Talk:Ocean Ruins

Combine with Generated Structures.
Underwater ruins is a minor structure. Combine it on there. -- Hayd Ken Mutthew  Talk  10:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Pepijn (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * . Doesn't seem like a minor structure to me; it's got many different types, and a few different loot tables. The page right now just isn't as fleshed out as it could be. Also that page looks like it's become a dumping ground over the years. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think both of you (Haydkenmutthew@PepijnMC) should take a closer look at the structure if you really think it's "minor". Underwater ruins are an even more complex system than villages and those already have at least two articles dedicated to them. The page is only so short at the moment as the content was released in fact yesterday. – Fuzs 12:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Then flesh the page out. Atm it's a mess and does not warrant its own page. Also, do not ping me for discussions I'm already a part of, it's annoying and useless. --Pepijn (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think if you look at how a wiki page for a new feature typically comes together, in previous releases, you'll remember / see that it always starts out really stubby and unfinished, and only grows slowly and by degrees as interested parties contribute. There's not precedent for insisting it be complete in a time span as short as a day.
 * And even beyond that, the state of a page at any given moment isn't what informs us whether the subject matter needs a page. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * . Every single generated structure that's a building, with the exception of witch huts (which I think I'm going to request to make a separate page soon, I have it in my userspace), has it's own separate page. Even some small structures, such as dungeons, have their own pages. Like Fuzs said, underwater ruins are one of the more complex structures in the game, and it doesn't make sense that small structures like dungeons would have their own pages but the most complex structures don't.
 * Honestly, I think once players do a little bit more exploring in underwater ruins, we may find certain patterns such as the same buildings that appear several times, and then we can add much more information to the article (like the village article). Also, I would suggest that we remove the merge template for the time being.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 Talk • Contributions 13:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even Tree has its own page, and i think Underwater Ruins are a lot bigger structures than trees. Also, i believe that next snapshots will give them a lot more content. 85.76.72.73 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * After details about the structure of underwater ruins were added, the article is now longer than that of dungeons. Do you think it would be ok if I removed the merge template, also since the majority of people did not want to move the page?--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 Talk • Contributions 00:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. Then this is the main article.
 * Like this: -- Hayd Ken Mutthew   Talk  10:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Block list?
In the gallery, there are several pictures of underwater ruins that do not fit any of the ruin types. For example, the first one contains cracked stone bricks, mossy stone bricks, chiseled stone bricks, and regular stone bricks. However, none of the structures in the table show any more than 2 types of stone bricks. It's like this with some of the other images in the gallery too. I'm pretty sure all of the pictures were taken in 18w09a, so I'm really not sure why the table doesn't match up.-- Madminecrafter12 Talk • Contributions 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It specifies it's an incomplete list. It's still being worked on. --Pepijn (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thx. The only reason I would really care is so that I can take pictures of each structure, but it can wait until the list is more complete.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 Talk • Contributions 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere that game doesn't merely add the structures which are coded in the file to the terrain, but somehow combines the three types of ruin (brick, cracked and mossy) into one single building that has parts of each structure. I can't confirm yet that it's what's happening, but that would explain why the pictures in the gallery look nothing like the structures in the game files. --Morenohijazo (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never realized that on the table it said "Generates combined with (so and so)." That explains it. However, this still leads to the question, what should I put for the image if it always generates combined with the other 2 structures?--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 Talk • Contributions 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm just doing rowspan for all of the structure types that the image applies to (that means that I'm making it so that the cell containing the image is spanned over x rows). Do you think that's okay?--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to dig into the code, but it looks like it uses the same generation system as fossils, which have separate files for bone blocks and coal. During structure generation, it randomly decides which of the description files to use for each block. Would it make sense to combine the rows and just list it as e.g., "97 stone brick (normal, cracked, and/or mossy)"? -- Orthotopetalk 21:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was originally going to do something like this, and just combine each structure together. However, they aren't all direct matches block count-wise. Even the amount of stone brick can vary. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! I was the one who created the table. In each description, it says it combines with the other two variants of that structure. This means it'll use a combination of each stone type, the gravel layout, etc. Also, it seems plants can override the blocks. -PancakeMan77 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the way we have it right now is fine - as you can see in the table, I'm spanning the images across all of the structures that generate combined.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Isometric render?
It would be nice to have an isometric render of the underwater ruins, since every other generated structure already has one. 46.132.191.233 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already been done almost a month ago. It just needs to be added here. It's dimetric and not isometric btw, and usually for buildings we don't use renders but screenshots made with a special tool. :P – Fuzs 09:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Move to Underwater ruin?
Per mcw:Style guide, strictly interpreted, this article should be titled in the singular. However, doing so merits discussion because whereas "an underwater ruin" is certainly an appropriate singular phrase, "underwater ruins", used like a mass noun having a plural form and a singular denotation, is perhaps more common. That is, if one refers to "those underwater ruins over there" they are usually taken to be referring to the site as a whole, not to the individual ruined structures collectively. So this could be regarded as an exception to the style guide (which maybe should be amended to authorize it in some cases, as in Manual of style). Please discuss: Should this page be moved to Underwater ruin, and if so should a redirect page be left with the plural name?
 * with ambivalence. I would also support adding a redirect page with the singular title as an alternative. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (from the person who created this page as "Underwater ruins" :)) I don't that this would be an exception to the style guide - even if it were most commonly referred to "Underwater ruins," this shouldn't make a difference, as the proper term for the generated structure is "underwater ruin." I definitely think that regardless of whether it's moved or not, the other case (either singular or plural) should redirect to the content page, which is why I created the Underwater ruin redirect. The new redirect shouldn't affect moving this page to that title either, as it's a redirect to this page and no further revisions have been made to the underwater ruin page.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish you hadn't created the redirect. First, because it was implicitly part of this discussion, and second because now, if the decision is to move, we'll have to get the redirect page deleted first. Using copy and paste to move a page is strictly prohibited. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's that case when autoconfirmed users can move a page to a redirect to it while erasing the redirect: see WP:MOR. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess I should have explained that better in my first post. Just move the page as normal and the redirect will automatically be deleted (it's further explained in the link AttemptToCallNil provided) - however, you can't delete the redirect if it has a history, meaning that it would be much easier to move the page normally than it would be if delete were added. As for the first part, I don't think the creation of the redirect is really a big deal. Even though there may be a few users who don't think it's necessary, after all, it's just one redirect and having it wouldn't really hurt anything (WP:CHEAP).-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I never knew that special case existed, even on Wikipedia. Thanks to both of you for teaching this old dog a new trick. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only I at least partially agree with your reasoning, the word "ruins" is somewhat special in that it seems to generally be more frequently used in plural. The Wikipedia article is called Ruins (although its initial name was singular, it has been moved, and it doesn't seem like the new name has ever been questioned thereafter). Merriam-Webster lists "ruins" in the appropriate meaning as "usually used in plural". I would not particularly object to a redirect from the singular title though. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * AttemptToCallNil's argument convinces me that it's fine the way it is, and since Madminecrafter12 has already created the redirect from the singular and no one else seems to have any comments, I don't think there's anything left to discuss. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)