Talk: Granite

Unprocessed granite name[]

In this article the rough, newly mined,unprocessed granite is referred to as "Regular granite". In the Upcoming features article it is referred to as "raw granite". Is there an official name yet? If not, what is the most neutral thing we can call it? Personally I prefer "raw granite". But regardless we do need consistency, so we have to settle for one name! --Saanoth (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No official names yet that I can find; we'll have them when the 1.8 snapshots start in January. I wouldn't worry about it too much; it isn't worth edit-warring over. -- Orthotope^talk 08:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Stone[]

The result of the discussion was don't merge.

Like with Sandstone, Stone Bricks, and Quartz, variants sharing a data value are in one article. So I suggest merging with stone. --KnightMiner ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Please don't make this more confusing than it already is. The polished versions of granite/andesite/diorite being in the same article as the regular versions are already messing up the readability of the articles. For example, we should have the same crafting recipe twice in the same article (regular to smooth), but we can't because it would be duplicate information. —F‌enhl 18:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree The only reason they are not on the same page is because, when the granite was first announced, we didn't know it would be just a data value of stone. Granite, andesite and diorite should definitely be on the same page, since they're very similar, but it could get confusing if they were on the same page as stone. I think we should make a new page for the new stone types and leave the stone page separate. Goldenpotatoes (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with Fenhl. Why not merge Lapis Lazuli with Bone Meal or Podzol with Dirt? I do understand these are more similar ink sacs bone meal, but the data value isn't really good glue to bind the four articles together. Think about it like this: Cobblestone and Stone, albeit having different data values, are both building blocks, commonly found underground, made by lava and water and are both used crafting. It would get too complicated. Willingham yAAOz (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose There's too much merging in general, which just makes a lot of things confusing (namely: infoboxes, navboxes and recipes), in order to accomplish what? One less click to open another page? Saving a couple of seconds isn't worth the confusion.

In fact, I think the polished versions should even be split to separate pages, due to the separate crafting recipes, as well as things like pistons/sticky pistons. –Matt ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 00:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree The different kinds of stone are basically identical except for appearance (whereas Podzol has different behavior from Dirt, and Lapis Lazuli from Bone Meal). Indeed, it's an accident of development that cobblestone isn't just another data value of stone. (OK, except for mining speed.) If the pages are combined, the corresponding recipes can likewise be combined with animations, so just one box for "stone slabs", one to cycle through the polished variants (IMHO stone bricks should still be separate), and the interconversions can go in a list. ETA: Matt, the impetus for merging is having to maintain fewer pages. I'd have thunk you'd be all over that. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there actually more to maintain though? We don't have to duplicate much information because we have templates and the ability to link to other pages. And besides, merging should not be done for the benefit of the editors if it makes things more confusing for the readers (which are the huge majority). –Matt ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 01:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's more pages to look through -- even with templates, both editor and reader would occasionally need to check and compare four different pages to be sure that yes, they all have the same stats and behavior. In contrast, having them on a single page implies that if there is some functional difference among them, it should and would be mentioned on that one page. Similar issues apply to defending against vandalism -- multiple nearly-identical pages mean more targets for drive-bys and pranksters. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there will be more vandals isn't exactly 100% true, since bigger pages COULD be bigger targets. Yes, I guess that lapis is not similar to ink, but the fact that we'll have 7 pictures of the same thing on the first picture. We could do what we did with the Fish or Flower thing, but I have a slight fear that the Stone page would lose its meaning. Like flowers. There is no F-L-O-W-E-R in the game, there are dandelions, poppies. But they're not called flowers by name (except in data value). What I mean is, if we merge everything together, the first Stone block would lose its... reputation? And we'd have a lot of duplicate Information which can be easily fixed. Although if Mojang decides to add 10 Stone blocks in the game, I would think the merge would be good. For now, for the reader's sake I think we should keep as it is. IF cobblestone had the same data value of stone, would we merge? I here we're on a scale where every block has a different colour and their own crafting recipes and polished versions. Pistons and Sticky Piston merging is reasonable. Personally, I feel merging all of those is like merging Slimes with Magma Cubes. Willingham yAAOz (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Correction on my stance. I support for myself, because it wouldn't be complicated for me. It's probably not the same with new users or occasional readers. I use my iPad to go on the mc wiki and the loading time for each page is sometimes quick, sometimes obnoxious. So, as a side effect that's good about merging, it would save people's time. Willingham yAAOz (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say the complication is on the other side.... The three new types can be redirected to Stone, even to a section within the page (say, "Decorative variations"). So finding them is easier than remembering how to spell "Diorite".... And they are all kinds of stone, so the page name makes sense. The thing with vandalism is that 4 separate pages means 3 more pages, individually low-traffic, for which either someone needs to either "watch" the page, or we hope someone spots a dubious change in Recent Changes -- possibly in the midst of a bot sweep or other change flood. I've seen prank changes last weeks that way before an editor noticed the problem, or somebody happened to check the page's changelog. The biggest argument for merging them is that except for the conversion recipes, these don't have any uses distinct from stone or their own polished blocks. And yeah, if cobblestone was another data value, I'd totally be for merging it in. "Smooth stone drops as cobblestone, but cobblestone can be smelted back into smooth stone. Smooth-stone or cobblestone generators both work by combining water and lava, but the smooth-stone generator requires a slightly trickier arrangement for the core." etc.. (ETA: But cobblestone at least has its own slabs and stairs!) --MentalMouse42 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to go a bit neutral, but I still don't exactly think merging would be the greatest idea. I admit, there are many good reasons to merge those pages (in fact, I didn't know what Diorite even was before the snapshots XD). And also, the merge wouldn't make it that hard to find because we can redirect them to a certain page. I don't think that the igneous -ite blocks are decorative, though. So, should we do it like the piston page? The piston and sticky piston data values aren't the same. And if Mojang does decide to add millions of new stone blocks, I would totally support. In fact, I suggest merging all the dyes because it's all duplicate information, and even for the new igneous -ite blocks (____ is most often found in Extreme Hills, but it is still common in other biomes) Willingham yAAOz (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go as far as merging all the dyes -- just the ones that are only dyes. Bone meal, lapis, cocoa beans, and ink have additional roles, and so warrant their own pages. That said, the others do add up to a whole lot of source recipes. Dyeing already has a compact list with sources, but not crafting grids. Crafting/Dye does have crafting grids, and could be loadPage'd into Dyeing, just like it is into Crafting. (In fact, I just did that last, on the grounds that it's useful, and not in the way.) --MentalMouse42 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose what would it say for renewable? Stone is renewable but Granite is not. I actually feel like splitting Granite and Polished Granite. Boorider7 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Split from Polished Granite[]

Some people opposing merging stone with Granite say that Granite and Polished Granite merged is bad enough. How about they get unmerged? Agree (Please note that If these do get merged , I will only help out starting at the 75% mark because of laziness) Boorider7 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

First, note that topic is from over a year ago.

Second, to "unmerge" it, you just start a proposal. Of which I disagree as both granite and polished granite have no real differences, save that of the crafting recipes. They even have nearly the same name. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 20:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose These blocks work perfectly well together. It would be much easier and less repetitive to keep them merged. The Blobs 02:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong support for several reasons, there really isn't much to gain from having them in the same article. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree --108.198.127.77 16:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I'ts not pink![]

This page sases granite is pink. I'ts more rusty red.

You're referring to the trivia section. And yes, much granite in the real world is pink. Personall I think that trivia section is pointless and should be removed, as are most trivia sections on this wiki, but someone would just put it back if removed. Amatulic (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)