Talk:Barrier

Ender Dragons
Can ender dragons fly through barriers like bedrock or does it stop it... BlackTomCatt (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * They will fly though the barrier, as stated on Ender Dragon. --KnightMiner  (t 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Invisible Bedrock
The result of the discussion was split.

I strongly with having invisible bedrock stated on the Barrier article. These are different blocks, and I have yet to see Mojang saying they are actually the same block. And no counter-argument will change my opinion, no matter what. —  NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002)  14:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes them majorly different, other than invisible bedrock generating only on the edges of old world, and invisible rendering slightly differently? – KnightMiner  t/c 18:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Invisible bedrock is never stated on the article itself, so why bring it up? BDJP (t 19:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "Invisible Bedrock" is the name coined by the community for the block before a similar block was added in the PC edition. After the addition of the PC edition block, the articles were merged and the PC block's title given to the unnamed Pocket Edition block as its new coined name.
 * As for my using it in my comment, that was just to avoid confusion or repetition of "pocket edition barrier", the fact that this proposal would return it to the original coined name rather than the new name. – KnightMiner  t/c 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please give me any links to Mojang posts saying that they are the same block. No questions asked. &mdash; NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002)  10:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that blocks be "the same" in order to have them on the same page. We have a number of articles that describe more than one block or item (doors, pistons, pressure plates, pickaxes, etc.) with different IDs and distinct behavior, because the consensus is that they're more similar than they are different.


 * On the flip side, please give us a Mojang source saying that 'invisible bedrock' is the official name of the PE block. -- Orthotopetalk 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Invisible bedrock isn’t a variation of barrier (or vice versa) either. —  NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002)  16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that "Invisible Bedrock" is not a community given name, it is the actual name of the block in the source. Here is a picture of the decompiled source of Minecraft PE 0.11.0 build 5 that describes every detail of invisible bedrock. What the image describes is the hotbar icon (set to the same texture as stone), ID of the block (0x5F or 95), the material type (invisibleTile), the hardness (0xBF800000 or -1), the blast resistance (0x4AB71B00 or 18000000), and lastly, the name given to the block being "invisible_bedrock": http://i.imgur.com/hXz9HcU.png
 * Invisible Bedrock in PE is in no way treated the same as Barriers in PC, the only similarity is that they are invisible and indestructible (in PE, you can't destroy invisible bedrock without editing the world).
 * If you're going to have them on the same page, at least make the distinction that they're a different block, and give the block ID for invisible bedrock as well. --Jocopa3 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To me this is fairly compelling. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 00:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it does have an official name and different ID, plus a few other unique features, I would not be against splitting now. – KnightMiner  t/c 01:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * we could call on or somebody that's handy with decompiled source, to figure out whether or not they're the same ID?  Surely if they're the same, that would be compelling? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 21:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you have any further thoughts about this, in light of Jocopa3's remarks about the source? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png t/c 17:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both blocks have more or less the same use, but meh. I don't care too much whether they're merged or split, as long as there's a consensus. -- Orthotopetalk 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

, make the distinction clear on the page, or split it with an about at the top. I'd be fine with either. You can count this as 'in favor of splitting' if you want. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) t/c 20:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since no one seems opposed to the split, and a couple are in favor, I think it is fine to do so now. Just don't split it into a section of the same article, that looks odd. – KnightMiner  t/c 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Illidicia ( t + c ) 04:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)