Not enough info
There isn't enough information yet to cover an entire page.
- Hey, what exactly do you mean by "what context?" If you mean where I found the data values, I got them from the zip folder for 18w09a. (.minecraft/versions/18w09a/18w09a.zip/data/minecraft/tags/blocks/coral.json)--T • C 18:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't undo my work, it's rude, and it's not speculation, it's biology if I said the look of the apple in minecraft was based on Malus pumila would you say it's "speculation"? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Giammod (talk • contribs) at 21:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
- The speculation part is the assumption that that biological name is what the developers had in mind when making the texture. Not the correctness of the name chosen. – ] 22:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [
- No one is claiming to know "what they had in mind" I'm posting what it is. Giammod (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- And that is exactly the point. We should only edit what is officially sourced. The reversion of your edits here is because we don't know truly what coral actualy is based on. You may think or know what it looks like, but because Mojang didn't state such, it is only an assumption that they had that in mind. – ] 22:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [
- Now you're being silly, Mojang did state it is coral and coral is largely identified by morphology. The blue coral is Tube Coral, it doesn't mater if Mojang comes out and says otherwise or confirms it; That's what it is and will be unless they change the morph of the coral in the textures at a later date.Giammod (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Stop this edit war. It doesn't matter what specific type of coral the blocks represent, regardless of how the texture looks. The fact that does matter here, that four editors including an admin have already tried to point out to you, is that Mojang did not confirm the information. They might as well even just have chosen those colours at random because they look pretty. Quite literally everything that is not sourced from them, or is apparent from the source code, or from gameplay itself, is speculation, and should not be included in any article. Period. – ] 22:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [
- This really is absurd. It's trivia, of course it doesn't "matter." that logic justifies removing ALL trivia fields. Mojang doesn't need to "confirm" or source this type of information anymore than the need to confirm the breeds of cats that ocelots turn into. it is not "speculation", that's crap and you know it. It really is like saying I'm speculating by calling the orange cat orange. it's the exact same thing. I'm sorry I don't have a fancy icon next to my name to bolster my rep, but at this point you're doing this out of spite. How many editors can't see and label coral is irrelevant. one can, and that's all it takes. I didn't start an edit war. I'll end it when it's adequately explained why out of all the useless trivia on the wiki, why mine, which serves to explain the coral phylogeny to people who may not know, shouldn't be here.
- Ignoring the fact it would be irrelevant and excessive anyways, adding that the apple in Minecraft is based on Malus pumila would not be speculation because that's the only apple species which is commonly eaten by humans. If, however, you tried to add that it's based on the Red Delicious cultivar, that would be speculation, since you'd be arriving at that conclusion by pattern-matching against the handful of cultivars you're familiar with out of the 7000+ cultivars known.
- Your personal background or research are irrelevant here; as has already been explained, this type of detail requires a statement from Mojang to not be considered speculation. The sources you added are completely unsuitable - ignoring the fact they're not from Mojang, all but one are just Wikipedia articles, which are not acceptable as sources no matter what you're doing. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 23:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's true that the standard for Trivia sections is somewhat more flexible than for other sections, but even trivia must be based on some kind of demonstrable fact. The facts here are that these types of coral resemble natural species in some way, which is fairly uncontroversial. What is controversial is that you stated that they were based on those species, which presumes to know the designers' intentions, but you cannot support that presumption with evidence.
- I'd like to suggest as a compromise that the edit simply be amended to read "...resembles..." instead of "...is based on". I would personally see that as appropriate in the Trivia section. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 23:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate the idea, Auldrick, but I don't think it would matter and I don't care enough to try. Dino made it clear it wouldn't matter even if I was right.--Giammod (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, in general, Wiki doesn't care about who's right, and /or informed. So getting into it is how much time you're willing to.. *trails off diplomatically* Yilante 3 /10 /18 10:32 am 126.96.36.199 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Coral Blocks vis-a-vis Coral Plants (which generate on them); making Coral Reefs.
Wow, look very-realistic, if a bit-linear - they also seem to form "enclosure"-like relatively-large structures (with gaps inside, rather like mini-habitations, since the Player could fin, er fit inside) - the Coral Blocks ( ' constructions). Almost like "surface caves /tubes," if it were again R L-like, probably the closest we'd get to such often-volcanic caves (and Volcanoes, for that matter), and given that most vulcanism happens under the Ocean's surface, it's more-or-less as-appropriate (that and the now additionally-extra Ocean Ravines to the previous ones in-Oceans), they'll come and be-featured in the Aquatic Update 1.13.
Here's my point, in bringing this up: we should say Coral Plants generate on Coral Blocks (rather than for-example the other-way around, and that it Is much-more realistic, this way), in the main Wiki Page. There (to Make, Coral Reefs). Yilante 3 /10 /18 10:48 am 188.8.131.52 18:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Transparency of coral
- Yes and no. Coral plans and fans are indeed transparent, but coral blocks and dead coral blocks are not. So we should split the value between these four blocks, as is done with the blast resistance. – ] 08:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC) [
Coral Fan textures in old versions
Coral fans in 18w14a use new textures. However in history section, this new textures are shown in 18w11a, and the old textures files are gone. So can someone can fix this problem? --Lxazl5770 zh.admin（论 • 功） 02:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, I've had everything moved properly, but since there were so many images to deal with I forgot to insert the correct pictures in the history section. They old pictures are back now. – Fuzs 05:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Currently this page covers a total of 25 blocks (a lot). Some of the information is like, "this type of coral this, another one that," etc. and it's starting to be confusing to readers, especially the history section. I propose putting coral blocks and dead coral blocks into their own article named "coral blocks." This would leave coral (coral plants in Bedrock), coral fans, and dead coral fans in this article, which in my opinion is plenty enough for their own article. We may should even split the coral page further, with having coral fans and dead coral fans in a third article, but I feel like we should start with just separating the coral blocks and dead coral blocks into their own page. What are your opinions on this?--Talk to me 21:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Splitting the page into three separate articles is our best option I'd say. Even coral and corals fans are just too different. – Fuzs 22:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Three articles sounds right to me as well. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 22:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support too. I'd imagine 5 pages; the mentioned 3 and 2 redirects to those for the dead variants. Then we'd have "Coral / Coral Plant", "Coral Block", "Coral Fan", and the redirects "Coral Block|Dead Coral Block" and "Coral Fan|Dead Coral Fan". – ] 07:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would definitely create those redirects if the page were split.--Talk to me 12:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would there be any objections if I split the page now?--Talk to me 14:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Remove Coral/DV sub-article
- See the second thread in this talk page, it is still being discussed. It wasn't vandalism, it was an honest effort: Wikipedia:WP:GOODFAITH! – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 12:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)