Talk:Canyon

The trivia section
Why is that info about the seed there? I checked it and it's at most 5 ravines overlapping. It's not overly huge or impressive. Was it larger on an older version? Maybe it should be on a seed website instead of here. KDNX-Wyatt (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a Bedrock vs Java thing? I can't test; the computer on which I played Minecraft has died. You might want to ask who added that trivia in October. He added others that I removed as speculative, but I left that one in. Amatulic (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge with cave
Canyons are another type of carver, and Cave already covers all types of carvers, and even noise caves which aren't carvers. Also, it includes "Crack Carvers", which are visually similar to canyons, and are a type of carver that generates using the "canyon" type.

So, canyons should be in the Carvers section from the Cave article, since not only they are carvers, but also because they are a type of cave internally. And there is underwater canyon generation (underwater caves), so it would be better to add them to that page. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Canyon is not a Cave --TreeIsLife (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They have the same generation system than caves. Also, if they are separated then "Crack Carvers" shouldn't be included on the Cave aticle as they don't look at all like caves. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , they're different features in-game. I'd rather move crack carvers here, or give them a unique page. The page is called "cave", not "carver". -PancakeIdentity (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - if anything, we should have a third page explaining carvers from a custom world gen perspective. - User-12316399 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in common, I see no reason to merge those 2 pages. --Goro488 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, canyons generate with a system really similar to the cave one, even if they look or not like caves. If we included Crack carvers somewhere else, that would be misinformation as they are a carver type. And if crack carvers are a type of carver that is included there, canyons should be part of the main Cave article too, even if they don't look related. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - They should be merged with Cave, since they are just another type of Cave (Carver). --Ritz1256 Backup (talk) 11:57, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the two pages shouldn't be merged until a consensus has been reached here, especially if more people currently oppose it than support it. You shouldn't merge pages regardless of what other people think about it just because you think they should be – JEC talk @ 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . The argument "canyons are a type of carver" is analogous to saying "cobblestone is a type of stone" so we should merge all stone articles together. That is ridiculous. If any merging is to be done, then carver should have its own article and canyon be merged into it. But canyons and caves are two different things, as are carvers and caves, so it makes no sense to merge into cave. Amatulic (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in common, I see no reason to merge those 2 pages. --Goro488 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, canyons generate with a system really similar to the cave one, even if they look or not like caves. If we included Crack carvers somewhere else, that would be misinformation as they are a carver type. And if crack carvers are a type of carver that is included there, canyons should be part of the main Cave article too, even if they don't look related. Thejoaqui777 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - They should be merged with Cave, since they are just another type of Cave (Carver). --Ritz1256 Backup (talk) 11:57, 04 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the two pages shouldn't be merged until a consensus has been reached here, especially if more people currently oppose it than support it. You shouldn't merge pages regardless of what other people think about it just because you think they should be – JEC talk @ 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . The argument "canyons are a type of carver" is analogous to saying "cobblestone is a type of stone" so we should merge all stone articles together. That is ridiculous. If any merging is to be done, then carver should have its own article and canyon be merged into it. But canyons and caves are two different things, as are carvers and caves, so it makes no sense to merge into cave. Amatulic (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the two pages shouldn't be merged until a consensus has been reached here, especially if more people currently oppose it than support it. You shouldn't merge pages regardless of what other people think about it just because you think they should be – JEC talk @ 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . The argument "canyons are a type of carver" is analogous to saying "cobblestone is a type of stone" so we should merge all stone articles together. That is ridiculous. If any merging is to be done, then carver should have its own article and canyon be merged into it. But canyons and caves are two different things, as are carvers and caves, so it makes no sense to merge into cave. Amatulic (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)