; it is impossible to "cheat"; only to do things in an unintended way. However, if a dupe no longer works, it should be removed from the page. Also, some of these dupes have incredibly important value in the technical community; TNT duping mostly. Without these, some of the most important redstone contraptions in the game cannot be built, such as world eaters. If this page should be deleted due to being a glitch, then it follows that tutorials for BUDs and other related contraptions should also be removed, which is ridiculous. As a wiki, we are supposed to document everything in the game; not leave out certain things because you're worried about the effect on other players. Going to a wiki to find things out can be considered "cheating" as well by some, and given the extensive expertise required to pull off most of these dupes, it is unlikely that they will be done by any new players in a way that would ruin their experience. As for the "some don't work" argument, the solution is simple: Just delete the ones that don't work. Ergo, we have a clean page without any of the patched bugs cluttering it up. Slashertor (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * with your idea. for deleting. I agree with the statement above and that some people even consider looking up the wiki as 'cheating'. Like maps that do questions about the game. This wiki is the ultimate guide for minecraft so why should we delete this page? Also, there are many other glitches and exploits such as Tutorials/Headless Piston or Tutorials/Respawning the Ender Dragon with fewer Crystals. So why? Why should we delete this page. I think we should split it. The reason why i'm weak oppose is becuase i want to split the page. Why? Becuase many of these are outdated so maybe we can split it into Tutorials/Block and item duplication and  as the latter could be for the 2 other multiplayer versions, 1.12.2 and 1.8.9. Like this talks about multiplayer as well and most people don't even play 1.16.1 multiplayer becuase of the 1.13 changes. So i propose a split, not a deletion. Anyone agree?? Written by HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 16:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because so much of this page is useful and constructive, like singleplayer duping and TNT duping, deleting this entire page is a very destructive approach. However, this page cannot stay like what it is right now, as it violates the style guide by having outdated information. Anything that remains in the latest release should stay in the existing page, while all outdated methods should be moved to . A lot of people are still stuck in older versions, like 1.8.9 and 1.12.2 mostly, so deletion is unnecessary. In the end, let's clean up this page, and preserve the methods used in old, historical versions of minecraft. Blockofnetherite (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

. Like it or not, duplication glitches are part of the game and should be documented just like any other glitch or bug. The wiki's job is to document the whole game, which includes errors of all magnitudes. If this page is deleted, we would be straying away from the wiki's purpose by refusing to document certain things. Also, while players may decide to use the info on this page maliciously, the info on this page is also vital to stopping those exact players. Obviously both parties could still find the info in other places (like here), but we would still wouldn't be following the purpose of the wiki, to be "The Ultimate Resource for Minecraft" Ramislicer (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

. Just like 174.116.217.190 said (point 5 under review), this is a Minecraft wiki, and duplication glitches are a major part of Minecraft, because while you specifically might not care about dupe glitches, for a lot of people i. e. 2b2t players, dupes are as important to the game as much as the backwards long jump is to Super Mario 64 speedruns. Although a lot of the dupes on this page are outdated there is still a chance one will be usable. Also, dupes will always represent a piece of Minecraft history as much as the addition of hunger or bows that weren't machine guns.

From my above argument: "dupes are as important to the game as much as the backwards long jump is to Super Mario 64 speedruns."

 I'm using Super Mario 64 as an example here As stated on the actual tutorial page, TAS runs sometimes use dupe glitches, just like Super Mario 64 has glitches like the BLJ that are exploited to speedrun it really quick. If we delete this page for any reason, you could make the argument that the mario fandom page should delete the BLJ page for that exact reason, which would never happen because the BLJ is a very important part of Super Mario 64, just like dupes are a very important part of Minecraft. Signed, TheRealElonMusk (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

, pages are almost never deleted when the said features are removed. Anyways, there are other tutorials that document glitches, like the one to create indestructible end crystals. It already tells you it's a glitch, and if you want, you can add a notice that many players consider this cheating, or something similar. Anyway, this page serves as an archive for the patched ones and somewhere for developers of anti-exploit programs for servers to find what is known, and how to stop it.

Anyways, since there is not a clear consensus to delete the page, I suggest changing the template back to suggesting for the page to be deleted. Jac721 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

We have pages on a whole lot of glitches/exploits, such as Tutorials/X-ray glitches, which in some ways could be comparable to duplication, as it allows for easy access to caves. So, why is this page getting targeted? -FezEmerald Talk to meSee what I've been up to) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Item duplication is part of the game, regardlessly if it is moral or not, regardless if it is a bug or exploit. Also, saying that it is immoral to dupe is relative, recently many people have been using dupe exploits as a way of taking down P2W servers that blatantly break Minecraft's EULA. Yes, it might be used for evil purposes, but as stated above servers will always have ways around them, and it's not like Mojang won't try to patch most if not all of them in future updates. I also don't really understand the argument "they are outdated", Minecraft's launcher allows you to play the game all the way to pre-alpha, which means that literally every single one of those versions are a part of Minecraft, and deserve their place in the wiki, including glitches and exploits from older versions that should be shared as a way of further understanding the game. --Ministro Minhoca (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we already make a decision already? Like it's clearly oppose for deletion but this discussion should still be open with the split article.---HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 20:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humiebees, we don't want this page to be deleted, close this part of the discussion and place the "Split" section into another subpage. Change the template at the main page to account only for the split discussion. The page is not going to be deleted. --Ministro Minhoca (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Since no one stepped in to do so, I chose to go to the main page and make it only show the splitting discussion. The deletion discussion is over and like Humiebees said, the decision is clearly "oppose for deletion". If you have a problem with that, sorry, you are a tad too late. --Ministro Minhoca (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Spliting the page
as stated by a few reasons above, I propose to split the article. This is already stated with a template on the page but i want to confirm it. HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 22:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * for splitting the page. I do agree it means cleaning up the Wiki, however these duplication bugs are very likely to be patched anyway, and new ones are also discovered from time to time. This means that splitting to outdated and dated would be a constant job of swapping dupes around two different pages back and fourth everytime there is a new patch. I am not entirely against that: This is just a warning of what splitting would require. Also, why is this inside the Deletion subpage? Isn't this an entirely new discussion?--Ministro Minhoca (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is a violation of the MCW:Style guide by containing outdated info. Splitting this with putting an outdated template will help clean the article and stay in line with the style guide.---HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 21:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I recommend putting this discussion in a separate subpage from the Deletion discussion.--Ministro Minhoca (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Separate subpage? Like what?---HumiebeeDiscuss anything with me Look at my edits 22:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The subpage for discussing if the page should be split or not should be separated from the deletion part. Sorry the late reply. --Ministro Minhoca (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I separated this discussion for splitting the page from the deletion discussion. --Ministro Minhoca (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)