Talk:Dirt Path

Grass Path
Read Jeb's twitter. There is such a block coming.

Leftypower123 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * We know, Leftypower. But a block can’t have its own page if it isn’t released in a version (including development builds), so the only way to mention it is to state it on Planned versions or Mentioned features (in case of the latter, this includes its edition-specific sister pages). I’m Nick the Red37, a ru.wiki mod (fka Naista2002) (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the page is a violation of Rule #7 (Speculation page) – LauraFi -  talk  19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Other blocks have had pages before release, such as Red Sandstone or Prismarine. Why should this page be any different? KingSpikey99 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the red sandstone page was created after it appeared in 14w31a. – LauraFi -  talk  20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because we changed the system after those pages were released in an update, refer to MCT:Community portal and Paddle. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 20:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not MC:PE exclusive
There's been a lot of back and forth about this, but: It seems pretty cut and dry to me, yes, no?
 * 1) Jeb's first tweet of it says it's also for MCPE.
 * 2) The screenshot he links there is a PC screenshot.

, you've been vanguard of maintaining this is MCPE exclusive, what do you make of this? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) t/c 21:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverted. – LauraFi -  talk  22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is upcoming for the PC Edition, then that should be under planned versions or the history section. Until a snapshot is released, I planned for it to remain tagged as a Pocket Edition exclusive (as per General #4, MCW:NOTABILITY). – Illidicia ( t + c ) 22:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right i think, I see what you mean. One preview for mcpe, no snapshots for mcpc. I didn't consider that. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Lighting
Could someone right a section about the lighting of this block? Wolffillms (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Err, of what aspect? The block doesn't produce light I believe :P -Xbony2 (MOFTBW) 21:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe this user is observing a partial transparency which allows light to pass through. I can confirm this aspect, at least, in Pocket Edition - Illidicia ( t + c ) 11:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC).

I am aware that the block does not produce light, however the shadowing is different depending on how manny grass paths are placed near each other. Wolffillms (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Grass Path Obtainable in PE Survival Mode
I'm very concerned about my best tools for use, but I got an inventory of Grass Paths using my Diamond Shovel with Efficiency II, Unbreaking II and Silk Touch. When I dug, I obtained the grass path itself instead of dirt. It is obtainable. To Be Honest.

Try it out. You'll see.

Edited by 220.255.210.186 10:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC) (AgentRed2, MCPE)


 * By golly. You're right! – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Grass path lighting.
Forgive me if I'm using talk incorrectly. I added a sentence and an image to grass path mentioning the lighting that shows through and it was removed be someone because it was 'Just a bug'. What difference does it make if it's a bug? A bug that is left in is called a feature. Why remove my edit and picture? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Araxidis (talk • contribs) at 03:31, March 17, 2016‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * The relevant part of the style guide is here: Minecraft_Wiki:Style_guide. It indicates that an image shouldn't be for indicating 'strange or humorous behavior', 'showcasing a bug', or 'usage of specific features for decoration'.
 * This grass path thing happens only when smooth lighting is off, and also happens with any block with faces not at the top of the block, such as stairs, slabs or farmland. The fact that it's inconsistent with lighting type would indicate that either the smooth lighting appearance is a bug, or this appearance is.  The fact that the faces show as lit when not exposed to light would indicate a bug as well.
 * Even if there's disagreement over whether this is a bug, I tend to think it's also covered by the 'strange behavior' and 'specific features for decoration' clauses.
 * On the other hand, if there's a bug report on the tracker reporting this lighting bug, even one that covers the same thing with farmland, and the developers have closed it as 'Works as Intended', then on the developer's word (Help:Official_sources) it can be considered a "feature" in its own right instead of a "bug", and the image would be okay, or at least, more okay than it is now. Maybe try looking for something like that. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that it probably wasn't intended to glow which makes it a bug in the technical sense. Having said that, it is an effect that is no doubt known to the developers and not fixed. Since it is just a visual thing that can be used for decoration, it does fit the description of 'specific features for decoration'. Again, thanks for the clarification. Araxidis (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stub?
Should this article be a stub or not? it seems a little short. RedRooey (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if there are further details that should be added. The article length is irrelevant. – DelboyDylan (talk 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)