Talk:Enchanting

A new layout
We should make a drop down menu for the enchantment so it would be easier to find the enchantment for the tools--Dogsteeves (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The enchantments are already organized by what items can receive the enchantment. The BlobsPaper.png 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

when I said drop down menu I meant like this http://imgur.com/a/N5gY4 --Dogsteeves (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth considering. Maybe not a drop-down menu, but anyway, some way of displaying enchantments on a per-tool basis, rather than on a per-enchantment basis. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Status effect and Commands pages have brief summaries, followed by a more detailed description. Perhaps we should follow that model. The BlobsPaper.png 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea, we should do that! Those formats on those other pages broke us out of the table mould, and for the better, I believe. Though that is still a per-enchantment list, not a per-tool list, right? –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * — I'm thinking a summary table might have enchantment IDs, Names, and then a column for each significant enchantable item with maybe an enchanting table or anvil in each cell to indicate what's required for the enchantment. That way you could just click on an item in the column header to sort its possible enchantments to the top. There … are actually quite a few enchantable items so I'm not sure if that's a viable long-term strategy (in terms of table width), and I don't think there would be enough space to have both item columns as well as Max Level and a description column, but I think it would work for now. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention. I'd mocked that exact thing up (User:Sealbudsman/Sandbox/Enchanting_Matrix) last week or so; it works nicely except for how wide it is. And the scrollbar is at the bottom, which is kinda okay, except that the table is tall.  Anyone, feel free to play around with it if you like. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you consider showing the utility blocks using SimpleGrid rather than InvSprite? The BlobsPaper.png 16:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure; updated. Also for some reason I had it unnecessarily wide. Now it's about 1200 by 1200px. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I knocked it down from a 1200px square to a 900px square, by leaving out the utility blocks altogether, and using BlockSprite and ItemSprite instead of SimpleGrid; added a demo of that to the page. So, space savings are possible. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 21:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That is a very sparse table. Maybe break it up into two tables: wearable (armor, elytra, pumpkins, mob heads) and usable (weapons, shields, tools)? Basically, armor slots vs. hand slots. A few enchantments would appear in both tables but I think that would be okay. Also, sorting the first column by ID is unintuitive — I'd either add an ID column as the initial sort or just let the name column sort by alpha. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 15:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * True. I made a third and fourth demo; the third was an experiment in minimizing how sparse the table is by combining rows, which, seeing it, I don't favor; I consider demo 4 as my response to your comment. Thanks for the feedback. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I like the fourth one as well. The narrower tables also fit on my phone screen without horizontal scrolling. -- Orthotopetalk 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * #4 layout looks good to me too. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 20:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The BlobsPaper.png 22:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , 4 looks best so far. Can we swap the tables so the larger one is first? Looks better I think. I think we can fit block/item sprites in the cells pretty well, would look nicer than just the colours. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 07:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added Sealbudsman's tables to the page and, um, went ahead and added another summary table I thought would be useful, … and converted the description table to headings. I'd appreciate it if someone would check/correct the fiddly bits, IDs, etc.

I'm not sure if IDs are really needed in the summary table, they're available down in the Data section if necessary. &mdash;munin &middot;  &middot; 21:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice ... Do you know if the notes that say "anvil required for Level V" are complete and exhaustive? I haven't known how to check whether the enchantment table level cap is lower than the anvil level cap. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know, sorry. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 22:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Externals links
Could we link to some external calculators that is updated and therefore a lot more useful (currently the "newest" has not been changed since 1.8) ? Does anyone know of any existing? /83.255.2.175 15:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

When did Pocket Edition change to  ?
When did PE change  to  ? It doesn't say on the history and it should be added. Cherryblossom000 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * may know the answer. Also, please use "Add topic" (Add discussion in the mobile view). The BlobsPaper.png 04:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In PE,  has always internally been  . The enchantment is only called "Unbreaking" in the language files; the game code called it "durability" since enchantments were first added. The reason it shows up as   when using commands is because PE commands use internal names to represent objects and values, and not localized names. Jocopa3 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Looting, Uncommon, Rare and Common drops
I had been doing a little digging around in the MCP, looking for the basis for the distinction between Uncommon, Rare and Common drops, or how Looting interacts with these types, and I've yet to find where this is handled. I could be looking in all the wrong places, but I suspect right now that loot tables handle this entirely, which I think means it needs to be rewritten on the Drops page and in the Enchanting section, and maybe on the mobs' pages as well. Could anybody double check me? ? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Fire Protection
I see that "Ongoing damage from being on fire" is not absorbed by armor, and that Fire Protection will reduce the amount of time that the wearer is on fire, but does Fire Protection also absorb damage from ongoing fire damage (as Feather Fall protects against normally non-absorbent fall damage)? Either way, I think that it should be clarified in the description text.

EDIT: After testing, Fire Protection does help reduce ongoing fire damage. I have updated the main page. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Sealbudsman (talk • contribs) at 3:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Proposed split/merge
There are two articles that discuss enchanting: Enchanting (this page) and Enchantment mechanics. About 60% of the Enchanting page is taken up by the list of enchantments. What if (#1) we split enchantments off onto their own page (Enchantments, currently a redirect page), and then reincoporated enchantment mechanics back into this page? Would that make more sense? Or (#2), just split off enchantments and leave mechanics as its own article?

There's also Anvil mechanics but its discussion of enchantment combining should probably stay there as the page covers much more and it would be weird to split it up.

&mdash;munin &middot;  &middot; 15:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This page appears like it could be cleanly separated into 3 parts: a list of enchantments for a new "Enchantments" page, basic material to be added to an "Enchantment table mechanics" page (rename the "Enchantment mechanics" page, that's really all it is), and basic material to be added to "Anvil mechanics" -- what do you think – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe the enchantment mechanic is also used to generate enchanted books for villagers and fishing (but not for loot chests?). What would be added to the anvil mechanics page? &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: generated books: that's a good point, maybe the rename isn't a great idea. Though if "Enchantment mechanics" describes generated books, and not just how the table works, maybe that fact should go on that page as well; I don't see it anywhere there. For the Anvil mechanics page, there was just that small section, Enchanting, though that may be entirely redundant or not, I haven't looked closely. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Anvil mechanics already goes into much greater detail about combining items than Enchanting does, but I think it makes sense to leave it as is (because it builds on other material in the article), with details on the Anvil mechanics page and a summary/seemain on the enchanting page. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 14:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The pages for other GUI gameplay mechanics (crafting, smelting, brewing and trading) have complete lists. It would be inconsistent to have the enchantment list on a separate page. The anvil mechanics is different because the non-technical part is on the anvil page. The BlobsPaper.png 04:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Table
People what have you done? There was a very easy way of identifying what enchant did what and to what, the table was excellent. Now there are some little matrices that make it really hard to understand what is going on? Those pics are so small too - not everyone has 20:20 eyesight. Bad move! -- X septic sid x (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a major shortcoming - you couldn't tell, for a given tool, what enchantments can go on it. That info simply was missing and now it's there. Nothing was removed. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 02:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Late reaction but... I know what you mean septic, the new table seriously takes getting used to, but I'm really with Seal up here; if you let it sink in you'll find the same bits of information, and even more! ShelLuser (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we have a list of lvl 30 enchantments?
Can someone please add a list of level 30 enchantments to the "Summary of enchantments" table? It would be useful to know when sorting through enchanted books and planning enchantments. 104.163.128.149 22:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Enchanting is not as simple as having a list of possible enchantments for each level. For a detailed description, see Enchantment mechanics. The BlobsPaper.png 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Bookshelf obscurity
There is one thing seriously missing from this page, and the same somewhat applies to the Enchantment table and Bookshelf pages: no where does it tell you how many bookshelves you need to reach the different levels. On this page it doesn't even explicitly mention that you need them. The page briefly hints at the existence of levels 1 - 30 but that's it. I think that's a serious oversight here, a (new) player will want to know that they need bookshelves to get this working and also how many. Yet neither of the 3 pages involved with enchanting clearly mentions this.

Figured I'd share, I can't make this work right now (enjoying the start of my weekend) but unless someone beats me to it I plan on sorting it out this weekend. - ShelLuser (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The details of enchanting are excruciating, so they've been put on their own page: Enchantment mechanics. But more statements like "See enchantment mechanics for full details on enchantment levels, bookshelf placement, etc." wouldn't be amiss. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 12:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it! I think I managed to sort this out, added a (small) extra paragraph to get the information about the 15 tables in and immediately referenced the enchantment mechanics. I think it blends in nicely because I directly hooked into the topic of the previous one (enchantment levels). - ShelLuser (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Frost Walker?
Is it just me, or did Frost Walker turn lava to obsidian at some point?

--Accountsoicanusegamepedia (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That was a common suggestion, but no, it never actually did that. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I remember Frost Walker making lava safe at some point... Guess I was remembering an enchantment from a mod. Oh well. --Accountsoicanusegamepedia (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

table not scrollable
The list for obtaining items with silk touch expands beyond the side of the page. I haven't found a way to sidescroll to the part outside of the page. Browser: Google Chrome. TheLOLxd2 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made the "Obtainable with Silk Touch" column a bit thinner and moved the super long text on the silverfish section into the notes. I think that might make it a bit more readable on small screens?  My screen is large enough that sidescrolling wasn't necessary even beforehand, but if it's still an issue I think there is a way to force a scrollbar for wide tables.  (Also, generally, new sections should be added to the bottom of the page; it makes it easier to archive old ones) --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the width of the 1st column narrower as well, so even more of the notes column should be readable without scrolling. Hope that helps. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lure Maximum?
The text says "At Level V, the fish-catching particle effects start almost instantly. At Level VI, you are not able to catch anything." but the infobox says Maximum level is III. Can you, or can you not get a Level V (or VI) Lure? Buckosoft (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In the text, it's talking about levels that you can only get with commands, which is basically any number whatsoever, and in the infobox, that's the max level you can get legitimately in the game. It could be more clear about that, now that you mention it. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 05:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Specatulation?
An IP reverted my edit here, and another IP added info about the new enchants, and then another IP abut the new enchants, and then reverted I to User:Pokechu22's revision using the "revert" link in the popups tool, and i tried to insert summary in the summary field but there came no summary, and then the other IP reverted my edit, and i asking is the new enchantments speculation if they are not shown in snapshots yet? Just to avoid edit war uses I the talk page to discuss this instead of continuing to revert the ip's edit, can someone check if this is specatulation or not?  psl85  (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is speculation because the enchantments have not yet appeared in a development version. -BDJP (t 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Enchanting Table Interface
[ This needs additional information, please complete if you are able. ]

The layout is a book graphic on the left with two item slots below and three rectangular fields on the right. (See image)

The left slot (below the book) is for any item. If an item that can be enchanted is placed in that slot, the fields on the right will be populated with available enchantments.

The right slot (below the book) is for lapis lazuli. Up to a full stack (64) of lapis lazuli can be placed in the slot, but only 1-3 are actually needed per item being enchanted. The fields on the right will become active based on how many lapis lazuli are placed in the table: 1 activates the top field, 2 activates both the top and center fields, 3+ will activate all three fields.

The fields on the right have three components to them:

1) On the left is a dot with a number, which indicates the lapis lazuli cost to apply the enchantment(s) from that field.

2) Through the center, filling most of the field, is purely cosmetic. To learn more about this, see 'Standard Galactic Alphabet' on the 'Enchanting Table' page.

3) The number on the right [omitted due to lack of information]

By hovering over the fields, a tool tip will be shown with one guaranteed enchantment displayed. This may be the only enchantment acquired or additional enchantments may be applied. Clicking on an active field will remove lapis lazuli from the slot (based on the field chosen) and apply the promised enchantment (and possibly additional enchantments) to the item. The fields on the right will be emptied, as an already enchanted item cannot be enchanted by the enchanting table. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.55.112.91 (talk) at 20:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Those details are covered in the main article for the enchantment table mechanics, linked at the top of the Enchantment table section. This page is about enchanting in general. The mechanics of using the table are very complicated; if included in this article they would overwhelm the rest of the material, so they were moved to their own page. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 01:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mending
If it is the intent of the information on Mending to say that the XP orbs are first used for the repair of the items and then after that is completed, given to the player as level xp, then that is not how it is working for me. I have been using a pick with mending on it to mine a bunch of collected ores (coal, redstone, lapis, diamond, and emerald) at once, and the pick is not even close to fully repaired. While it is slowly being repaired, much of the xp collected is being sent towards the character xp level, before the item in hand is fully mended. And yes I am ware that using the pick does use up some durability. I am on a server that is currently using MC version 1.13.2.

32.212.102.239 14:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You probably have mending on the armor you're wearing. As the article says, mending picks ONE item enchanted with mending from your main hand, offhand, or armor slots. If that item doesn't need repair, the XP goes to the player; it doesn't look for a different item. So if you're wearing 4 pieces of mending armor, only 1/5 of the XP will go to your pick. If you take off your armor while mining, your pick should repair more quickly. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 14:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Mending info box
So, under Enchanting methods it's said that mending can only be given to tools through an anvil and can't be gotten from an enchantment table, which lines up with my personal experience. (see following screenshots: http://prntscr.com/lh0ftt http://prntscr.com/lh0gmh ) Under the longer description for mending it also explicitly states the following as well: "Mending is a treasure enchantment, and it cannot be obtained from an enchanting table. It can only be obtained from chest loot, fishing, or trading for enchanted books." When looking at the general explanation, it states this about primary items: "The items that can receive the enchantment legitimately in Survival mode by using an enchanting table. Items of any material can be enchanted (some more easily than others)." and this about secondary items: "Items which, in Survival mode, cannot receive the enchantment from an enchanting table but can from an enchanted book with an anvil." But then in the info-box it puts all items into the list of primary items (see screenshot: http://prntscr.com/lh0h02 ) Can someone explain me why? I also noticed in the changelog it was changed to be secondary but then reverted back. Aren't they supposed to be in secondary items in the first place?

Den_drummer (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for catching that. You're correct, they should be secondary. It's fixed now. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 19:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)