Talk:Anvil

Hello! I'm not a regular user of the Minecraft Wiki, but in viewing the article for anvils, I noticed something was off. The sound effect used for an anvil landing is currently pitched higher than it is in game. If anyone has access to the correct sound file, I'd recommend replacing it. Thanks! – Unsigned comment added by Tigershark313 (talk • contribs) at 04:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~

It does consume the book. Even if Smite doesn't got put on the sword. By incompatible enchantment, i ment to shorten "incompatible" from "if no change in enchantments would take effect. This can occur if all enchantments on the book are incompatible with existing enchantments on the item".

Protection has no effect on a sword.

If i don't understand what was changed in that update, explain to me. Niutp (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, that change refers to all non-creative gamemodes, like most things regarding enchantments. You can't enchant sticks with books in survival, adventure or (obviously) spectator. Creative removes all restrictions. FVbico (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I get, so it doesn't work like creative mode in surv anymore, I know, it was worded originally like it's a Protection on a sword (for me). So it meant Smite and Sharpness.Niutp (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I love messing around with the game. Anvils are one of those things in Bedrock Edition where the damage value cutoff isn't present. Therefore, there exists a strange, 'smooth' anvil with the side texture on all sides, with data values 12-15. Glitch or not, can someone please add it to History and render please?-FezEmerald (T|C) 02:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

-Hey, maybe this is the 'broken' state mentioned in the page!-FezEmerald (T|C) 23:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Outside of the mention of there being an older, originally more expensive recipe for the Anvil, there is rarely any documentation of said recipe on this Wiki. I'm not sure how to add the recipe to the History section, but if possible somebody should add it. The recipe is three iron blocks on the top and bottom with one iron ingot in the middle. 73.215.171.135 02:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

- Do you mean this?

-FezEmerald (T|C) 20:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken Anvil just redirects to the ID section. I agree that there should be more info about the broken anvil. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There's not much to say, it's an unused anvil variant that only exists due to old data values jank, it has never been used in actual gameplay.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 14:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Created a page for "broken" anvils (named "Deprecated Anvil" matching its ID; "Broken Anvil" now redirects there), in a similar vein to other unused bedrock jank like Chiseled Purpur and Smooth Stone Bricks.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This piece of text keeps getting removed:

[...] An anvil typically survives for 25 uses on average or approximately one use per 1.24 iron ingots used in crafting the anvil.

Can we please discuss on whether or not it should stay? It's starting to clog the page history. – RedX ^{👁 Image}
02:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it should stay here, it is nonsense, should be in the trivia section. Liyz7928 (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on the page at all, not even the trivia section. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I tried to move it to the Trivia section and it was removed even more forcefully.

I'm preserving the information against unwarranted removal, since no valid reason has been given. I have repeatedly stated to find an alternative to erasure; I'm simply defending the data from unwarranted removal, I am not the one at war. Many Minecraft players aren't fluent enough in math to calculate that statistical data.

The original removal listed the edit summary as "useless trivia-like info", but it is neither useless nor trivia-like, as it is statistical data pertaining to the technical aspects of Minecraft, specifically the use/cost ratio of the Anvil. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 02:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would someone need to know about an iron ingot when this page is about anvils? Most of us opposed having the "trivia-like info" as you can see from the reverts. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

As I already stated, "it is statistical data pertaining to the technical aspects of Minecraft, specifically the use/cost ratio of the Anvil", in addition to my statement of "Many Minecraft players aren't fluent enough in math to calculate that statistical data".

Since a significant number of Minecraft players are still in Grade School, they would lack the mathematical formulas required for deriving the cost coefficient from the statistical data, but they have a developed enough brain to apply the coefficient data if it is presented to them in a simple and understandable framework, such as the number of Ingots that are consumed with each use of the Anvil; this application of quantitative exchange subsequently provides a cohesive model for the young and developing to grasp, which allows them to subsequently build a framework for understanding the innate value of items, even when they lack any other frameworks in their lives, as many youths do tend to lack these days.

As previously stated, this is a Wiki for everyone, not just "most of us", not just you, but for everyone, including the individuals that suck at math, including the individuals that are not talented in Redstone, including the individuals that are not particularly talented in building, and including the individuals that are talented in technical aspects of Minecraft; the information is useful, even if you don't personally have a use for it.

Bedrock edition uses an entirely different Spawning logic for Iron Golem Farms than Java edition, so it is much more difficult to establish an Iron Golem Farm on Bedrock edition as a result, meaning that Anvils are a far more valuable resource in that interim, and this is also relevant knowledge for speed runners that are attempting to use Anvils. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

so what happen if gold ingot, netherite ingot, or other ingot exist on anvil page. Why would need to add that? Inconsistent with pages. Liyz7928 (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Iron Ingot is a part of the Iron Anvil Crafting Recipe, as is Iron Block; if Minecraft introduces a Gold Anvil then you can discuss the inclusion of the Gold Ingot on the Gold Anvil's Talk Page, and the same with the other resources; are you seriously arguing that the Crafting Recipes should not be listed on the Minecraft Wiki, in this thread? Take that to its own thread, but I will inform you that is a WP:SNOW issue because the recipe listings was one of the primary things that originally made Minecraft Wiki popular before JEI became popular (and eventually partially integrated into vanilla Minecraft).

The cost coefficient of the Anvil is going to sum an equivalency measured in the crafting recipe material, which is measurable easily and succinctly as Iron Ingots, since Iron Nuggets are unnecessarily numerous for this task, and Iron Blocks are lacking precision. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because the "wiki is for everyone" doesn't mean that every single person should be accounted for. Just like we don't need to describe the entire history of anvils in the real world leading up to their addition into Minecraft on the off chance that someone cares, we don't need to specify the result of every single possible mathematical equation somehow relevant to the game just because some people may not know how to to do it themselves. If it's only useful to a specific few readers who lack in mathematical skill, then that wouldn't be "for everyone", now would it? 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

By that same logic, we don't need 90% of the Minecraft Wiki, because we can find all that same information in the game, such as the Crafting Recipes, or the Uses for blocks, or numerous Hostile Mob Behaviors; we include the information because the objective is to be comprehensive and helpful, not just to make a handful of individuals feel content because they didn't use the information they wanted removed.

This is a Wiki, not something you should perform wonton removals on.

Moreover, the information existing is not interfering with the flow of information whatsoever, it is not making anything more difficult to look up, and if anything is actually providing information on a rarely tracked and often overlooked metric that honestly deserves more attention; I would love to know offhand how many blocks per nugget my Pickaxe is mining, or my shovel, so I can easily track my cost to profit metrics and determine how profitable my branch mine has been without needing to break out a calculator, and the Anvil is merely providing a further refinement of that data point with this data. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

In no way does that make logical sense. You're just making false equivalencies 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

"we don't need to specify the result of every single possible mathematical equation somehow relevant to the game just because some people may not know how to to do it themselves."

Well, you can look up the crafting recipes in-game, so you don't need to list the crafting recipes on the Wiki just because some people don't know how to access the Recipe Book.

You can discover in-game that you can use a Cauldron to store Water and Potions, so you don't need to list that use on the Wiki just because people don't know how to locate a Witch Hut to discover the Cauldrons are capable of holding fluids.

You don't need to list that Witches have a tendency to throw Poison, Weakness, and Harming potions, just because… I'm sure you can see the pattern; your logic has a flaw, and it is rather glaring. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Which universe do you come from where documenting core mechanics, what this Wiki is literally made to do, is the same thing as specifying some random, useless, pointless, unhelpful point about how many iron ingots would equate to the center of the bell curve formula of the random breaking of the Anvil? 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Not useless, not pointless, not unhelpful, and therefore not random; I've literally repeatedly explained how it is useful, both to me personally and to individuals that are not talented enough to perform these tasks themselves to reveal this data so that they can quickly determine if they are expending more Iron than they are earning, and I literally just now explained AGAIN why it is not useless.

Moreover, you obviously never bothered to investigate the meaning behind the name "Wikipedia" as the term is supposed to refer to a quick thing for reference, so a Minecraft Wiki is supposed to be a Quick Reference Guide to Minecraft at a comprehensive level, not JUST the core mechanics, as that would exclude the majority of the content of the Minecraft Wiki. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Obviously not. This discussion is pretty WP:SNOW. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion should be closed per WP:SNOW at this point. It is more than clear that there is no reason for this info to be kept, and the only opposition comes from the IP who was edit warring in the first place and hasn't provided a reasonable justification for the inclusion of the info. So, there's no point in going through the entire process of discussion since the outcome is not within reasonable doubt. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I've repeatedly provided numerous justifications. Your claim that I haven't provided justification is in itself a WP:SNOW at this point.

Furthermore, if you actually read the page you just cited, you would recognize the multiple mentions of Due Process, in the absence of valid reason and logic; I have provided heaps of logic and heaps of reason. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Literally:

This page in a nutshell: If a process only has a snowball's chance in hell of success, or failure, use common sense and don't follow the process all the way to the end, just for procedural sake. But if there are any doubts, do not terminate the process prematurely.

…

The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. This can sometimes happen when a topic attracts high levels of attention from those engaged (or having a specific view) but slower attention from other less involved editors, perhaps with other points of view. It can sometimes be better to allow a few extra days even if current discussion seems very clearly to hold one opinion, to be sure that it really will be a snowball and as a courtesy to be sure that no significant input will be excluded if closed very soon. Cases like this are more about judgment than rules, however.The idea behind the snowball clause is to not waste editor time, but this also must be balanced with giving editors in the minority due process. Be cautious of snow closing discussions that normally run for a certain amount of time, that have had recent activity, or that are not nearly unanimous. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It should be removed. It is so pointless that it doesnt even fit in trivia. If someone wants to know that they can just do the math 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
03:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There are many individuals that are not capable of doing that math. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

They could use a calculator. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Even with a calculator, they need to understand statistical distribution, which is not something most Grade School children are capable of; there are many Middle School students that don't know how to do that math, even if you hand them a calculator. They'd just stare at the screen and scratch their head, uncertain as to what numbers to apply and in what way to operate them. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 03:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I am one of those individuals; my point still stands. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
04:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are one of those individuals, then it should be obvious why the information is useful, and therefore not pointless. Furthermore, I've repeatedly cited uses for the information, which means your point doesn't stand. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 04:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Before performing any edit, you should've read the notability guidelines. According to MCW:TRIVIA, your edit failed to meet the criteria for a useful fact. As stated several times, facts about iron ingots cannot fit in a page about anvils, and the only relation between them and these ingots is that an anvil requires 4 iron ingots and 3 blocks of iron to be crafted. The rest of the information has nothing to do with iron ingots except that players use them to repair iron tools and armor. Iron ingots are in no way a substitute for an anvil so not everyone is interested in such a pointless fact. 👁 Image
Quake the Wind Fan 👁 Image
04:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The suggestion that it was trivia-like was not my suggestion, I merely moved it to Trivia at their suggestion after they removed it, after multiple people decided to perform an Edit War on pre-existing information (I wasn't adding the information, I was Reverting the Removal).

If you have 31 iron ingots, then iron ingots most certainly are a substitute for an anvil, specifically because of the ability to craft a replacement anvil.

If your anvil only lasts for 25 uses, then each use was consuming the equivalent of 1.24 iron ingots, if your anvil lasts for 31 uses then each use consumed the equivalent of 1 iron ingot, but the fact that you can track that statistic and determine how many iron ore you need to mine to best the average, at a glance, is something that is not pointless if you are lacking an Iron Farm for any reason. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 04:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Saying "I wasn't adding the information, I was Reverting the Removal" isn't an excuse and it doesn't mean you weren't edit warring. In this situation, you were the one edit warring. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Actually the burden of making a discussion is on the one going against past consensus, AKA not this IP. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
09:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Theres lots of things that could be compared against. It'd be useless to list them all, and especially so just to list one of them. I also don't know where the talk of complex maths has come from; this fact is literally just 31/25...  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  04:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Out of everyone who has attempted to make any claims for why this should be removed, don't you find it odd that you are the first one to mention that? It would seem that nobody else has actually recognized that before this point, and that is where the complexity of the math is coming from; all these people, and only one person actually mentioned the equation upfront, in approximately a quarter of a day.

There are a long list of things that all these other claims could apply to, but that doesn't make those claims valid; it takes a logical reason to claim information should be removed, not just the claim that the information seems to be lacking obvious use, because many things lack obvious use. 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 04:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I try to give a temporary summary to the present discussion. Hope to help to convey opinions. Please add if I missed something.

Is the information useful, where can it be used, and why?

• 2603:8080:7a00:4c93:69a2:a480:841:b815 and 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 (possibly the same anonymous user) claimed that it is extremely useful. They gave a context of the early days of Minecraft world (especially on bedrock edition), and referred to the players that aren't fluent enough in math to calculate that statistical data. Their explanations include difficulty in farming iron, the fact that it enables strategic planning of one's gameplay, and that such a quantitative exchange framework is useful in the lives of the young and developing people.
• Liyz7928 claimed it useless without further explanation.
• Polly12 claimed it useless, explaining that nobody agreed that it is not.
  • 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 claimed this excuse invalid.
• amethyst_hhh claimed it pointless, explaining that those who want to know can do the math.
  • NmbrblcksFan seconded this.
  • 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 argued that most Grade School children and many Middle School students can't.
  • The target readers of this point seem not clear.
• Quake the Wind Fan claimed it not to meet the criteria for a useful fact referring to MCW:TRIVIA, with an explanation that it is about iron ingots, which seems to be a seperate point.
  • 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 denied the application of MCW:TRIVIA for not suggesting it was trivia-like.
• Nixinova seemed to consider it useless, taking it simply as one of the things that could be compared against, and disagreeing with the complexity of the math.
  • 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 explained the complexity with the fact that Nixinova was the only one to solve it.

Further, given that it is useful for specific readers, is it needed here?

• GameCatastrophe proposed that keeping such information goes against the "for everyone" principle, and denied 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1's points, claiming that they were making false equivalencies.
• 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 objected to GameCatastrophe with a reduction to absurdity where 90% of the Minecraft Wiki will be removed, and stressed the necessity of such information with explanations that it deserves attention while not interfering with the flow of information, and that the Wiki is supposed to be a quick reference guide instead of including only the core mechanics.

Is it related to anvils?

• NmbrblcksFan and Quake the Wind Fan argued that this information is about iron ingots, this page is about anvils, and they are not relative.
• 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 claimed that it is the use/cost ratio of the anvil.

Does it fit in the main text, or trivia, or anywhere else?

• GameCatastrophe referred to the information as trivia-like first.
• ReverentPsycho and NmbrblcksFan claimed that it does not fit the main text. NmbrblcksFan explained his opinions on other points later.
• 2603:8080:7a00:4c93:69a2:a480:841:b815 claimed that it fits perfectly fine while arguing about percentile tables, which seems irrelavent, and denied NmbrblcksFan's opinion likely attributing it to his personal interest.
• Liyz7928 denied its fitness to the main text referring to other uses and claimed that it should be in the trivia section. (I don't know what are the other uses)
• 2607:fb90:e6a3:597:283c:42ff:fe95:ccc1 claimed it not trivia-like, but still proposed to move it to trivia given its unfitness to the main text to preserve the information against unwarranted removal for absence of valid reason for removal.

How should it be presented if keeping?

• 2603:8080:7a00:4c93:69a2:a480:841:b815 claimed that the data have advantages against percentile tables but still may be implemented as a table. (I don't know which tables they refer to)

Who are edit warring, and how can we stop that?

• Liyz7928 claimed that 2603:8080:7A00:4C93:69A2:A480:841:B815 was making unconstructive edits, called for stopping edit warring, and called the admin.
• GameCatastrophe proposed that the discussion should be closed per WP:SNOW, claiming that the anonymous user provided no reasonable justification.
  • 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 claimed that they had provided numerous justifications, and counterclaimed GameCatastrophe's argument as WP:SNOW.
• 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 claimed that multiple people decided to perform an edit war and explained that they themselves were not adding the information but reverting the removal.
  • GameCatastrophe claimed that in this situation the anonymous user was the one edit warring.

Other arguments

• Liyz7928 assumed that gold ingot, netherite ingot, or other ingot exist on anvil page, and 2607:FB90:E6A3:597:283C:42FF:FE95:CCC1 gave an explanation. (I don't understand how this will happen)

传入神经元（Rights/Talk/Contribs/Logs) 08:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

This is not trivia since it's not in the trivia section, so MCW:TRIVIA doesn't apply; but that's besides the point.

We should consider if this metric is actually useful. I think it's not useful. This is for two major reasons:

1. Anvils don't directly relate to iron ingots. Once an anvil is crafted, you don't think of it as "31 iron ingots".

2. Anvil usages don't relate to anvil damage 1:1, making this statement even more misleading.

Saying that "An anvil typically survives for 25 uses on average" is already a simplification and kinda misleading, because the probability of an anvil breaking is not a normal distribution. In fact, the formula for the probability of an anvil breaking after being used times is .

Here's a graph of that:

👁 Image

So we can see that an anvil breaking after 6 usages has a chance of ~1.2%, which is about the same as an anvil breaking after 40 usages (~1.1%). This already makes the "25 uses on average" kinda misleading.

This makes the statement "approximately one use per 1.24 iron ingots used in crafting the anvil" even more incorrect. This value could be between 3.1 iron ingots per usage (anvil breaks after 6 usages, chance of ~1.2%) and 0.78 iron ingots per usage (anvil breaks after 40 usages, chance of ~1.1%). It suggests a false amount of accuracy here.

But this is not the main issue here. The main question is whether we want to convert the main metric (25 anvil uses on average) given in the unit "uses/anvil" into another unit, namely "uses/iron ingot". My opinion is No; the unit "uses/iron ingot" is inappropriate here given the wide range of values. | violine1101 ^(talk) 10:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I've updated the section with some stats (and nicer plots). Having it rewritten, I really don't think converting "anvil uses" to "iron ingot craft uses" makes any sense. | violine1101 ^(talk) 12:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I also think the sentence is unnecessary; I have removed it. Rampage455 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Falling anvils drop as an item after falling for more than 30 seconds (600 game ticks); I have updated the article. Rampage455 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Reworded  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  07:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

When renaming an item in an anvil, does the formatting contribute to the maximum lenght? For example is §l§k§3example considered 13 or 6 characters long? ~2026-ParchedIllusionerBat9567 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)