Talk:Nether Fossil

Merging
The result of the discussion was Do not merge. Overwhelming opposition to the merge. While Nether fossils and Overworld fossils are similar in concept, they differ in almost every single other detail they have. A merge may insubstantially improve searchability, but readability is likely to be strongly negatively impacted.

--Delibirda (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed to merge. FVbico (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Does that mean the page will be merged?--Delibirda (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The only similarity is that they have bone blocks and have fossil in the name. The game considers them different structures, they generate differently and in different places, none of the fossils are the same, nether fossils are always complete, and nether fossils don't have coal ore. Merging the pages would require completely different information for each type on every section of the fossils page. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nether fossils are still fossils. They are sure different, but not different enough to given their own page, kinda like how birds are still considered dinosaurs
 * and not an animal group that simply evolved from dinosaurs despite their differences.--Delibirda (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how relevant that birds/dinosaurs thing is to bring up. I doubt anyone would argue to put birds and dinosaurs on the same page if we for some reason needed those pages. I just don't think it makes sense to merge two pages that literally share no information. Let's do a rundown of every section of the fossil page.


 * Intro: Would need to be different as they have different names
 * Infobox: Would need to be different/split messily as they have different structures, biomes, and nether fossils don't have coal ore.
 * Generation: Would need to be different as neither fossil type shares y-level ranges, biomes, or chance per chunk.
 * Structure: Would need to be different as, although both are made from bone blocks, nether fossils do not have coal ore and they do not have a lowered structure integrity. Their structures are also located in a different location with different names. We would also need two tables (or one really large one) as neither fossil type shares any of the same structures.
 * History: Although obviously we wouldn't need two tables or anything, neither fossil type has a history relevant to the other one.
 * Issues: Not really relevant to this; the section is generated based on page name.
 * Trivia: This may be the only section where information may be the same, though I don't think having a shared trivia fact is enough to warrant a merge.
 * Gallery: We would need different pictures for each structure type.


 * As can be seen, the pages share virtually no information. Merging would create a cluttered page with almost every single piece of information only applying to one of the page's subjects. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean that we should merge a bird and dinosaur page if we had one. Yes, they don't share info (yet), but I still think that they should be merged,
 * since Minecraft.net states that nether fossils are traces from unkown creatures from the past, meaning that nether fossils are still like normal fossil, albeit
 * with some differences.


 * In other words, yes, they are different, but I don't think they are different enough to have their own pages.--Delibirda (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * given the list of differences presented by PancakeIdentity. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * as the same. --dr03ramos Piston.gif (talk) Admin wiki[pt] 17:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise? We merge the pages, but give nether fossils their own section or something? When more snapshots get released, maybe we can analyse a little more.--Delibirda (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If we're gonna have them split on one page, why bother merging then? And merging the pages doesn't sound like a compromise, it sounds like what you want. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh.--Delibirda (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * merge. If these two types of fossils don't have the same name/ID/functions, they have enough differences to be split (or stay split). Both have the block type in common, but Zombies and Zombie Villagers have stuff in common too, and they had to be split. There is no point in merging these two pages, that should only be reserved for articles that are basically the same, with the same info with only minor differences. Fossils and Nether Fossils don't have minor differences. Their differences are pretty identifying. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 09:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinda a false analogy.--Delibirda (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really. Zombie Villagers are a different mob than Zombies, but they're both zombies. Just one of them used to be Villagers, who look different, had different purposes and different circumstances. Fossils and Nether Fossils are both fossils, just one of them is specific to the Nether, with that much different shapes/carcasses/skeletons, of used to be creatures that only lived in that particular dimension (different looks, different purposes and different circumstances). – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 10:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merging is meant to improve both searchability and readability of articles. While I agree merging these two articles will improve searchability somewhat, since people looking for nether fossils are somewhat likely to land on Fossil first before having the click to this article. This is an extra step for people to get the info they want. However, I will gladly accept this extra step over having one page with a lot of different lists, names, and numbers applying to two different structures in the game. It reduces readability a lot and even though you're immediately on the right page it's harder to find the information you want because you have to keep looking in each section to which of the two structures it applies. So I can see where you're coming from but I will have to oppose a merge. -Pepijn (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, the conseus has been reached. We are done, the pages will not be merged.--Delibirda (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Page title
The result of the discussion was Do not move. No support for a plural title as the only argument in support of it is an internal ID. In general, singular titles are preferred when possible. As for the second issue of capitalizing "Fossil", all support has been withdrawn after the internal ID was stated to not be an in-game name. According to the style guide, only in-game names are admissible arguments for changing game element capitalization from a lowercase baseline.

This page is currently called "nether fossil" but the structure files for this are located in the "nether_fossils" folder. Should this page be moved to the plural title?  Nixinova  T  C  18:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * . There's a file in the game that defines how the structures should be named (seemingly for the purposes of ), and this file calls them "Nether_Fossil." This list is probably the most official display name we have for various structures. However, nether fossils can't actually be found through, so I'm not sure how valid my reasoning is. I'd also rather have it consistent with Fossil, which is singular. I don't feel super strongly one way or the other though. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then should the page be moved to "Nether Fossil"?  Nixinova  T</b> </b> C</b> </b> 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd that. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Chaning my vote to, as per the conversation below. I don't feel super strongly one way or the other. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I that, though I believe it's just the title, and capitalization should remain "nether fossil" in the text. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)  due to the conversation below. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * per style guide, all pages should be lowercase unless the game gives them different capitalization in-game, this structure name only exists in the code, not in commands or anything alike, except structure files which are forced lowercase. As such this should NOT be Nether Fossil, but Nether fossil, as there is no in-game name. FVbico (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the rationale here as it's only in-code, but the statement that it's only in structure files which are forced lowercase is false. The list I mentioned above, which is intended to be displayed in-game, capitalizes the first letter of both words. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Supposed to be != is, it's not named in-game, as such it should not be title case. FVbico (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I don't believe that this ID is enough reason for a plural title, plus consistency with Fossil. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No reason.--Delibirda (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-discussing capitalization
In 20w11a, it was changed so Nether Fossils can be found with. Other structures that are locatable have their pages fully capitalized, should we move this page now that it's in the game? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I this, it makes no sense for a feature in the game to not be capitalized in general, with some exceptions. —98.230.115.82 15:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)