Forum:Biome page split discussions

Hello there! Given the previous discussion to split mangrove swamps, it was raised that there may be some other biome pages that also have justifications for splitting into individual pages.

There have been several earlier discussions to split block and item articles here and here. Given the earlier discussions, I am opening this forum discussion to allow the cases for splitting various biome articles be discussed, and have a proper course of action that can be taken.

The reasons to support such splitting have been iterated in previous forum discussions, so here it’ll just be a quick summary, but if you need details on why some biome pages may warrant a split, see the previous discussions regarding splitting mangrove swamps, block articles, and item articles.

Reasons to split biome variants include:

• Better SEO: This allows readers to easily find articles on various biomes on the new wiki, due to the semi-recent fork from the Fandom wiki. Article titles would match search queries exactly.
• Relevance of content for readers. Readers may only be looking for a specific biome, as such, pages can be more straightforward to the point. Some of our existing biome pages are a sea of infoboxes and tables, making them currently hard to parse for readers. Split pages alleviate this issue.
• Easier pages for editors to understand. Biome articles cover only a specific biome and as such, removes issues and disorganization when multiple biomes are jumbled into a single article (such as with mangrove swamp). Plus, the history tables are currently a mess since they cover the history of multiple biomes in a single table.

This discussion will be similar as with previous discussions. Use 👁 Image
 Support to indicate preferences for split individual pages, and 👁 Image
 Oppose for preference of merged pages. In most cases, the current Biome page serves as the overview page, as most current biomes would have one page for one particular biome, although it can be discussed here on whether the overview Biome page should be reorganized or rewritten (or other related discussions). Each current biome page has an individual sub-section for individual discussions.

This discussion will be open for at least 168 hours (1 week) from when this forum discussion is posted, although depending on the course of the discussion, individual sub-sections can be closed sooner if there’s overwhelming support from lots of editors. This forum discussion should not affect the mangrove swamp page split discussion/action, which can be found in Talk:Swamp#Split proposal.

Frozen river should be split from River.

👁 Image
 Support Universally, I'd like to split all biome pages, and I'll provide some additional reasons. Splitting rivers seems as logical as splitting snowy plains from regular plains, which was already done. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Melwin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - as with Melwin, snowy plains are separated from plains in a different article, plus I support splitting frozen ocean from ocean. So this is for consistency, although the page would not have that much content as it's a biome intended for a terrain feature. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Frozen Rivers are a lot more different than regular rivers - regular rivers only spawn peaceful aquatic mobs and pufferfish, but frozen rivers spawn land hostiles like creepers and zombies.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Stony shore and snowy beach should each be split from Beach.

👁 Image
 Support Stony shore is only tangentially related to beaches, terrain generation is completely different. Snowy beach might be more similar, but it is a case like with plains and snowy plains, again. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Melwin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - per snowy plains from plains, and my support for frozen ocean from ocean. Soft support since this is a biome mostly intended for a terrain feature, so not much content individually per page. Stony shores are quite different from beaches, and also may be more related to extreme hills/mountains vs. beaches, due to the large differences, so a separate page may be useful in that regard. Plus the lack of name overlap since 1.13 for stone shore vs. beaches, meaning the pagename had no relation when trying to search for stony shores. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - per Melwin and Delvin.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Grove, snowy slopes, jagged peaks, stony peaks, and frozen peaks should all have individual pages. The current mountains page should be turned into a disambiguation page or have a different scope of content.

👁 Image
 Strong support. Mountains isn't the name of any of the biomes within this grouping of biomes. This should be split. Also meadows and cherry grove already have individual pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Meadows ans cherry grove being already split make this even messier than with other pages. Honestly I'm not even sure than such an overview article is needed. Is a "mountain" something we can precisely define? --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Extremely strong support per Delvin. Unsure about the overview page. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Lots of editors have simply gone with a "support everything" comment in general discussions. A solution for the overview page for mountains still needs to be identified, so that is something unresolved when editors just say they "support everything" in general discussion. I don't feel either way with the disambiguation page route or the different scope of content route. "Mountains" is the pre 1.18 name of windswept hills so we could potentially redirect this to windswept hills as well. This sub-section warrents individual attention and discussion for this issue alone. Delvin4519 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say turn "Mountains" into a disambiguation page. Reasoning: It should not be a redirect to windswept hills. For one, that is most likely not what people would be looking for when searching mountin. Second, there should still be a page for people to land on from searching "mountains" which lists all of the mountain variants. However, I do not think this should be an overview page, as it is difficult to define what a mountain is, as Melwin mentioned. Instead, we could just have the disambig page saying, "Mountain might refer to <list of mountain biomes>". Then this could include the windswept hills as well. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk)

👁 Image
 Strong support - And I think that the mountains page would fit much better as a disambig than an overview page, we could be more lenient as to what we list on the page if it is a simple disambig. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - "Mountains" isn't really a biome and there are a lot of variants. However, I think we should turn it into a disambiguation page and list all the biomes that could be classified as mountains, becuase no one is going to serch up "jagged peaks" - the name of the biome is hardly known.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ice spikes should be split from snowy plains.

👁 Image
 Support, rare biome, and it is quite different compared to the base variant. Plus no overlap in current names. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Again, only tangentially related biomes. Ice spikes doesn't even generate any surface structures like regular snowy plains does. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Delvin and Melwin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Ice spikes are incredibly distinct from basic snowy plains. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support as per all reasons above. Ice spikes generate as their own biome, as seen in F3, and they don't really have many similarities to snowy plains.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Old growth spruce taiga should be split from old growth taiga, and old growth taiga should be moved and renamed/relocated to a new article name at Old Growth Pine Taiga, due to the page split. The Old Growth Taiga pagename can either have a new disambiguation page created in its place, or be recreated as a new redirect to biome.

👁 Image
 Support, although I can see that this might be one of the least needed ones. These two biomes are so similar that I didn't know for a long time what is the difference between them. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, but low priority. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral, both biomes seem to generate standalone since 1.18, so it's hard to identify which one is the "base" variant in current versions of the game, as ideally in most cases one biome is a "subclass" of another as with most other biomes. While old growth pine taigas used to be the base variant prior to 1.18, that is a historical case and no longer the case. The primary difference between the two biomes seems to only be one has thicker canopies of trees and it snows a little lower than usual. Otherwise, the generation is all identical and I wouldn't want two pages describing how old growth taigas generate, if the game since 1.18 gives no clear clue as to what the "base" variant is, and what the "subclass" variant is; for old growth taigas. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - Soft due to Delvin's response. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft Oppose - There isn't much difference between the biomes except the tree types. Also, poeple are more likely to only search "old growth taig" rather than specifying the variants.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Windswept forest and windswept gravelly hills should each be split from Windswept hills.

👁 Image
 Support All are distinct but very rare biomes. Having more information on where they generate would benefit players looking for those. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Melwin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - Since 1.18, there are some cases where these three biome variants generate standalone, although sometimes 2 or all 3 variants can still generate together. Landscape is somewhat different but there are some similarities. I suppose it doesn't hurt to describe each biome individually per page. Each of the 3 biome variants don't generate that common anymore so individual pages may be useful for players looking to find out where to search for each individual variant, given there are times only 1 of the 3 variants generate. Sometimes a windswept forest generates standalone, and sometimes a windswept gravelly hills generates standalone. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Distinct features seperating them from one another. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support as per reasons above.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Old growth birch forest should be split from birch forest.

👁 Image
 Support, similar to ice spikes and snowy plains, these have different structure groups (old growth can generate trail ruins, while normal birch forest can't) --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Melwin, though one of the lower priority ones imo. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - seems like old growth birch forests is treated identically with jungle variants since 1.18, as it can generate standalone and not as a biome variant as it did pre-1.18. Plus the two have diverged since 1.20 with trail ruins in the old growth variant. Hence a soft/weak support. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Per above. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - Sort of low priority, because the only difference is trail ruins. It's not much of a problem in searching either - old growth birch forest comes up with birch forest as well.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Flower forest should be split from forest.

👁 Image
 Support Very clearly different biomes. Flower forest is one of the more useful ones for farming-oriented players, as it allows farming most dyes. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, not as stark as a difference as with ice spikes, but still quite an important biome given its resources, and so it is desirable for players who want to find info about flower forests and where to find it. An individual page can prove to be useful in this case. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support– ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 22:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Melwin and Delvin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Flower forests have a clear trait that sets them apart from forests. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sparse jungle and bamboo jungle should each be split from jungle.

👁 Image
 Support, as of 1.18 these three biomes generate independently, so they could be considered their own biomes. They are several difference between these biomes aside from having "jungle" in the name with very green grass and jungle trees. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Also, very clearly different biomes, with different plant patterns, mob spawning percentages etc. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support – ThisNewWikiIsSoMuchBettertalk | contribs 22:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Delvin and Melwin... just like basically every other one lol 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
22:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - The bamboo jungle is definately different from the jungle, but sparse jungle can stay merged because it's a variant of the regular jungle.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sunflower plains should be split from plains.

👁 Image
 Support Similar to flower forest from normal forest. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support per Melwin (idk Melwin you beat me to replying to these and now there isn't much left to say, so I second all your replies). 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support (conditional support). This is similar to an item frame vs. glow item frame split, or a piston vs. sticky piston split. Ideally, the split page should be to describe it's unique characteristics and its differences from regular plains. Sunflower plains seem to tend to generate as a variant of plains, and typically not standalone, since 1.18. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Unique characteristic not present in regular plains. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Eroded badlands and wooded badlands should be split from badlands.

👁 Image
 Support definitely for wooded badlands, clearly a separate biome, maybe not as obvious with eroded badlands, which is very rare. Probably one of the less important ones. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support (conditional support), similar with plains/sunflower plains. The regular badlands seems to be the "main/base" biome, and wooded badlands slightly less common and eroded badlands more rare. The regular badlands should be the primary page, and wooded and eroded badlands should focus on unique characteristics and differences from the base variant. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Wooded badlands are distinct from regular ones due to the trees and grass, to be honest I forgot eroded badlands even existed (or didn't know in the first place perhaps) but the same applies. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Savanna plateau should be split from savanna.

👁 Image
 Neutral. Savanna Plateau is the only BiomeHills biome remaining left from pre 1.18 after all the other BiomeHills biomes got removed in the 1.18 update. Primary differences from regular Savanna is the altitude differences, affecting things like villages/outposts and Java Edition llama spawns. I'm not convinced of a split aside from applying the "one biome = one article" rule for all biomes. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Still supporting the above mentioned rule, although this is one of the less important splits. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support exactly per Delvin and Melwin. Less important, but let's stay consistent. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - It is a landscape variant biome but it has different structure generation (AKA it has none) and different mob spawning, so I think it's fine to split this one. Only soft support though because yeah this is a landscape variant that Mojang seemingly forgot to remove. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 No support - Not much differnt from the regular savanna - the only main difference is altitude.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Windswept savanna should be split from savanna.

👁 Image
 Support Very different from normal savanna, one of the craziest (if not the craziest) terrain generations. Players would definitely want an article on this insanity of a biome. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support precisely per Melwin. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, generation is very different compared to regular savannas. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Drastically different terrain. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Terrain generation is much more different.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If supporting individual pages for each ocean temperature variant and each deep variant (i.e. every single individual ocean variant has an individual page), comment “support” in both subsections below.

Deep ocean variants should have separate pages from non-deep ocean variants.

👁 Image
 Weak support Not very urgent, deep oceans differ from regular ocean basically only in the depth (duh) and ability to generate ocean monuments. Although one biome = one article still stands. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support... guess what... I agree with Melwin again... 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral - same issue with savanna plateaus. Primary purpose of the biome variant is to dictate ocean monument generation. Mojang did remove deep warm oceans during 1.18's development, but not the rest of the deep ocean variants. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak support - Deep ocean varients are not that notable, but Deep ocean should be seperated from ocean.

Each ocean temperature variant should have individual pages (Frozen Ocean, Cold Ocean, Ocean, Lukewarm Ocean, Warm Ocean).

👁 Image
 Support. In most cases each ocean temperature variant has unique characteristics. Ocean ruins vary depending between cooler oceans and warmer oceans. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Definitely more needed than deep/non-deep. Temperature variations of ocean absolutely need their own articles, having different mobs, plants, blocks (coral reef) and ocean ruins variants. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Melwin and Delvin. For about the 100th time. I'm sorry, but I have to keep my responses interesting otherwise they would just be "support per Melwin and/or Delvin" a million times, so... yeah. I support all of these splits and want to stay consistent. Melwin and Delvin make good points on all of the cases. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - All distinct from one another, their names just make them seem like they're simple variants. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Pretty different, I assumed they already had separate pages.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support - The ocean tempreature variants should be seperated - especially the warm ocean, because people will see that when they check for coral fans (tnt dupers) or coral blocks [I don't think anyone would appreciate going to a page with all ocean variants instead of the one they need.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Each end biome should have individual pages (The End, Small end islands, End barrens, End midlands, End highlands).

👁 Image
 Neutral If split happens, this is the least needed one. Until any potential end updates, end biomes really differ only in end stone generations, which is not super useful for anything. Honestly I can't imagine a reason to check in which biome I'm in while being in the End. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral - AFAIK, Bedrock Edition still only has a single end biome for the entire dimension. This split would likely need to wait until BE introduces multiple End biomes. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Because we already split things like the heads even with Bedrock IDs still merged, and all the stone related things even not having much difference, we also should split the end biomes. - UnExpectedDino 👁 Image
ᐸ talk | contribs 21:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support to stay consistent, but definetly lowest priority. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 No support as per Melvin and end biomes aren't really relevant in much. The only two biomes that are actually notable are the end islands and the main end island.--
.👁 Image
.Vdiu | Talk | Contributions . 11:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This page has a split notice on the page itself, the reason stated “check talk page; having this many different biomes crammed into one page impacts readability and is exactly what we tried to avoid via the original biome page split”.
(Note: There are a variety of ways to conduct this split (subpages of Biome/Before 1.18, individual pages using the old biome names, add subsections to the history sections of current biome pages, etc., etc.,), discuss below how the split should be done)

👁 Image
 Comment, if every single current post 1.18 biome gets individual pages down to the savanna plateau and small end islands biomes, then the best solution, in the first case, would be for each biome in the Biome/Before 1.18 page to be located at their most recent names before their removal. However, if each biome in the Biome/Before 1.18 page gets their own pages, then we'd also have to give biomes in the Biome/Before Beta 1.8/TU5 their own articles as well, plus, there's also the Legacy Frozen Ocean on Bedrock Edition since BE has 2 non-deep frozen ocean biomes. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Each biome prior to Beta 1.8 should have individual pages.

👁 Image
 Comment, some of the biomes on this page have the same names as current day biomes. So for this, the split only affects removed biomes? Delvin4519 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose sky, tundra, and swampland splits. Swampland should be merged with swamp, tundra should be merged with snowy tundra, and sky should be merged with sky dimension. For the sky biome it is a removed/mention feature as with sky dimension. The rest of these are all revamped biomes of current day ones, so the value of a individual page is not great. They are similar enough and could be considered precursors/evolved versions of the current biomes so it makes sense to merge. I think it is fine to merge these as such. The same goes for merging forest, plains, desert, savanna, and taiga with their current articles. In all these cases, the features are identical or evolved into their current day counterparts, even if tempoarily removed for an update or so. Plus the name is exactly the same as the current day name of the biome, so avoiding disambiguation would be helpful with a merge

👁 Image
 Weak oppose or 👁 Image
 Neutral for ice desert. I suppose ice desert could be merged with snowy beach. If a snowy beach biome is generated as a single biome world it would be similar to ice deserts, but may have more underwater areas. The generation of ice desert and snowy beaches would be quite identical if they occupied the same large area in their respective versions.

👁 Image
 Neutral about rainforest, seasonal forest, and shrubland.These don't seem to have clear modern day equivalents. Maybe these 3 may have individual pages.

Delvin4519 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the rainforest, seasonal forest, shrubland, ice desert, and tundra all have individual pages. I would rather 👁 Image
 merge tundra into Snowy Tundra. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Unsure, but as for Delvin's original point, I was assuming that these biomes would be something like Forest/Before Beta 1.8, and Taiga/Before Beta 1.8. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Legacy Frozen Ocean biome should have an individual page.

👁 Image
 Oppose per Capopanzo - 👁 Image
 Neutral, not sure about this one. This biome is exclusive to Bedrock Edition only and is not on Java Edition at all. I'm not sure how many players are looking for info on this biome that would warrent this page needing an individual page, since this is a unused feature. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Given Capopanzo's arguments below, I oppose individual page for Legacy Frozen Oceans, as it can just be described in Frozen Ocean's history section that there is also a duplicate unused variant as well. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - if we're splitting the other ocean pages, may as well do this one too.👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Changed to 👁 Image
 Oppose. I agree with Delvin and Capopanzo - I think it should just be on the frozen ocean page. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose own page, 👁 Image
 Support merging with Frozen Ocean or Biomes before 1.18. It's the Java 1.0.0 frozen ocean biome, which became unused in Java 1.7 and was later revamped in Java 1.13. It was ported to Bedrock along with all the other Java 1.7 biomes (including unused ones like this and extreme hills edge), way back in Pocket Edition 0.9; unlike Java though, the Update Aquatic version of the frozen ocean in Bedrock got a separate biome ID instead of recycling the old unused biome. Still, it's just an unused/removed version of an existing biome and doesn't need a separate page imo.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 13:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Biome/Before TU5 should be merged into Biome/Before Beta 1.8, currently having a merge notice requesting the merge on the page itself.
(Indicate a preference for the merge to go ahead with 👁 Image
 Support, and if opposing this merge, use 👁 Image
 Oppose.)

👁 Image
 support merging into Before Beta 1.8. Duplicated page with slightly different prose, meaning this is duplicated content and double the load for the wiki. Xbox 360 in its early days tended to mirror Java Edition updates mostly at the time. I think it is best to also note that before Beta 1.8 also refers to before TU5 and note the differences there. TU1 was mostly equivalent to Beta 1.6, TU3 with Beta 1.7, and TU5 with Beta 1.8. We don't have a "Biome/Before Pocket Edition Alpha 0.9.0" page to describe biomes on Pocket Edition prior to infinite worlds in the PE Alpha 0.9.0 update. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 support merging into Before Beta 1.8, biomes were identical, the pre-TU5 page is just an unnecessary duplicate.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 22:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed the Java page has ice deserts and sky biomes as unused biomes. I think a sentence stating that ice deserts and sky biomes were unused on Java and (probably) were not on Legacy Console before TU5 should be fine. Delvin4519 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Support. same as Capopanzo. - UnExpectedDino 👁 Image
ᐸ talk | contribs 22:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
22:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 13:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have opened this forum discussion to allow the wiki to discuss the issue of splitting biome pages and other related issues with biome pages across the wiki. Feel free to make minor corrections to any text that exists in the initial revision of the page. I have previously opened a similar forum discussion about page splits, so I think this should be good enough. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I imagine you opened this after you saw my comment, thank you! Biome overview page is good, style obviously can be improved (doing that rn) but the overall structure is alright. --Melwin22 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I still think it might be possible to condense some of the text in the really long tables to scroll through in the Biome page. In some cases, especially on mobile, the text is still longer then the image, so the page is still cumbersome to read through with the very long tables to list all the biomes. IMO, the text in the tables shouldn't be longer than the intro in the individual biome pages. Plus, the images inside the table limit it's utility, since it means each row in the table takes up so much space, meaning the screen can only show one or two biomes at once. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support for all, I don't see why we should make any exceptions. — Misode (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Take this as me putting a support in every individual proposal. Biomes are one thing where one article per thing would work well, since 1.18 removed basically every landscape-variant biome (biomes where they differ only in the type of landscape, but are otherwise identical), meaning all biomes have at least something making them standout. However, the end biomes did not get this treatment in 1.18 (I'm pretty sure at least), so it makes sense that those biomes are the ones where people might support a merge. I have no strong opinion on the end biomes splitting, but if literally every other biome were individual pages and those weren't, it would be quite strange. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Extremely strong support - Thanks for making this forum post! I'm glad my reopening of the mangrove page split could lead to something like this! I support all of these and, like Misode, I don't see why we should make exceptions. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support for all splits - 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 13:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - All splits, most have already been split and I see no reason why the others shouldn't. -- ThatOneWolf ^{Time for a chat?_{See my edits?}} 14:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

While some editors understandably may just want to make a single post stating "support everything" instead of commenting "support" one by one for 20 subsections, there are some more nuanced issues when dealing with the historical biome pages. There are cases like Legacy Frozen Ocean BE or some of the pre-Beta 1.8 biomes that are identical to current day biomes, and some biomes in the pre-Beta 1.8 versions are just renamed versions of current day biomes. For any editor that wishes to just note "support all" in one comment, I'd recommend editors still manually enter individual comments for each individual sub section that concerns version exclusive, historical, or unused biomes, which are the last 5 subsections before the "overall discussion" section of the forum. This would make the discussion more clear. Delvin4519 (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I recommend putting the historical/unused etc splits in their own section called "unique cases" or something along those lines to distinguish between them and the regular biome splits, then people can say they support all of the regular splits and then replying individually to unique cases. Though either way I'm going to add supports/opposes to each section individually later. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
17:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I have addressed this and rearranged the sub-sections as such. I also forgot to mention that in the case of the Mountain article, a special case is needed for what to do with the current page after the split. The same goes for the "Old Growth Taiga" pagename. Even with the current day present biomes, 2 of them need to be dealt with specially. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Nuetral - We are going to have to redo some links on the website for some biome splits. This just means we should make sure all of the links (using "what links here") are correct / ready ahead of time. We can also just set up redirects correctly. Either solution works. --Simanelix (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)