Talk:Prismarine

Error with ID values in Bedrock Edition
Prismarine ID values are reversed for 1 and 2. 2 is bricks and 1 is dark.

Please someone change accordingly - I don't know how. Thank you! 13:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the variants be on the same page?
Prismarine, dark prismarine and prismarine bricks are all variants of block 168, with no relevant differences save texture. Why does each have a separate page right now? Cultist O (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few schools of thought. In contrast to those who find it nice to group blocks with the same ID, there are others who would group them more closely to how they would be encountered in the Creative Inventory.  Also there are relevant differences:  prismarine, dark prismarine and prismarine bricks are all crafted differently, in a more differentiated and unique way than say, the stairs or the stained clays are all crafted differently. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, I guess crafting is a relevant difference, but we group sandstone types and stone brick types together, even though they are crafted differently. I just think it should be consistent. Cultist O (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * On Talk:Wet Sponge, I explained why throwing these articles together is problematic even for the sandstone types and stone brick variants. The same applies here. —F‌enhl 05:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, it's clear that this is a broader discussion than just these few pages, I think we should tackle it from a wiki-wide perspective, we need to decide where we draw the line, and stick to it, splitting or merging pages which fall on the wrong side of said line. Cultist O (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll just throw in my own Opinion - which is all it is, of 1 - here, about some of the interesting differences, between Blocks. Some come-from Mobs (Slime Balls, Prismarine Shards), others re-constitute from a lesser-amount, created when the Same-Block, as previously -present, is-destroyed (Glowstone -> Glowstone Dust -> Glowstone, but Redstone Lamps, etc. items too; vs. the-similar Guardian-types /Sea Lantern -> Prismarine Crystals -> Sea Lantern). And while some like Slime Blocks are still technically a Storage Block (like Smelted /otherwise-already -Mined, Ore types, can have), Prismarine is one-way (like some kinds of SandStone, or most Stone variants). And finally, they can be re-converted, until there's not-enough, left, to continue to otherwise endlessly re-convert, them (the Glowstone Dust or Prismarine Crystals are insufficient for creation of their own respective Lighting types).

I'm not sure what this Wiki groups Nether Quartz Ore and its (Many) derivatives (including a mechanism), into, but that -too, might represent a side-comparison, of how similar-things should be How-separately -treated. - Yilante 216.7.78.195 06:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * . They are very similar, and different textures is minor. -- Naista2002 ♦ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Iron Pickaxe.png 14:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC) (stroke out by  Naista2002  ♦ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Iron Pickaxe.png in 14:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC) due to dispute)

Animated grid image
As with Sea Lanterns, it would be nice if we could have an animated version of the grid image. And the large version for the infobox also needs to be animated. —F‌enhl 07:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Avengers, Assemble!
The result of the discussion was merging Dark Prismarine and Prismarine Bricks with Prismarine.

I would like to know current opinions on merging prismarine variants into a single page. — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . I don't know why these pages were separate. All prismarine blocks are made from the same prismarine shards, so I would put them together. — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 08:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - As Sealbudsman and Fenhl said about 9 months ago, the blocks are crafted differently in a more differentiated and unique way. Merging the pages would cause a lot of problems, according to Fenhl. BDJP (t 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lolwhat? Technical limitations can be fixed, we have the technology. — NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 15:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Technical limits are not a problem, I know the templates well and both crafting and crafting usage have easy support for multiple blocks covered by an article. The actual problem would be the crafting recipes being different, but since every other part of the article would be the same, I don't see that as a problem. All the blocks already state they generate in ocean monuments, so we would just state where to find each and the recipes for each. We will keep having the same discussion with different blocks until we decide what really qualifies for merge and split though – KnightMiner  t/c 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is an example merged page: User:KnightMiner/Workbench/Prismarine. No issues happened during the merging, and it looks pretty good.
 * It may also be worth noting that the other two variants are very small articles, so there is no reason to keep it separate as far as information. Plus they have been inaccurate for quite awhile as no one set the proper ID name. – KnightMiner  t/c 00:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can all 3 blocks (3 large isometric blocks, and 3 small icons) be featured in the block box on the side? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T, C, b 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just forgot to add that. JEC fixed it. – KnightMiner  t/c 01:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . – LauraFi -  talk  21:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . A wiki user is ultimately going to be better served, I think, just browsing one page. They always appear together in-game in the same context. They're simple, and similar enough that their differences seem to be exceptions and of minor note. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) SealbudsmanFace.png T, C, b 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . –「 JEC  6789  」talk • contribs – 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind. I now . BDJP (t 01:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - these are ultimately just variants on prismarine, would definitely make sense to put them together. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 04:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Reboot
"I think people are getting too caught up in orangising pages based on data values (which most people are not going to even know exist), rather than what is actually useful for a reader. Cobblestone Wall and Mossy Cobblestone Wall for instance are the same page, but Cobblestone and Moss Stone are separate pages. Why? Data values."
 * After rethinking, I now . These blocks are not derivatives of each other. &mdash; NickTheRed37 t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 13:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, they are. Each type is just the same as the last, other than a tweaked recipe and a different texture. They even all generate in the same place. – KnightMiner  t/c 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't mix up variations and derivatives. &mdash; NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 14:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Derivative: something that is based on another source.". That definition fits prismarine variants well, the variations are directly based on the original. What do you mean by the distinction between "derivative" as opposed to "variation"? – KnightMiner  t/c 14:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that prismarine can't be used to craft other prismarine blocks, all are made directly from shards. &mdash; NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 15:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to reference stairs and slab, as neither requires another block on the article to craft, and stained clay's split from hardened clay, as they were considered different blocks, even though one crafts into the other. Basically, just because one item is a product of the other, that does not mean they should merge, and just because it is not a product does not mean it should split. – KnightMiner  t/c 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the logic? It will bring order in organizing articles, which was ruined by this bureaucracy. Meanwhile, stairs and slabs are all derivative blocks with unstandard models, and stained clay is hardened clay that is colored. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 15:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quote:

- Majr at Talk:Wet Sponge —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree data values are a poor sole reason to merge, but I thought we were discussing merging based on derivatives (in which right above that quote, Majr directly disagrees with merging based on derivatives). Also, in this case data values was not the main point behind merging (as stated above). Instead, they were merged as each type is just about the same as the last, and each are used together in game, the data values were barely considered.
 * As for a even more specific reason I disagree with using "it is a product of, therefore merge": If we go simply by products, then Wooden Plank would merge into Wood; Stick, wooden Door, and wooden Button into wooden planks; wooden Fence and Fence Gate into that new combined wooden planks and sticks article; then we merge in all the wooden tools and weapons into that; etc. It become a mess of unrelated pages, because the guideline is simply decided by derivatives. – KnightMiner  t/c 16:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I put the emphasis in that quote at “...rather than what is actually useful for a reader.”. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think most readers will find it useful to see three mostly identical blocks discussed on the same page. We already have six above (assumimg you disagree now) stating they find it more useful merged. All of these blocks are directly related to each other, and are used in the same context together, such as in ocean temples. – KnightMiner  t/c 16:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same with sandstone and red sandstone. But red sandstone is a different species of sandstone, that’s why I disagree with that merger. —  NickTheRed37</b> t/c (f.k.a. Naista2002) </i> 16:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's only reasonable to merge an article if all blocks/items/whatever that should be merged have the same name. For example, "Wet Sponge" and "Sponge" both contain "Sponge"; "Dark Prismarine" and "Prismarine Bricks" both contain "Prismarine". "Stick" and "Wooden plank" however have no identical parts. In my opinion, the merge of the prismarine pages is reasonable, because they all are named "Prismarine" ingame. It however isn't reasonable that you merge or split an article just because of technical data. If you're not sure, just think about what a reader would search most likely. If they want to find out something about the "Dark Prismarine", they will search for "Prismarine" most likely, I think. Same for "Wet Sponge" and so on. Also, if they want to know something about podzol, they won't search for "dirt" because they don't see podzol as "dirt", maybe as grass block or something like that. | violine1101(Talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's only reasonable to merge an article if all blocks/items/whatever that should be merged have the same name. For example, "Wet Sponge" and "Sponge" both contain "Sponge"; "Dark Prismarine" and "Prismarine Bricks" both contain "Prismarine". "Stick" and "Wooden plank" however have no identical parts. In my opinion, the merge of the prismarine pages is reasonable, because they all are named "Prismarine" ingame. It however isn't reasonable that you merge or split an article just because of technical data. If you're not sure, just think about what a reader would search most likely. If they want to find out something about the "Dark Prismarine", they will search for "Prismarine" most likely, I think. Same for "Wet Sponge" and so on. Also, if they want to know something about podzol, they won't search for "dirt" because they don't see podzol as "dirt", maybe as grass block or something like that. | violine1101(Talk) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Finale
I’m no longer going by my previous argument; I now use similarities in suspected material, hinted in crafting recipes, as one of the main arguments for merging. I merged the three pages on the Russian wiki, per the discussion where I used that very argument. — <i class="nowrap" style="font-family: courier">NickTheRed37</b> (talk)</i> 17:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

should history show 1.13 Waterlogged blockstate
Shouldn't history include the 18w10c addition of the waterlogged blockstate for slabs and stairs? jjlr (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)