Talk:Coral

Not enough info
There isn't enough information yet to cover an entire page.

--Regards, Naista2002 (RU T C) 08:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

data values
Hi, do you know in what context the data values here are used? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, what exactly do you mean by "what context?" If you mean where I found the data values, I got them from the zip folder for 18w09a. (.minecraft/versions/18w09a/18w09a.zip/data/minecraft/tags/blocks/coral.json)--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's pretty much what I meant. Since they're getting rid of numeric IDs, supposedly, I was wondering whether it was relevant.  But there it is. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 03:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the list indices of the IDs in that file, those aren't data values. Block tags do not represent data values; they are merely a grouping of blocks for convenience. Skylinerw (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right about that; sorry, I didn't realize that these were unnecessary until after I had created the data values page. The was removed from the coral page about a week ago. Should I tag Coral/DV as a candidate for deletion?--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 13:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't mind keeping it around for now till we figure out what Bedrock is going to do. Betas for that should be going live soonish I think? --Pepijn (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Coral Types
Please don't undo my work, it's rude, and it's not speculation, it's biology if I said the look of the apple in minecraft was based on Malus pumila would you say it's "speculation"? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Giammod (talk • contribs) at 21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * The speculation part is the assumption that that biological name is what the developers had in mind when making the texture. Not the correctness of the name chosen. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 22:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No one is claiming to know "what they had in mind" I'm posting what it is. Giammod (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly the point. We should only edit what is officially sourced. The reversion of your edits here is because we don't know truly what coral actualy is based on. You may think or know what it looks like, but because Mojang didn't state such, it is only an assumption that they had that in mind. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 22:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now you're being silly, Mojang did state it is coral and coral is largely identified by morphology. The blue coral is Tube Coral, it doesn't mater if Mojang comes out and says otherwise or confirms it; That's what it is and will be unless they change the morph of the coral in the textures at a later date.Giammod (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Stop this edit war. It doesn't matter what specific type of coral the blocks represent, regardless of how the texture looks. The fact that does matter here, that four editors including an admin have already tried to point out to you, is that Mojang did not confirm the information. They might as well even just have chosen those colours at random because they look pretty. Quite literally everything that is not sourced from them, or is apparent from the source code, or from gameplay itself, is speculation, and should not be included in any article. Period. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 22:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please lay your personal feelings regarding your effort aside and accept that the information doesn't belong there. Your persistence about it is disruptive, which is against the rules. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 23:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This really is absurd. It's trivia, of course it doesn't "matter." that logic justifies removing ALL trivia fields. Mojang doesn't need to "confirm" or source this type of information anymore than the need to confirm the breeds of cats that ocelots turn into. it is not "speculation", that's crap and you know it. It really is like saying I'm speculating by calling the orange cat orange. it's the exact same thing. I'm sorry I don't have a fancy icon next to my name to bolster my rep, but at this point you're doing this out of spite. How many editors can't see and label coral is irrelevant. one can, and that's all it takes. I didn't start an edit war. I'll end it when it's adequately explained why out of all the useless trivia on the wiki, why mine, which serves to explain the coral phylogeny to people who may not know, shouldn't be here.


 * Why is my insistence that it's okay to be there "disruptive editing" but your insistence to revert it is not disruptive editing? Looks to me like you're the one breaking the rules--Giammod (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact it would be irrelevant and excessive anyways, adding that the apple in Minecraft is based on Malus pumila would not be speculation because that's the only apple species which is commonly eaten by humans. If, however, you tried to add that it's based on the Red Delicious cultivar, that would be speculation, since you'd be arriving at that conclusion by pattern-matching against the handful of cultivars you're familiar with out of the 7000+ cultivars known.
 * Your personal background or research are irrelevant here; as has already been explained, this type of detail requires a statement from Mojang to not be considered speculation. The sources you added are completely unsuitable - ignoring the fact they're not from Mojang, all but one are just Wikipedia articles, which are not acceptable as sources no matter what you're doing. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's true that the standard for Trivia sections is somewhat more flexible than for other sections, but even trivia must be based on some kind of demonstrable fact. The facts here are that these types of coral resemble natural species in some way, which is fairly uncontroversial. What is controversial is that you stated that they were based on those species, which presumes to know the designers' intentions, but you cannot support that presumption with evidence.
 * I'd like to suggest as a compromise that the edit simply be amended to read "...resembles..." instead of "...is based on". I would personally see that as appropriate in the Trivia section. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the idea, Auldrick, but I don't think it would matter and I don't care enough to try. Dino made it clear it wouldn't matter even if I was right.--Giammod (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)