Forum:"Data history" sub-sections

There are lots of pages on the wiki that have a separate "Data history" subsection of history. Example (search query). I do not think it is a good idea to have the history split, especially for something as ill defined and interrelated to everything else related to the subject as just "data". It makes this information more difficult to find, since people who have been using the wiki for over a decade expect the history table to be complete and not broken into subsections.
I propose these sections all be remerged back into the main table.  Nixinova   T   C   03:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the history line "1.13 | Prior to The Flattening, this block's numeral ID was 54." (which could be the main reason for this section?) should instead be referenced when the subject is first added - "0.31 | Added the chest. | Its numeric ID is 54."  Nixinova   T   C   03:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

This is something I eventually plan on doing. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

i can help you with it 👁 Image
DeepfriedDokra (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That's true. The flattening change should also list the new ID. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Weren't most alphanumeric IDs added in 13w37a? 17w47a did change a lot of these, but they came into existence considerably beforehand. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to object to one of your points. People using the Wiki for over a decade also don't expect new namespaces or updated templates etc. A wiki is subject to change, that's one of the defining qualities of wikis. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

My point is that people coming to the history section will have no idea that there is history information elsewhere. I can say personally it is so easy to miss that sub section as when I am looking for a change in Java 1.13, I will scroll down to Java, look at the 1.1x area, not see 1.13, and assume theres nothing.
This history split forces readers to change their existing mental model of how the page is laid out. When there's no compelling benefit for doing so, that's a big no no.  Nixinova   T   C   03:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

What about having {{for}} in start of history sections so people would know that there's another section. Also I think that Data histories are stub and could be extended. For example enchanted book#Data History tells only about flattening with missing information about 1.20.5's new data component format or 1.21.5' removal of levels 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 08:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Precisely; this is another thing that should eventually be included. See also: Wooden Fence#History, Hopper#History, Compass#History - User-12316399 (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I can see a sub section being used for the extreme metadata variants. But ID renaming is important enough to go in the main table.  Nixinova   T   C   03:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's so important. Normal player (that doesn't use commands or make datapacks) doesn't need to know about ID changes. 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 13:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

"Normal players" absolutely use commands. ID changes are very important and relate to the core of the history of that feature. What "normal players" dont use is stuff like extreme metadata variants. That can be shunted to a subsection.  Nixinova   T   C   19:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Extreme metadata stuff exists as a part of the old metadata system, and it'll be documented in full for every pre-1.13 block since how block variants and stuff were defined in previous versions will be tracked in this section anyway. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support merging the tables. It's quite unfortunate to see that User-manynumbers didn't address any of the points here and kept adding data history tables. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — I cannot think of any reason why the history of technical identifiers must be accessible separately from the rest of a game feature’s history. I merge the tables when translating them to RuMCW articles. — BabylonAS 20:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This hasn't had any comments for a couple months. I propose this be resolved with the following:

• All normal changes, including to IDs or data values, go in the main table alongside the regular history.
• Separate subsection(s) may be created for abnormal changes (for lack of a better word), such as extreme data value variants and terrain.png texture edits, things of that nature that do not relate directly to the feature in question but rather are just side effects of data changes.

 Nixinova  T ⁄ C  09:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree 👁 Image
Ja17 10:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — Perhaps this is just a WP:COMMONSENSE, but I don't think one to three lines of history should be its own subsection. Outrowed (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose - given recent proposals regarding reworking sound sections for BE and hiding technical info, is there not a precedent there for having extra technical info kept separate? In addition, documenting tag and item component changes would overcrowd the main history section by a lot, hence neccesitating a separate section for this. - User-12316399 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)