Forum:Rewrite enchanting

I'm sorry you guys, but I just can't handle the chaos of the wiki's enchanting / enchantment pages anymore. I demand a rewrite of Enchanting. I would also like to see Enchantment be created as its own page. The section it has on Enchanting is quite long.

Here is an overview of all of the current enchanting / enchantment pages:

• Enchanting, a large topic with many subtopics. None of these subtopics are described as strict subtopics of it.
• Enchantment -> Enchanting § Summary of enchantments, which treats enchantment as a subtopic of enchanting
  • See the navbox below
• Enchant -> Enchanting (not a section)
• Enchanted book, effectively the item form of an enchantment
  • Trading is a common way to obtain enchanted books with most enchantments
  • The rest of the enchantments come from generated loot, or the enchanting table
• Enchanting mechanics, which describes the usage of the enchanting table
• Disenchant -> Grindstone
• Anvil mechanics, which describes the usage of the anvil
• Item Repair, a feature of anvils that can also be used:
  • In the crafting grid to combine unenchanted items
  • In the grindstone to disenchant items and then combine them in one step
• Enchanting/Levels, which states how many levels each enchantment costs. This is used in various places in the game, such as:
  • Calculating anvil costs
  • Calculating enchanting table costs
  • Distributing random enchantments to enchanted books, armor, and tools
• Enchantment glint, a visual feature where enchanted items have a shine to them

Now, what exactly would I like to propose? Well, first, we need some kind of page to disambiguate all of these topics. It should look like the overview above. This could just mean rewriting Enchanting, or adding an § Overview section to it. A normal dismbig would be bad because the reader would have to visit each page and read them. A wall of text in the overview is also somewhat uninviting, but I am hopeful that a confused reader will decide to read the descriptions that they think are the most likely to be what they are looking for.

Enchanting also covers enchantments as a subtopic. But we do not have a list of all feature pages, like we do on Potion, Dyes, and Armor (notice that even though it's not a consistent name, each of these pages lists the variants in the first section). A simple list of enchantments might be nice. Maybe something like the enchantments navbox.

Other issues:

• Enchanting mechanics could potentially be named Enchanting Table mechanics, to match Anvil mechanics.
  • Some kind of disambiguation page with Smithing might also be useful, since Smithing is the same as Smithing Table Mechanics.
  • The current names might also be fine, but a disambiguation of some kind for all of this might be useful.
• There are multiple different ways to obtain enchantments. Making a separate Enchantment page would allow for these to be covered in some detail. This might be a bit niche though. Things we could include are:
  • Getting generated loot with enchantments (not just enchanted books)
  • Getting mob drops with enchantments (this might be too generic)
  • Trading and enchanting (this could be done with one or two short sentences in prose)
  • Now Enchanting § Summary of enchantments already covers treasure and trading (so maybe we don't need to expand on this topic that much)
• Enchanting § Summary of enchantments and Enchanting § Summary of enchantments by item should not be tables. I am a fan of tables, and I love making huge tables that cover everything. And these tables are pretty good. But they are just too big, and some things would be better in lists. With the first table:
  • "Treasure" and "Trading" could be lists rather than columns of "yes"/"no".
  • "Max Level", "Weight", "Primary Items", and "Secondary Items" could be another table related to enchanting mechanics.
  • "Incompatible With" could be its own sections.
  • This is very open to discussion since obviously there are many ways to do this.

Good pages:

• Grindstone covers its mechanics on its own page since it not too complex.
• Item repair makes sense. The three types of item repair are also already covered on their respective pages:
  • Anvil mechanics, Grindstone, Crafting, 2x2 grid
• The other pages
• The individual enchantment pages

Sorry, but the enchanting pages are just chaos. We need to fix them! --   Simanelix   (T|C) 03:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I did a quick review of the Enchanting page and have a few thoughts. An easy change would be to take everything in the Summary of enchantments, Summary of enchantments by item, and Maximum effective values for enchantments sections and to put it on its own page, maybe called "Enchantment" or "List of enchantments". The Enchanting page itself is still needed because it gives a general, low-level overview of enchanting; pages like Enchanting mechanics, Anvil Mechanics, and Enchanting/Levels contain all the higher level technical info. I think the table in the Summary of enchantments section is good; it contains most of the info you could want about each enchantment, and if you break it up, I think it would end up being more of an inconvenience with people needing to scroll through multiple lists or tables. Rampage455 (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As a cursory response, I strongly agree that the Enchanting page is not fit for purpose and should be split to conceivable subtopics. In my role as a reader of the wiki, searching Enchantments and being taken to a very fat subsection table is not ideal. I would support any efforts to spread this content out across pages.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  06:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Very Strong Support. I remember stumbling into the wiki when it had just moved, and trying to read that article is a mess. It needs to be split. ☆《ShadowMilo》☆ (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait I think I've posted this before? Well in any case, I wasn't sure what to do then but now I have a better idea. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 19:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support, as I agree that it's quite confusing right now, but I think it's still legible and understandable as is. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I've read it and given it some thought. It is good at the moment. I have a few ideas I'm still mulling over as to how to clean it up. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 05:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strongest support imaginable. 👁 Image
Dazzle ^{[ talk | edits ]} 11:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft oppose, especially regarding splits. I'm personally not a fan at all about those "variants" sections you referred to; those are just set indexes or lists merged with a content article and don't look good, more like some kind of improper split of an article that may not need a split at all (different discussion). The list of enchantments serves its purpose very well and I wouldn't change or split a thing; that table is not the real problem here. However, I think the "Weight" collumn should be removed (that's for Enchanting mechanics)

Everything past that on that page is a mess though, it goes very technical, duplicates stuff in a different way, or almost feels like a tutorial. The whole "Summary of enchantments by item" should be removed or moved to the tutorial, and the "Maximum effective values for enchantments" section should be moved to the mechanics page since it's way too technical. I don't think there's anything left to split/reorganize after that.
I also want to suggest to rewrite obtaining section in each enchantment page to make it show all ways of obtaining any items with the enchantment (with loot tables etc.). MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
23:00, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Maximum effective values for enchantments is not related to enchanting mechanics though. Since enchanting mechanics are just the process used in the enchanting table. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 15:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 You can't imagine how strong my support is! -~👁 Image
JoneBond (T^alk|E_dits) 👁 Image
06:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You can't imagine how strong my support is! I think the enchant page is a total pain to read and completely messed up StevenK (talk) 10:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it will be best to separate it into a page about how to enchant as well as another on the books themselves Shark cool (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the best suggestion I've seen and the most practical. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 02:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I created a draft for the Enchantment page here. It's basically the current Enchanting page with some of the clutter removed and some more clear and concise explanations; I also took a little inspiration from Effect. I removed the Summary of enchantments by item section; I've never really used those tables and they add a bit of clutter to the page; maybe they can be repurposed elsewhere, or kept collapsed if anyone really wants to keep them. I trimmed down the table in Summary of enchantments a little. I kept the Maximum effective values for enchantments section, but collapsed it and added a short explanation; while this is fairly technical, it can be useful and I don't think really fits anywhere else. Feedback welcome.

I would like feedback on a couple things in particular. I'm wondering if the Obtaining section is too long; I'm not sure if the summary before the pseudoheadings and the material in the pseudoheadings both need to be there, or if one of those parts should be taken out. I'm also not sure if the pseudoheadings in Obtaining should be actual subsections and if the subsections in Behavior should just be pseudoheadings; they're fairly short to be sections, but it might make finding info easier.
Rampage455 (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh your rewrite is very good.

• § Incompatibilities should list the incompatibilities in Anvil mechanics § Combining items.
• "Summary of enchantments by item" is useful, so you should keep it.
• For the start § Obtaining, links to Anvil mechanics and Enchanting mechanics would be helpful. I think some commas are needed. And when combining two items of the same kind, they do not need to both be an enchanted.
  • Using an enchanting table to enchant an unenchanted item at the cost of lapis lazuli and experience levels.
  • Using an anvil to combine an item with an enchanted book at the cost of experience levels.
  • Using an anvil to combine two items of the same kind at the cost of experience levels, combining any enchantments on them.
  • Using the /enchant or /give commands.
• I feel like that fact about the enchanted golden apple is a bit out of scope (i.e. it should be remove). But that's in the original Enchanting page... What do you think?
• Otherwise, § Obtaining is definitely not too long.
• Putting a "See § Summary of enchantments" at the end of § Effects would probably be good, since the summary of enchantments lists the effects.

Anyways, what a good rewrite. The page now looks readable. Also, as much as I think the table in Enchanting § Enchanting equipment is cute, removing it is definitely a good thing. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 04:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, the pseudoheadings are good. The source code is readable, and they would clutter the TOC if they were normal headings. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 04:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

In § Obtaining, you should list which enchantments can be sold by the librarian in column-list format. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 04:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I have implemented a lot of your suggestions. In readding the Summary of enchantments by item section, I simplified the language and collapsed the tables. I want to make sure the draft doesn't become a bloated mess, since that's part of the reason for rewriting Enchanting in the first place. Rampage455 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It's been a while since the last comment. Does anyone mind if I get my draft moved to Enchantment (currently a redirect) and turn Enchanting into a disambiguation? I don't think there needs to be any splitting or moving content to other pages (except maybe move Enchanting#Affecting offered enchantments to Enchanting table#Enchanting). Right now, Enchanting just has a lot of bloat and repeated information from other pages. I replaced most of that with short overviews and links to the main articles. Rampage455 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but remove the first "List of enchantements" section, there's already a summary below so if anything is bloat duplicate it's that. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
08:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

My draft is now on Enchantment. Enchanting is now a set index page. Are there any other major changes to the enchanting-related pages that anyone thinks needs to be done? Rampage455 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey I've temporarily reverted you converting Enchanting to an index page because its linked from all over the wiki and linking to an index page like that was confusing readers. I think you've done a great job with the rewrite, the links/redirects/etc just need to be updated to point to Enchantment before we can make Enchanting an index page. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 01:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah this thought had occurred to me too! Though I decided to check later to see if things have been updated. Thankfully, Special:WhatLinksHere/Enchanting gives all the info you need. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 08:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The main page also needs updated, since it lists Enchanting. I'll just edit the editcopy. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 08:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Would it be better to just make Enchanting a redirect to Enchantment, or maybe Enchantment#Obtaining? I think bottle o' enchanting was the only thing on the index page that isn't referenced in Enchantment already. If not, I have already updated many of the redirect pages and navboxes to link to Enchantment, which about cut the number of links in half. Just have to go through the remaining pages individually now. Rampage455 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it okay if Enchanting is set back to a set index, but with a soft redirect at the top with an extra note saying like "This page was recently split, and the majority of the original content is now at Enchantment. Please change the original link so that it points to the correct page."? However, this should be done after the main page and the "Useful pages" in the sidebar is updated, as readers can't change them. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Switch all incoming links   2. Ask an admin to update the sidebar/main page   3. Clear out the info from Enchanting  , would have to be the order.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  07:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So do I request the completion of step 1 at MCW:BOTR? ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

How complicated would the switching be? You'd need a list of A#B -> C#D changes but yeah. If it's too much then checking manually may be safer.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  07:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not complicated but Special:WhatLinksHere/Enchanting is massive, and I don't have a bot. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I posted it and also added anchors so it's now just A#B to C#B. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyways, can you update the sidebar and main page then? I don't see why 1 has to be done before 2. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Was more so to prove commitment. But I have done #2 anyway.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  07:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think turning Enchanting to a redirect would be the best solution for the almost 500 links that currently exist. Linking like this: [[Enchantment|Enchanting]] seems bad to me. –LauraFi - talk 07:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

That is ambiguous though, and the set index solution seems better than creating Enchanting (disambiguation). ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing ambigious about enchanting. Related topics ≠ ambiguity. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

One may be looking for Enchanting table mechanics or Anvil mechanics, as they are both describing the same "abstract concept", just more granularly to more detail. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but that's linked in the first sectiono of the page, which is where it should be. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Enchantment would be the primary redirect target, and those pages are linked in Enchantment too, as pointed out by Rampage455. –LauraFi - talk 07:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough; I made the redirect and (re-)created the disambig page and added a hatnote. The bot request can remain though, as fixing unneeded redirects still helps. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I just said a disambiguation page is unnecessary. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You also removed the original hatnote though, so the other two pages are no longer linked, and the other stuff in the set index still seemed like plausible expectations. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Read my edit summaries. Everything is linked in the body. Hatnotes should be useful, not a bloat of disambig here disambig there when there are better locations for linking. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Readers that are expecting a different page would instantly understand where that page is if it is linked in the hatnote, but if it's linked in the body (without explicitly saying "see [page] for [content]"), they would less easily find it. The disambig actually reduces hatnote bloat by reducing the number of links in the hatnote itself. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

1. How are you expecting a different page? This page covers everything about enchanting, and the mechanics pages are subtopics that are meant to be linked in a section.
2. I see why you would like to have quick links for related topics but these are linked so early in the body that it's not hard to find/read.
3. See WP:RELATED and WP:NAMB.

MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
08:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Addressing point 1: It's kinda fair, but they are not really subtopics as Enchantment actually as an obtaining and behavior section, meaning that it's less about the abstract concept and more about an actual enchantment, and it does not really talk about how the enchanting works at all.

Point 2: Fair enough

Addressing point 3: Not really related per the addressing point 1, and definitely ambiguous as "enchantment" is just one word as opposed to the given example "Water (wuxing)" which literally says "wuxing". "Enchantment" in one word (and especially the "Enchanting" redirect which could semantically mean the abstract concept or the less abstract method of obtaining concrete enchants) does not make it so that a reader looking for the mechanics would most likely not end up there. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 08:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Right. Thanks guys! I now see how Enchanting = Enchantment. Which would mean no pages should point to Enchanting. Manually cleaning up the Special:WhatLinksHere is often a good idea though. Specifically, cleaning up the redirects, since you could then finish with Enchanting -> Enchantment. --   Simanelix   (T|C) 16:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Is there much more work to do, or is it time to close this forum? I know changing redirects has been mentioned a few times, and there are a few here and there that I will probably get around to changing, but I don't think every single link to Enchanting needs to be changed to Enchantment. Rampage455 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

All piped links have been changed, the rest can stay. Should we add the interwiki links that were on the Enchanting page to Enchantment? –LauraFi - talk 05:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have added the interwiki links and Category:Enchantments, which was also on Enchanting. I think I just didn't copy that part when I was making my draft. Rampage455 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Extremely strong support ~2026-MinecraftPenguinWool11990 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)