Talk:Java Edition 1.13/Flattening

Move proposal (Done)
The content of this page was mainly placed here because of the French wiki doing the same. I don't feel this is really a subpage of Data values anymore however because this page is not linked on there. Instead this page is linked on the 1.13 page, so I feel this should be a subpage of 1.13. The recent content of this page is also not directly about "data values", but more about the "flattening" in general. So I would like this to be moved to either 1.13/Flattening, 1.13/The_flattening or maybe just 1.13/Data_values. My personal preference goes to 1.13/Flattening. --Pepijn (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I vote for 1.13/Flattening. -FVbico (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC+1:00)
 * Seconded. - tryashtar (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thirded Sun Cat (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fourtheded? MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It has already been moved since the proposal had been made. FVbico (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Light gray stained glass pane
In the table, I noticed that the nominal id for light gray stained glass pane is given as "light_stained_glass_pane", with no "gray" in it. I'm confident that was an accidental omission, however I don't have access to any Java 1.13 info to check. Never mind, I realized the notes had a link to the source info so I fixed it. --– Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge table fragment regarding banner items with the banner blocks? (Done)
Seeing the table now lists the same IDs for  (and other colours) for the item as for their block forms, shouldn't these be merged into the same table cells? Stating "these will have an item form" instead of mentioning them separately? I've moved the whole bunch closer together in [//minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=1.13/Flattening&oldid=1167083 this edit], so this might be easier. If not merged, at least they are now close together. Also, regarding sorting anyway, is there any particular sorting applied to or planned for this table at all? For instance "leaves" and "leaves2" are spread out instead of next to eachother. – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I merged them. For reference, the current list’s sorting is based on numeral ids, but since they’ll (basically) be gone in 1.13, we may reorder the list into how the creative inventory will look after this change has happened. FVbico (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding history section?
Do you think that this page deserves a history section? I mean, we can tell when the report was made, the original plan of this happening in 1.10, the changes in commands in preparation of the flattening, etc. So, should we add it? FVbico (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think so, as the flattening was purely a subproject to improving the game, not necessarily a component of it that has relations to different versions (read: major releases). It made sense to complete this subproject within one version, and although it was substantial enough for it to have needed preparations in earlier versions, the concept of the flattening itself has only relation to just the one version it was implemented in. I would have felt differently if the changes were spread out over multiple versions, when the whole process would have existed in partial implementation in some official releases. But one could argue the implementation across different snapshots could deserve individual history entries. I don't know how the history tables usually are made. – Jack McKalling (t • c • p) 12:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sub-pages generally don't have a history table. They're meant to be linked to from main pages. But since we can't really spam the main page (1.13) history table with this info, it might be worth it. So maybe? --Pepijn (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While not common practice, there's nothing preventing history sections from going onto pages like these, I don't think. I personally like to see history; most of my initial work on the wiki was digging up, fleshing out and trying to get correct history.  So that's me.  It's interesting information in any case.  And it's a very long-planned project whose preparation came in stages, even if it was finally released in just one snapshot. –  Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)