Talk:Caves & Cliffs

Merge Pages
Wouldn't it be easier to merge the pages from Java 1.17 with bedrock 1.17.0? They are practically the same and few things change. We could put a section on the Caves & Cliffs page about unique changes in these editions (or bug fixes). it would be easier and less unnecessary copy paste, and everyone would just know where to edit new update freatures. (I also suggest doing it to all update pages). The pages with small updates could be separate again, like 1.17.2, 1.17.3, 1.17.4...L7876 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the editions have different features right now, and goats shouldn't be listed as added yet on the java end, and skulk sensors vice versa. Additionally, there's guarenteed to be changes between the editions at the time of release too, even 1.16 had differences, despite being parity checked. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 20:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, at least some time the resources will mix, the features that are different will be in the minority as the version is still being tested. That is why I said that at least one section on the page should be created for them, (In the future when the version finally comes out). These differences are not a big deal at all.L7876 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry if i'm too dramatic I oppose becuase of consistancy. Java 1.16 is different than Be 1.16. Also think about bug fixes and other things. Also what would you even call the page? Temporarily merging the pages just creates a lot of mess with cleaning up the pages. Also Dhranios is a long time contributer and administator and i'm 100% sure that an admin would be more reliable than a new user.Humiebee (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not getting anyone's point, what do you mean by calling the page what? It would be just a mix! Also why not doing this at least in the future? And i dont know what do you mean by "bug fixes and other things" since i already said thats not a big thing, likes it is a confusion (Just create a new section with the bedrock and java bug fixes so that the reader can distinguish it). Think I will try to create a test page, to prove that "new users" can also be trust wordy.L7876 (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems humbiebee was a bit unsure what you meant. The point we're trying to make clear is that there's still going to be numerous exclusive changes, even if mojang is focusing on parity within the update. A bug fix can result in a change to something's behavior, that should be mentioned outside the bug fixes section too.
 * Having 1 page listing 2 updates (even if the same *base* update) is going to get really messy really quickly. We separate pages across the wiki a lot if the editions are different enough, and updates are not an exception. Think of the command system, it is very different between editions, or data packs/ad-on scripting, those are exclusives to their editions and shouldn't be listed on the others'.
 * The moment you get a page with "both, java, bedrock", you're asking to reader to look all over the page for the changes to, eg, data packs, while keeping it separate pages only asks them to look at 1 place. The readers are generally interested only in 1 edition. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for being more clear i got your point now. But theres a way to create a test page here? Like wikipedia? L7876 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion, I wouldn't reccomend you to do that, but if you would like to test it, you can do that on your user page (or a subpage of it), but remember that you should clear it when you finish testing. Your user page won't be deleted if you specify that you are testing something, because it takes space. The best option would be the Sandbox page, where you can edit freely folowing the rules and style guide; however the edits made there are undone after a while, so it's your own decision. Anyway, Dhranios already explained why it wouldn't be a good idea, and I think that you should listen to him, but you are free to decide . Thejoaqui777 (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * for a few reasons. Firstly, it passively promotes parity, a problem that a lot of people are worried about. Secondly, It makes comparing the two versions easier if there is not perfect parity. Lastly, it is less confusing to casual readers who are new and don't understand the difference between the two. --TurtleOutLoud (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * because honestly, I feel like it would be more confusing to new readers, not less. If they notice the edition listed at the top, that shows a decent indicator of whether or not features will work on their version. If they look up which version they are on before or after testing an edition exclusive feature, it makes it much easier for them to find fun ones they can use in their version. My first introduction to the fact that there were two versions of Minecraft was in testing out one of the Java Edition features and wondering why it didn't work. From there, I was able to learn about them and know which one directly applied to me. The fact that both versions will always be significantly different from each other programming-wise is another argument against it. Because the programming languages are different, the bug fixes will always be significantly different, even if the features are the same. If players want a page that shows parity, the main update pages like Caves & Cliffs are where they should go, not the version update pages. PegasusDust (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It would just be extremly messy. What would you do, put 1st level headers? That just destroys the purpose of the merge. Also, there is Official pages/Parity issue list.Humiebeetalk contribs 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I am playing $$ and $$, it's in the latest snapshot: 21w19a; and 1.16.221. And, um, there are a LOT of d*mn DIFFERENCES!!!!! Ugh! Minecrafteer (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Protect the page
Can somebody protect the page and disallow ips from editing it? Most of the ip edits just get undone because they have some problem. 18:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC) hmm...I do not know how to but an admin can help you--Jadon0506 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Jadon

Can Someone add the new Bedrock mountain biomes?
I don't see why they shouldn't be on this page since they are part of the update. Miraculer89 (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are mentioned briefly under the world generation section. However, I could see how it would make sense to at least put a little more information about them to the biomes section, even if the section on mountains stays where it is. PegasusDust (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * to be consistant with Goat.Humiebeetalk contribs 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean mountains, . Minecrafteer (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Labeling the caves as "Java Edition Only" and mountains as "Bedrock Edition Only"
On the page, the new cave generation is labeled as "Java Edition Only", and the new mountains are labeled as "Bedrock Edition Only". I know that this is because the cave generation is only in the snapshots and the mountains are only in the betas, but the wording makes it sound like one version is only going to get one half of the terrain generation in the full update. I'd change this, but I don't know if it's meant to be worded this way?
 * Personally, I think it also should be changed, but for consistency I think that is how it is supposed to be worded. --TurtleOutLoud (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounded that way to me at first when I started reading this website a few years ago. The reason they have that is because currently only one edition has those features, even though both will eventually get both. However, there has been a recent change where pages that contain features currently exclusive to one edition can have the other edition as "planned" if it has been confirmed that it will receive them. Maybe you could ask for a template like that? I'm not certain how to do that, but it seems like a possibility. PegasusDust (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

why is the update two parts
why is the update two parts--Jadon0506 (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Jadon
 * See the new video posted on Minecraft official YouTube channel. Windwend (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Skulk Trap
This is just an idea, but I think the Skulk Trap will be a block that will either detect if someone (or something) is on top of it, or it will grab the player and send a redstone single. This is just an idea :D 70.181.135.90 02:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting one, but "just ideas" shouldn't be added to the main page. PegasusDust (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sculk Sensor
If the sculk sensor is going to be in 1.17, does that mean the warden will be in 1.17? Because wardens attract vibrations from sculk. – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 19:31, 28 April 2021‎ (UTC). Sign comments with
 * The sculk sensor will be commands-only in 1.17; both will be fully implemented in 1.18.  Nixinova   T   C  21:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Warden
Why can’t the warden be released on 1.17? – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 14:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with
 * Because the warden will be added with the deep dark biome, and all cave biomes are post-pone to 1.18, and also because the sculk sensor was removed from the creative inventory in snapshot 21w19a, meaning it is also post-pone to 1.18. Stwennin (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Underground cabin
If the underground cabin may appear in 1.17, doesn’t that mean the warden will appear? – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 23:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with
 * I honestly doubt that it will. Kingbdogz, the main deep dark developer, has mentioned that many of the deep dark features will be postponed till 1.18, since the world generation, warden mechanics, and new blocks are interwoven a lot. There's a small chance that they might add underground structures that will eventually be added to the deep dark, but without the warden to balance out their loot tables and without the generation and blocks to make the experience immersive, I seriously doubt that any deep dark structures will be added in 1.17, whether underground cabin or otherwise. Also, Kingbdogz has confirmed that the warden is definitely coming in 1.18, not 1.17, for the reasons listed above. It's a little sad, but at least we have a lot to look forward to. PegasusDust (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

1.17 mob update
If the warden doesn’t appear on 1.17, doesn’t that mean that 1.17 won’t be called the mob update at all? – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 14:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with
 * It is not called the “Mob Update” of Caves and Cliffs at all. It is a partial release of Caves & Cliffs. Gdgdtbdgydy (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

New Mobs
Will the zombie horse and illusioner be in survival 1.17 or 1.18? – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with
 * Maybe 105.186.117.183 14:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the developers mentioned that illusioners might be added to raids at some point, but I haven't seen anything to confirm it happening soon. I also haven't seen any plans to implement the zombie horse. This doesn't mean that they won't be implemented, but we can't mention them on these pages unless they are officially announced to come out in one of these updates. PegasusDust (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1.17
Will 1.17 be released on June? – Unsigned comment added by Zachbarbo (talk • contribs) at 09:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with
 * Maybe 105.225.91.157 13:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.minecraft.net/article/a-caves---cliffs-announcement shows you when the  the update'll be released. Minecrafteer (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

New Warden Information
There has just been more information from an interview in this tweet: Drour1234 (talk), 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh God this is so exciting.Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you add the information to the page? Drour1234 (talk), 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but from what I listened to there didn't seem to be anything we need to add to this page. However, it does seem like some of it could be added to the warden page as trivia once the required part two snapshots come out. PegasusDust (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain in here on this talk page everything that was said in the podcast as I cannot actually play it. Drour1234 (talk), 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Like PegasusDust said, Kingbdogz didn't really quite give any new information we could add to the Wiki. He talked more about how the Warden and Deep Dark are inspired by his first night experience and how their goal is to recapture that for a much later stage of progression, when the players have maxed out gear and are virtually invincible. That is why their plan is to make the Warden a natural disaster and not a boss, though he said he doesn't want to promise it too much. I'm sure that's because he knows if he promises it and unluckily fails to fulfill that goal he will be yeeted from the face of Earth by the community, so he's trying to be careful. From everything he said, though, it is 100% their plan to make the Warden a "tornado" and not a boss. He reiterated a lot of the design goals, including how the Deep Dark creates a unique stealth situation in order to make the experience balanced and fair for players while still having the same effect. Finally he said that only Wardens will spawn there for basically that same reason; to make it a recapturing of the first night in a way that could still be dealt with fairly. Kingbdogz didn't talk about the Deep Dark the whole time, though; it was only for about 20 minutes after the 1:30 hour mark. What he said was also mostly gameplay development insight that we don't mention too much in the main articles for style guide reasons, but it is often relevant in the trivia section.

Warden
Hey guys, I saw on the Warden the texture of its chest. Look at it. Doesn't it look like Soul Sand texture? So this Mob has something to do with Souls. . . I'm getting dark here. But seriously look at its chest. (._.)  70.181.135.90 16:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless you have an official source, we cannot add speculation to the article. Amatulic (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no REAL proof of anything. I just wanted to point out that there is a weird Soul Sand texture on the Warden's chest. ;) 70.181.135.90 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Gallery nonsense
The gallery section for this page is a big ol' mess and someone needs to clean it up. But first, just look at all the silly stuff written in the image descriptions ;)23.28.31.25 13:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sculk Block Names
In this tweet, kingbdogz mentions that he is experimenting with "Sculk Catalysts". He capitalizes both words, indicating that this is the official name of an in-game item, block, or perhaps mechanic. As some people know, a catalyst is an element or material that enhances a reaction, mainly by speeding it up. So it is unlikely (but totally possible) that this would be plainly a mechanic and not a solid material directly used for a reaction, whether an item or a block. Because we don't know of any Sculk related none-block items, and we have two blocks with unknown names, it seems fair to give that name refferred to either the Sculk Chute or Sculk Trap, especially because kingbdogz said that all Sculk blocks have highly interwoven mechanics. I highly doubt it would be a new block since developers alread\y have a lot on their plate. It also seems illogical to have an official name and not use it on the wiki somehow, and instead keep two speculation names. Even though renaming the Sculk Chute for example to a Sculk Catalyst might turn out inaccurate once it releases, it's definitely better than having a speculation name for the block when we have an official name and we're just unsure about what it refers to. What I think we should negotiate on is: Should we rename the Sculk Chute or Sculk Trap to "Sculk Catalyst"? I'm inclined to rename the Sculk Chute, as it seems more visually fitting to be some sort of catalyst, but I could be totally wrong. Please vote with "Agree/Disagree" to show your opion on the rename as a whole. Vote afterwards with "Support" to rename the Sculk Chute, or "Oppose" if you think the Sculk Trap should be renamed instead. Thanks for your time. Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * if it is from an official source (the link supports this). I Sculk Chute because it it more detailed and has an interesting glowing property. The reasoning is kinda speculation but the name is from an official source. Humiebeetalk contribs 23:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to the rename for now as the Sculk items other than the sensor have not appeared in any development versions. Also, replacing a conjecture name with another name that could possibly also be conjecture is pointless. BDJP (t 23:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We need more participation if we're going to decide. At least 4 more votes. Please participate and share your opinion if you can. Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * renaming based on pure speculation. It needs to appear in some version of Minecraft before we can include it in an article. Developers tweet about a lot of stuff, I see YouTube videos about ideas they have that may never pan out. It is premature to be considering this now. Amatulic (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, a few things to note here. First, these are not ideas that have potential to not pan out. It's true that developers tweet about a lot of stuff, but if you've read the tweet you know that this is something kingbdogz explicitly told us he's experimenting with, and he did capitalize the words "Sculk Catalysts". People on the internet don't capitalize for no reason (they don't even capitalize often). Additionally, developmet is now in too late of a stage for them to be experimenting with entirely new blocks that might not pan out. In videos, they just talk about ideas. From how this tweet is phrased, kingbdogz is indeed talking about something that exists. The name is official, I don't believe there is much argument to that. Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * On a second note, I can also definitely see how renaming a block based on speculation can confuse users or lead them to believe that we have a new 100% official and fixed name, when in reality we are using a name that we know is official but my not refer to said block at all. That is the speculation part. And yet isn't that better than using a conjecture name, especially when it is fairly likely that the name we have refers to one of these blocks? And in addition, we could always have a note saying that the name being using here is a conjecture based on a name we've been given and have speculated applies to this block. I'm quite unsure, and that's why I made a poll; to see which side wins over. But as for "Is this name official/real and valid to use", I assure you it is for the reasons I said above. Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't put conjecture or speculation into articles. It is not useful for any reader to be told what some random editor's opinion is, even if that opinion has some basis. Articles should describe facts about the game. Articles about upcoming releases may have placeholder names, and that's unavoidable. But we're talking about renaming something that already has an established name, without any basis other than one editor synthesizing a conclusion based on how a tweet was formatted and the timing of the tweet. No way. Until the name appears in a development version, we have no business including it. At best, kingbdogz's tweet could be included in the trivia section, but even then we must refrain from drawing any conclusions about it. Let the readers decide for themselves, don't dictate what they should think. I remain strongly opposed to this proposal. Amatulic (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can definitely respect that. Thanks for your fair arguments. Mainly what convinced me is you saying "let the reader decide" since it reminded me with "No one can tell you what you can and cannot do" :) Till it appears in a development version, I'll remain personally convinced that the Sculk Chute is actually called Sculk Catalyst :P Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone should mark this as resolved unless anyone still has counter arguments. I'm personally satisfied with the result. I'd resolve it if no one objects, but I don't really know how to. Does it use a template? Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * per above. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 09:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I currently, mostly because we don't have much information about it. Yes, the currently established names are likely wrong, and I can see the reasoning behind using an official name, but it is also fairly likely that this name would be used incorrectly. I am grateful that you brought up this twitter post, though. If anything shows up that gives us more conclusive evidence on this subject (what it does, if it is a mechanic or a block, etc.), that should be added to the page. However, if it is confirmed as a block mechanic without any evidence to show which block it connects to, it should be posted that way, not put under any of the blocks it could be connected to. Speculation should be kept to a minimum as much as possible. PegasusDust (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for sharing your opinions. I was already convinced we're better off without renaming after thinking about it, but still thanks for putting your arguments out there :) Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)