Talk: Canyon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result of the discussion was do not merge. BDJP ^(t|c) 14:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Canyons are another type of carver, and Cave already covers all types of carvers, and even noise caves which aren't carvers. Also, it includes "Crack Carvers", which are visually similar to canyons, and are a type of carver that generates using the "canyon" type.

So, canyons should be in the Carvers section from the Cave article, since not only they are carvers, but also because they are a type of cave internally. And there is underwater canyon generation (underwater caves), so it would be better to add them to that page. Supeika (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose Canyon is not a Cave --TreeIsLife (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They have the same generation system than caves. Also, if they are separated then "Crack Carvers" shouldn't be included on the Cave aticle as they don't look at all like caves. Supeika (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose, they're different features in-game. I'd rather move crack carvers here, or give them a unique page. The page is called "cave", not "carver". -PancakeIdentity (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Pro What about the terrain features page? --Minecrafter2344576 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Strong oppose - if anything, we should have a third page explaining carvers from a custom world gen perspective. - User-12316399 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose There is nothing in common, I see no reason to merge those 2 pages. --Goro488 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if that's true, canyons generate with a system really similar to the cave one, even if they look or not like caves. If we included Crack carvers somewhere else, that would be misinformation as they are a carver type. And if crack carvers are a type of carver that is included there, canyons should be part of the main Cave article too, even if they don't look related. Supeika (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Pro - They should be merged with Cave, since they are just another type of Cave (Carver). --Ritz1256 Backup (talk) 11:57, 04 May 2021 (UTC)

Ritz1256 Backup, the two pages shouldn't be merged until a consensus has been reached here, especially if more people currently oppose it than support it. You shouldn't merge pages regardless of what other people think about it just because you think they should be – JEC _talk @ 06:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 ProThey should be moved due the the cave-like features such as lava and glow lichen. --Minecrafter2344576 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Strong oppose. The argument "canyons are a type of carver" is analogous to saying "cobblestone is a type of stone" so we should merge all stone articles together. That is ridiculous. If any merging is to be done, then carver should have its own article and canyon be merged into it. But canyons and caves are two different things, as are carvers and caves, so it makes no sense to merge into cave. Amatulic (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that most people here are comparing Canyons with Caves because they look different. They may look different, but in the internal side they are just like another cave. Also, this is a different case than saying "cobblestone is a type of stone". Coblestone and stone are different on usage (where stone is mostly for creating other building blocks, while cobblestone is mainly for tools), aspect and generation. However that's not the case with Canyons. They generate like other caves, either underground or exposed to the surface. Also, if the problem is their shape, then we could compare them with many bricks articles, where all the brick variants are on the same page. Remember that Crack Carvers will be included as another cave variant, and they aren't like other caves but more like Canyons. Supeika (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to the caves article having a short summary about canyons with a link to the main article. That's standard practice for topics that have grown beyond the scope of a larger parent article, like this one has. That's another basis for my opposition to a merge. Amatulic (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't sound bad actually. A little description would work, though I still prefer to not separate them. Supeika (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Strong support Why are noise caves merged? Why are those circular holes merged? Why are deep pits merged? Why are aquifers merged? Why are crack carvers merged? This is some bias just because they are notable and common. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Using my basis for merging on Talk:Twisting Vines, here are 5 unique similarities.

1. They are both holes in the ground (kinda what caves in minecraft are)
2. They are made of ONLY ores, stone, andesite, diorite, granite, dirt, infested stone, and deepslate. Structures that seep into the cave / canyon are part of the structure, not the terrain feature.
3. They both produce ambience
4. They both have cave air
5. They both can spawn lava oceans (underground structures are not considered caves - no lava below y = 11)

Humiebee^{talk contribs} 00:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet I can't help but feel we're all missing something. Canyons are apparently an identifiable feature, possibly with some internal designation, sufficient for them to appear as features on the chunkbase maps. Caves don't cut through other features the same way as a canyon, although that may be due to a priority order in generation. Amatulic (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think caves "cut" through structures because they are too small. If you look at the noise caves, they cut through mineshafts. Dungeons don't float anymore (bug was fixed), nor do they float in ravines. Strongholds are fully encased. The small caves are just too small to cut through other features like fossils, dungeons, or mineshafts. Humiebee^{talk contribs} 01:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, what are the chunkbase maps? Humiebee^{talk contribs} 01:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per PancakeIdentity. BDJP ^(t|c) 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Strong Oppose 193.188.114.194 07:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)