Talk:Tutorials/Block and item duplication

Dirt duplication is not duplication
I would not count dirt 'duplication' as duplication, as it costs gravel. I didn't want to just remove it though, in case people disagree with me


 * Dirt duplication can be considered "duplication" for the following reasons:


 * Very few people are aware of the full potential to be exploited
 * Gravel can be duplicated as well
 * Many servers frown upon dirt duplication


 * Also, all the other duplication methods also cost something (redstone, time, zombies, etc).


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Crafting bench duplication
No mention of the crafting bench bug in 1.12? or the ender chest dup while dropping items in 1.11.2


 * There's no information about it here because I have never heard of those duplication methods before. If you have information on them, I'd be interested in hearing about it!


 * Whatever information you add, make sure the method works in the current versions on Minecraft.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the recipe book duplication glitch hit the news pretty hard, but Mojang kept it hidden in their bug tracker. Here is a thread on the Minecraft forum which showcases the problem. I can confirm that it worked. Just to show the seriousness: people even developed a Recipe book dupe patch to counter the effects on Spigot. However, this is also old news right now because 1.12.1 fixed this issue. - ShelLuser (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

TNT Dupication
Does this still work this way in the 1.13 snapshots? If so, can someone update the page to better explain how to do this? --MCweb 20:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it is impossible to do in 1.13. If it’s still impossible by the update, then that section will be removed.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Bedrock/Java differences
It should be made clear which methods apply to which version (Bedrock, Java, or another), and noted which version update disabled them? None of these have ever worked for me and I don't know if it's because I'm just doing it wrong or if I'm on the wrong Edition. Jariesuicune (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are now separate sections for Bedrock and Java Edition exclusives as well a section for techniques that work in both editions.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Version Compatibility
Maybe we should include which update versions (ex. Java 1.2-1.3.4 or Bedrock ??-2.5) any glitch works on. A person may choose not to update/revert to a previous version (when possible, depending what hardware you are using) to be able to make use of that update's exploits? Putting the current/most recent at the top of a list, and past versions in order, putting a placeholder for when it's not apparent when it started being available?Jariesuicune (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"The recommended build is not automatic (but that certainly can be done)"
The above quote references an AUTOMATIC piston chest duplicator but the section only describes a manual one. Having built a working manual duplicator and tried and failed to rig up an automatic one with a hopper and two chests, I'm curious if that claim is theoretical or supported by experience? Is there a trick to it I'm missing? ImmanuelCAN (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if an automatic chest duplicator can be built; I don’t play Bedrock Edition. However, the fact that you did not succeed indicates that such a build might be impossible to make automatic.


 * Gregatron6000 (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Player Data Editing is not duping
Player data editing, or in this case, duplicating the player-specific files in order to have two copies of the profile, should not be considering duping. Making the copy is on the same level as opening up MCEdit to copy a shulker box or just using an NBT editor to give yourself the items, being that you edit the files directly instead of through MC. 71.129.228.9 19:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleting this page
This page blatantly contradicts both the wiki's philosophy and how Mojang wishes to treat these bugs. All duplication bug reports are marked as private, meaning they aren't visible to most users. We've even had discussions about hiding the names of these private reports on version pages. And yet, we have an entire page dedicated to something Mojang has explicitly said is an exploit. The wiki is not meant to document blatant bugs in this way either. Not to mention, a great amount of the glitches here have been patched and most working ones will likely be patched soon. I very strongly believe that this page has no place on this wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , not much to add other than what you said above. Even leading aside the fact that the glitches listed here are almost always intended to be private, most of them have been patched in recent updates and the others will be soon, making this page pretty much useless.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But then where can the players get information on how to duplicate items? Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not the wiki's job to tell players how to execute game-breaking exploits. If someone wants to, there are usually videos on duplication methods. But again, providing this info is not the job of the wiki. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is the wiki's job to provide information on all aspects of the game, though. The page should stay up because, despite discussing an unintended portion of the game, it still discusses things that are or were in the game at some point. 67.143.192.220 05:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We also don't list crashes as if they were mechanics of a feature. Stuff like this usually gets documented in some form as bug fixes, but having a page dedicated to exploiting private issues is unnecessary and, in my opinion, inappropriate. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the wiki's job to document as much as possible about the game, but imo it's not ok to document game exploits. If Mojang eventually fixes these bugs, they will be documented as a bug fix in their respective fix version's page. Elite hog (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add to the initially provided reasons. FVbico (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , nothing to add. User:Goldenghost1000 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsure why some mods are approaching this on a personal biased view; every wiki of every game has a big/glitch/exploit section as they are just that; it's the nature of games. Discussions on the morality of items is not a matter of the wiki; it is here to document all information of the game. The broader issue is if it's of benefit to seperate it from the other bug reports or have its own article like it currently is. It's apparent some users have a personal grudge against the topic as opposed to actually supporting why it should or should not be present. No where in the terms of service of a Mjoang account does it actually say you're not allowed to take advantage of exploits or bugs; they actually acknowledge they will happen.

https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

So using buds before observers, and using cart boosters before powered rails were an unintentional use of a feature in the game; were they not listed in redstone components and minecart components? Lastly, there are ways to detect duplication with negative block value ID's, so also including on this page a means to help servers detect and prevent *may* be better then removal, as it appears that's why people are upset on the information of duplication. Otherwise you're going against Wikipedia's foundation of sharing knowledge regardless of content and moral view of said content. Yes, this may not be wikipedia, at the same time, it is in it's heart.174.116.217.190 18:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Tbh from several comments made here I've been switching back and forth, still leaning towards supporting deletion. I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular? I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in the final decision, but I'd be curious. However, I'm not sure why you're assuming that we're approaching this on a personal biased view; my support certainly wasn't due to a "personal grudge." Just because we're considering what Mojang would think of this page doesn't mean we're only supporting for personal reasons; after all, this is the official Minecraft Wiki so it's indeed something to keep in mind. I would like to note as well that if we were to keep this page it would need to be heavily rewritten; currently most of the bugs listed on the page have actually been patched.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * By making a comment like "I do wonder what Mojang would think of having a page like this in particular?" Is a biased view. They have expressed they have no control over the content included in the gamepedia or anything else out there, as it's not wrote or maintained by them. As far as duplication itself is concerned, they've expresses in Podcasts and twitch streams that they personally don't care for it, at the same time any unintentional bugs try to get squashed eventually - they view it as any other bug.


 * I also made an assumption on saying people (Pancake) are taking it personally by throwing around things like breaking terms of service, when they haven't read the terms of service, and "how to execute game-breaking exploits" as a form of stiff arming or threat. Duplication bugs are not marked private; you can view them in the bug tracker for any of the related blocks (popular one being piston and chest) - Mojang initially removed the ability for pistons to move chests because of that bug, then they re-added that capability without patching the bug. Clearly, they don't care, or it's low on the radar. It's also not game breaking; anyone's choice of how to play a game is their own - only time it's game breaking is on a server, and servers have ways to detect, prevent, and punish if they have a rule against it. Lastly, Mojang has confirmed them not to be exploits, but bugs ; that's a key and significant difference in discussions around convincing if an article should exist.


 * I agree the page should be rewritten - there are many that need to be. It should still exist, in my opinion.174.116.217.190 04:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)