Merge with Ore[]
These pages have lots of overlapping content. Thomanski (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - just because a large portion of mineral vein types consist of ores doesn't mean that all mineral veins are ores. This page is to document the terrain structure, which includes other non-ore blocks as well, and also serves as a way to compare their spawning habits, so having all this information merged into the Ore page when a large chunk of it is completely irrelevant to ores does not seem like a great idea. - User-12316399 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose along the same lines as User-12316399 above. EiimRun (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose move (which is what is proposed, not a merge), but I'm not keen on merging either due to the non-overlapping content that isn't relevant to ores. Amatulic (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on the basis that the two topics are distinct enough to justify their own articles in my opinion. Highlandhill (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree since it's the name in the code. Miraculer89 (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Emerald ore chances[]
It seems to me that the gist documenting ore generation doesn't provide information as to the number of attempts, unless "count" is it. If that's the case, then it attempts to generate 3 to 8 times per chunk, with the current y-values listed correctly, but I'm not confident enough to mark that as so. EiimRun (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Blobs[]
The Java Edition 21w08a ore distribution chart refers to mineral veins as "blobs", given that technical mineral veins were said to be planned additions, should this page be renamed to "mineral/ore blob" to help with the distinction? Too soon? Pescavelho (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say it'd be better to wait to see if they (mojang) make that official or if that was more of a throwaway name. Probably best to keep as is unless they mention that name again. Highlandhill (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's the term they have used in ore generation charts, don't know if that would qualify as "recuring usage". Pescavelho (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that veins made from non-ore materials (dirt, blackstone, etc.) are refered to as "blobs" internally. Pescavelho (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Highlandhill. The words vein, lode and seam all make me think of flat shapes, which most in the game are not. I'd give my support for changing the name from vein to whatever Mojang officially supports. ——JavaRogers (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
That we should remove the word "Mineral" from the title[]
I move that the next article title have the word "Mineral" removed from it, on the basis that a significant number of the replacement blocks listed are not minerals.
Though it'd be reasonable to keep the title "Mineral vein" while including a few non-minerals, non-minerals make up close to half (8–10 of 20) of all vein types at this point. These include andesite, coal, diorite, dirt, granite, gravel, infested stone, and magma. (Blackstone and soul sand are fictitious materials, so they could reasonably be understood as minerals or not.)
It's important we call things what they are, lest we strengthen incorrect public ideas about what minerals are.
——JavaRogers (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC) (Previously signed while not logged in)
- Support, especially if the game code doesn't refer to these veins that way. Just "vein" is sufficient. Amatulic (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support, but for a different reason. According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, a 'vein' in the context of geology is 'A mineral deposit in tabular or shell-like form filling a fracture in a host rock.' To put it simply: all veins are minerals, so using 'mineral' as an adjective is redundant. Also, you're half-right: soils, rocks and magmas mightn't be pure minerals, but they're nevertheless composed of minerals. If a mineral-like material must have a mineral content of at least 50%, the only exception (from what I've researched) would be coal. Pearlia (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I should add that Google's definition for 'seam' is 'an underground layer of a mineral such as coal or gold', so I acknowledge that coal may also be considered a mineral. Pearlia (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support the removal of the world "mineral" from the title, as stated above it's redundant in both a practical and geological sense. I also suggest seeing the above discussion on the proposed moving of "vein" into "blob" as that is the term being used by devs, and the fact that 'proper' ore veins are being added in 1.17. Pescavelho (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support, "mineral" implies "ore". Nixinova T C 05:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support as the title may be misleading. Moving Mineral vein into mineral blob is still misleading a it has the word mineral in it.Humiebeetalk contribs 12:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moved and now going to fix redirects --TreeIsLife (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to make room for 1.17 ore veins[]
A "vein" is now a specific feature in Caves & Cliffs [1]: a long, snaking collection of ore. This page should be moved to Mineral deposit and Ore vein created to describe this new feature. Nixinova T C 22:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment 'Blob' might be a more "official" title should we split the pages since that's the term that has been used throughout the development process to refer to ore and other mineral deposits. Pescavelho (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- I may Support the idea, but I Oppose using "Mineral", since it would imply "ore" (diamond, lapis lazuli, coal, ancient debris). I also Oppose to having two separate pages when they can be called Blob deposit (or something better) and have subsections called Blob deposit#Small vein and Blob deposit#Ore vein. The page itself needs updating. And it wouldn't be a long page after all. Supeika (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Blobs and veins are generated in completely different ways so I'm not sure if they should share a page. Pescavelho (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is blob an official title? Then that is what this move request should be. Nixinova T C 03:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- It was used on some tweets and on some official articles, and now the proposal makes sense. I Support this new proposal. Supeika (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I Strongly Support this idea. There is currently barely any information about the new Ore Veins in any of the pages related to ores or to the snapshots. It needs its own page, and the Wiki needs to provide more specific information about the ore veins (like the number of ores possible, frequency, etc...). I don't have access to Java Edition so I can't get this info myself (not like I'd know how to anyway).--Ziad El-Moursy (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I may Support the idea, but I Oppose using "Mineral", since it would imply "ore" (diamond, lapis lazuli, coal, ancient debris). I also Oppose to having two separate pages when they can be called Blob deposit (or something better) and have subsections called Blob deposit#Small vein and Blob deposit#Ore vein. The page itself needs updating. And it wouldn't be a long page after all. Supeika (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to blob; will create ore vein now. Nixinova T C 03:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to ore (feature). Official name as of Java Edition 1.19.3 and Bedrock Edition 1.19.51. Deshman-gpuser (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)