Talk:Transparency

Re: Deletion request
As the author I'm obviously biased, but I don't see what rules this is breaking? D0sboots 13:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's redundant to Opacity. --JonTheMon 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well darn, I wish I'd seen that before; it would have saved me a lot of work. I do think the concept of transparency/opacity is complex enough to stand on its own, because right now the opacity section is half of the content on that page, and it will be more than half if I merge my changes in. At the very least, that section needs to be more prominently linked - right now people keep rediscovering those properties and commenting on them separately. "Oh look, leaves don't suffocate you!" "Oh look, glass doesn't suffocate you!" "Oh look, water flows funny around glass!" etc. etc. D0sboots 14:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a redirect from Transparency to Opacity (or Opacity to Transparency if Opacity page was deleted) would be in order than to cover both topics equally without repeating information. Kalbintion 22:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that, if this was to be deleted, the section on opacity in the Blocks article would have to be beefed up. Shukaro 01:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, there's enough useful content here that it would be really awkward to try to merge it into Blocks; the article on blocks would be more about opacity than blocks. More importantly, that section is rather awkward anyway; the main part of that page is a general introduction to blocks, what types there are and where they can be found. Then it goes into this one property of blocks, but it doesn't cover any of the other properties: things like Luminance and Block Resistance are covered on separate pages. D0sboots 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we should add a Main article: Transparency to Blocks and then just keep this article, it's well written and informative, no reason to delete it C4K3 13:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, if this article is retained, it needs to go to Opacity since that is the actual property name. --JonTheMon 14:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse C4K3 08:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was what I was thinking we should do. This page contains very useful information, and opacity/transparency is a good enough topic on its own that it should be a separate article. Zirotecha 23:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of the above, for what it's worth. --Doozer 05:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)