Talk: Wet Sponge

Merge with Sponge[]

The result of the discussion was merge with Sponge.

I think this should be merged with Sponge. Yetanotherguy 16:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. They are two different blocks, with different properties. The wet sponge cannot be used for sucking up water, and the dry sponge cannot be smelted. —F‌enhl 16:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. If all these Dirt variations and Stone Brick variations and such are grouped in the same Dirt and Stone Brick article, this should definitely be with its dry sponge counterpart. It doesn't seem like a separate material, so much as a separate state of the same material with a different block name. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging these related articles into one creates a lot of problems, for example with the readability of the obtaining and usage sections. If you lump the two together, you have a block that can be smelted into itself. This is already a problem on pages like Stone Brick, please don't introduce more of the same. —F‌enhl 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware it caused a lot of problems. I see that in the case of Cracked Stone Brick, it just links to a redirect. Is that the problem you mean? – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 16:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is one problem, yes. It also makes these sections either less readable, because things are listed twice, or less usable from a template perspective (for example the {{crafting usage}} template that automatically generates an article's as a crafting ingredient section from other articles' crafting sections). —F‌enhl 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

{{crafting usage}} can be set to ignore the current page or include the current page, that is not really a problem. All that would need to be stated is that you can dry a sponge using a furnace, and later that wet sponges will not soak water. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's not a template problem, it's a content problem. If you have sponge and wet sponge on the same page, then the obtaining and usage sections are confusing. Sponge can be obtained by smelting wet sponge, and wet sponge can be used to make a sponge. You either have duplicate information, or one section has to miss out. I would be all for not only leaving this page separate, but splitting up pages where things can be used to craft themselves or obtain themselves (stone brick, diorite, granite, andesite, and block of quartz come to mind).

I think people are getting too caught up in orangising pages based on data values (which most people are not going to even know exist), rather than what is actually useful for a reader. Cobblestone Wall and Mossy Cobblestone Wall for instance are the same page, but Cobblestone and Moss Stone are separate pages. Why? Data values. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 03:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree a few pages not data value based should be merged, but mainly based on usage. For example, fences all act mostly identical, except for blast resistance, while blocks like the sponge types do have different behavior. We may need a actual system for this, rather than taking it on a case to case basis.

--KnightMiner ^(t|c) 04:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

What about cobblestone and moss stone then? They both "act" the same. I don't see how they are any less the same as a mossy cobblestone fence is to a cobblestone fence and a wet sponge is to a sponge. Moss stone is just cobblestone with moss on it. Wet sponge is just a sponge that is wet. Should we merge cobblestone and moss stone, just because they're similar? I don't think so. –Majr ᐸ Talk
Contribs ⎜ 04:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think those two should be merged, primarily because of the difference in usage. Moss stone can really only be used as a building block, while cobblestone has many recipes other than the wall. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We should move discussion on a general policy to the community portal, since other than as a single case, it has nothing to do with wet sponge. —KnightMiner ^(t|c) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

~~Disagree because~~ I think Fenhl makes a good point (above) about templates. Though I'm not familiar with the templates he references, I defer to his experience with them. I'm also generally sympathetic to architecting things that support good template use. And I actually have been historically skeptical of they way Dirts and Stone Bricks etc are grouped onto the same page. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) (talk) – 17:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree I'm not sure I understand at which point you would have us stop splitting pages then, does white wool deserve a page separate from other kinds of wool because otherwise wool can be crafted into itself? What about the many kinds of sign? Flower and Door types seem much more distinct from each-other than the two kinds of sponges. In the case of sponges I see it much more like On-State redstone lamps, except that both states are obtainable. Cultist O (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The different types of wool can be crafted into each other, but all in the same manner. As with other items that can be dyed, they follow a clear pattern. This is simply not the case for sponge and wet sponge. I agree that the doors and flowers should be split into separate pages, since they are obtained differently and behave differently, but things like signs don't need separate articles because the block isn't obtainable anyway, and there's only one kind of sign item. —F‌enhl 05:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's clear that this is a broader discussion than just these few pages, I think we need to tackle it from a wiki-wide perspective, we need to decide where we draw the line, and stick to it, splitting or merging pages which fall on the wrong side of said line. Where would we take such a discussion? Cultist O (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Has the 'wider discussion' been taken somewhere else, or are we still having it here? If this is a thing that ever gets decided upon, it should be in the style guide.. (who does that?) – Sealbudsman (Aaron)

T, C, b 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fenhl:, it seems like a lot of what you are arguing for is related to easy template use (is that right?); can you provide us with a list of those template-related issues, with some description of what would difficulties would arise if we were to merge Sponge and Wet Sponge – as comprehensive as you can? I wonder if we could tackle specific issues with the templates, so that at the end of all this, the templates would be more accommodating and wouldn't present an issue with this merge.

I think, with that out of the way, there would still be a legitimate discussion about flowers and sponges, but it wouldn't be limited by technicalities. My opinion is, without considering templates, it would read more easily if it were on one page (I think you and I differ on that, as I see you would be in favor of such things as splitting apart the flower pages), but I would rather be able to discuss other merits than technical difficulties. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)

T, C, b 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

~~Agree~~ The only use of wet sponge is to be smelted into sponge, and the current only way to obtain sponge is to smelt wet sponge. Also, they share the same data value/name ID. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 21:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I am undecided. Blocks may be better merged by usage. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 04:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And ~~disagree~~. It would definitively be better to sort by usage. --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 04:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I keep thinking that in actual gameplay, I don't really think of the usage of one versus the usage of the other. The total usage it has to me is, more broadly, as a reusable water-soaking tool. I don't care to dry sponges or to soak sponges except as part of that total usage. Anybody who visits one page is going to visit the other, to get the rest of the info.

I Agree with a merger based on its usage in this sense. – Sealbudsman (Aaron)

T, C, b 17:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a good point about the usage. I would agree to doing that. If done that way, the basic article structure would start with mentioning ways to obtain wet sponge, then how to dry it, then how dry sponge soaks up water. In this case, wet sponge is a required part of sponges usage, so they would merge well, saving the user an additional page trip. —KnightMiner ^(t|c) 17:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree For the reasons that KnightMiner stated above. 190.190.220.139 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree It's the same block. Both are short articles. If there's a problem with the crafting recipe generation, then it would be trivial to do it by hand. —munin ·

· 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree I don't see the problem of having them merged, dirt & coarse dirt are combined and it is not too difficult to read. ♥ LauraFi ♥ (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree Knightminer's sandbox page shows how merging the pages allows for a lot more cohesion. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
Contribs
Edits 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the Sponge article and the Wet Sponge article should be merged because they are as much the same block as dirt and coarse dirt which are 2 merged articles. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.194.15.212 (talk) at 13:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Agree - They're very similar, and the water soaking ability and particles can be written in a couple of sentences. --Naista2002 ♦ 14:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) now known as NickTheRed37 (crossed out by author on 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC))

Agree Both of the blocks share the same data value, and basically agreeing with KnightMiner here. In fact, if anyone wants to merge this now, how about we go ahead? BDJP007301 19:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't quite have an consensus, as Fenhl was still opposed. Although, I'm not exactly sure what is required before such a decision. I did make an example version of the merged page as shown here. That would at least be a start for the merge. –KnightMiner ^(t·c) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree Wet Sponge and normal Sponge are 96% the same. The other 4% differency is because of the texture, their properties, their damage values and the version they were implemented. Also agree with LauraFi and KnightMiner. Maybe the Wet Sponge can be a sub-section of Sponge. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree Wet Sponge's only use is for asthetics, or to smelt into a normal sponge. It makes sense to merge two things that are 99.9% the same.Crsc3110 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree They are the same block, it makes much more sense to just have one page about it. -Sonicwave ^talk 04:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else who agrees. –JEC⁶⁷⁸⁹ [

|

] 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree It doesn't make sense, it's a normal sponge after it sucked some water. Give wet sponge a section in the normal sponge page and everybody would be happy. BTW I'd also merge prismarine, prismarine bricks and dark prismarine. --Mainardicraft (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So, can we now merge? — NickTheRed37 ^t/_c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 08:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. As KnightMiner said about 3 months ago, there is no clear consensus as Fenhl is still in disagreement. BDJP ^(t|c) 12:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

He is inactive, and most people support the merger. LauraFi, KnightMiner? — NickTheRed37 ^t/_c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 19:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree Come on guys, let's merge this already, we don't need another discussion anymore Afif Brika1 (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree – Wet sponge is not as much as a variant of a sponge, as one of its states, giving a better reason to merge articles. — NickTheRed37 ^t/_c (f.k.a. Naista2002) 12:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Other uses[]

This block can be used to make a shower, because it *drips* AND if you smelt it and put an empty bucket in the fuel slot before its done smelting it will give you a water bucket. 173.135.183.203 05:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC) dpetta10