Talk:Ore (feature)

Merge with Ore
These pages have lots of overlapping content. Thomanski (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * - just because a large portion of mineral vein types consist of ores doesn't mean that all mineral veins are ores. This page is to document the terrain structure, which includes other non-ore blocks as well, and also serves as a way to compare their spawning habits, so having all this information merged into the Ore page when a large chunk of it is completely irrelevant to ores does not seem like a great idea. - User-12316399 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * along the same lines as User-12316399 above. EiimRun (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * move (which is what is proposed, not a merge), but I'm not keen on merging either due to the non-overlapping content that isn't relevant to ores. Amatulic (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * on the basis that the two topics are distinct enough to justify their own articles in my opinion. Highlandhill (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Emerald ore chances
It seems to me that the gist documenting ore generation doesn't provide information as to the number of attempts, unless "count" is it. If that's the case, then it attempts to generate 3 to 8 times per chunk, with the current y-values listed correctly, but I'm not confident enough to mark that as so. EiimRun (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Blobs
The Java Edition 21w08a ore distribution chart refers to mineral veins as "blobs", given that technical mineral veins were said to be planned additions, should this page be renamed to "mineral/ore blob" to help with the distinction? Too soon? Pescavelho (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it'd be better to wait to see if they (mojang) make that official or if that was more of a throwaway name. Probably best to keep as is unless they mention that name again. Highlandhill (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Highlandhill. The words vein, lode and seam all make me think of flat shapes, which most in the game are not. I'd give my support for changing the name from vein to whatever Mojang officially supports. ——JavaRogers (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That we should remove the word "Mineral" from the title
I move that the next article title have the word "Mineral" removed from it, on the basis that a significant number of the replacement blocks listed are not minerals.

Though it'd be reasonable to keep the title "Mineral vein" while including a few non-minerals, non-minerals make up close to half (8–10 of 20) of all vein types at this point. These include andesite, coal, diorite, dirt, granite, gravel, infested stone, and magma. (Blackstone and soul sand are fictitious materials, so they could reasonably be understood as minerals or not.)

It's important we call things what they are, lest we strengthen incorrect public ideas about what minerals are.

——JavaRogers (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC) (Previously signed while not logged in)


 * , especially if the game code doesn't refer to these veins that way. Just "vein" is sufficient. Amatulic (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)