Talk:Coal

I don't unerstand the use of charcoal... I guess we can make "coal" without coal, am I right ?? Gaby5011 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Charcoal is quite useful during the first night since you're more likely going to find more wood than natural coal, so making torch is now easier. Plus, coal is a limited resource that you can run off. Wood is not, you can farm trees for that. -- Linkyu 13:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in rewriting the section on charcoal efficiency. As it stands it's not very concise and doesn't get far enough into the math to break it down to it's simplest form (i.e., four wood is six smelting operations, while one charcoal is 8 smelting operations minus one operation used to create it: The real, simple difference is exactly one smelting operation per log plus some cooking time.)  I'm willing to do the rewrite myself, but I wanted to make certain nobody would be upset about it if I delete the rambling in that section before I do so. --Qlmmb2086 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Move
Why was this moved to (Item)? You can have a main article w/o needing a modifier, just have a blurb at the top explaining the other ones (like on Charcoal). And for that matter, I think charcoal should be moved back to just Charcoal, without the (Item). --JonTheMon 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * many blocks have many versions that need to be accdounted for. redstone is the biggest example. it has an ore, wire, item, repeater, torch and maybe more.--Kizzycocoa 20:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was going to complain but then I saw you made Coal into a disambiguation, which I actually think is a pretty decent idea. So I withdraw my complaint I never made ;)  --Warlock 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) But coal is coal. It can't be placed and the coal item is distinct from the coal ore. --JonTheMon 20:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes, but there are other variations. it also informs other of charcoal. Also, we don't /need/ the disambiguation page. I just made that so there was something in it's place.--Kizzycocoa 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So have the main Coal article be the item, and have a double disambig message at the top, one pointing to the ore and the other to Charcoal. --JonTheMon 20:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * no, the wiki needs uniformity. the (Item) stays. if you dislike the disambiguation, feel free to redirect it to this. but the item stays purely due to uniformity. just look at any other item.--Kizzycocoa 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While disambiguation in the titles is useful, wouldn't it be even better to have the most likely target be the main article? --JonTheMon 20:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * sure. redirect it if you want! but I'm thinking of the possible tangents they could also discover.--Kizzycocoa 20:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * .... I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I suggest moving this page back over the redirect to "Coal" and let the text at the top of the current article act as the disambig page. --JonTheMon 20:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that all item/block pages ought to be named identically to the official (in-game tooltip) names, except for where there are conflicts (which are rare), rather than qualifying lots of item names. —KPReid 21:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. That clearly makes the most sense.  Then, if we need "uniformity", then have those few cases of ambiguity redirect to the item or block page (whatever the community views as best).  Furthermore, I don't understand why we are so parenthesis happy on this wiki.  Coal Ore, for example, is just that.  Why do we have to make it Coal (Ore)?  It doesn't need to be that way.  I think this should be moved back, with a new global policy that articles titles should reflect the name of the ingame tool-tip except in the case that two items share said tool-tip, in which case we should make the tool-tip article a disambiguation page.  --Nick2253 21:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Can anyone start to name a page or must a admin do it? If anyone is allowed then I'll work on it. Carstorm 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed also. Regardless of how separate entities like Wikipedia go about this, we are a game wiki and we should have coherence with the game itself. Frizensami 12:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Article flow
As I've mentioned on Talk:Charcoal, I think that this article badly needs to be cleaned up. In its current state, it is essentially two articles (Coal and Charcoal) crammed into one. I see two options here:


 * 1) Split the Charcoal section into its own article. This would make sense because in the snapshots, regular coal once again has a functionality that charcoal does not: it can be crafted into storage blocks.


 * 1) Since some people seem to be against this, another option would be to restructure the article to look less like two articles. I have made an attempt at this, and the results are at User:Fenhl/Coal.

Which one shall it be? Or, if you prefer the current state, why? —Fenhl 04:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While I have no comment on the current state of the article, my comments at Talk:Charcoal on whether (and why) Coal and Charcoal should share an article still stand. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 09:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)