Talk:Nether Fossil

Merging
--Delibirda (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed to merge. FVbico (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Does that mean the page will be merged?--Delibirda (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The only similarity is that they have bone blocks and have fossil in the name. The game considers them different structures, they generate differently and in different places, none of the fossils are the same, nether fossils are always complete, and nether fossils don't have coal ore. Merging the pages would require completely different information for each type on every section of the fossils page. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nether fossils are still fossils. They are sure different, but not different enough to given their own page, kinda like how birds are still considered dinosaurs
 * and not an animal group that simply evolved from dinosaurs despite their differences.--Delibirda (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how relevant that birds/dinosaurs thing is to bring up. I doubt anyone would argue to put birds and dinosaurs on the same page if we for some reason needed those pages. I just don't think it makes sense to merge two pages that literally share no information. Let's do a rundown of every section of the fossil page.


 * Intro: Would need to be different as they have different names
 * Infobox: Would need to be different/split messily as they have different structures, biomes, and nether fossils don't have coal ore.
 * Generation: Would need to be different as neither fossil type shares y-level ranges, biomes, or chance per chunk.
 * Structure: Would need to be different as, although both are made from bone blocks, nether fossils do not have coal ore and they do not have a lowered structure integrity. Their structures are also located in a different location with different names. We would also need two tables (or one really large one) as neither fossil type shares any of the same structures.
 * History: Although obviously we wouldn't need two tables or anything, neither fossil type has a history relevant to the other one.
 * Issues: Not really relevant to this; the section is generated based on page name.
 * Trivia: This may be the only section where information may be the same, though I don't think having a shared trivia fact is enough to warrant a merge.
 * Gallery: We would need different pictures for each structure type.


 * As can be seen, the pages share virtually no information. Merging would create a cluttered page with almost every single piece of information only applying to one of the page's subjects. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)