Talk:Cherry

Untitled

Name of page

The trees appearance

Move to Cherry Blossom.

It's the official name of tree. CrockCraftMC (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Any source or? The game says cherry. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
20:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/article/minecraft-snapshot-23w07a CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Also they are referred to as cherry blossoms throughout the entire article. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The game calls them cherry. The article also says "Cherry Blossom biome", and later says "Cherry Grove biome", indicating that it's not a consistent and reliable source. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
20:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep reading, you'll see the article call the feature cherry blossoms, which is much more reliable than the name of the biome. Also, the game calls them minecraft:cherry. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In real life, “cherry blossom” actually refers to the tree’s flowers, not to the tree itself. — BabylonAS 20:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

In real life, trees don't float, armless green things the expload don't exists, and qaurtz isn't found in the nether. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"minecraft:" is a namespace, not intended to be "the name". My example is to explain that this article is not a more reliable source than the game itself. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Mojangs word is more reliable than code that most players will never see. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Slicedlime's word, in an article where he makes mistakes with names, where he uses an illogical name for the feature, is not anymore reliable than the devs that decided the name of the feature in the game. We have an objective logical name, there is no need to prioritise random articles, because that will make a mess of quite a lot of article names, and is why the style guide has this rule (MCW:TITLE). - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
20:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Then why does this article call them cherry blossoms. Plus, how is article of the literal update that added the feature random. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Then the article should be fixed. In-game IDs take priority over mcnet articles, if you want this to be changed open a new topic on the style guide talk.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

So we should state the "official" name of evokers on bedrock edtion is evocation illager. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, your right. Not only are they called that in the game's code, but cherry saplings aren't call "Cherry Blossom Saplings", which is the closest we can get to an in-game name for the tree. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No because in-game names (which evokers have) take priority over any kind of ID.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 20:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Counter proposal: change the name to "Cherry Tree".

Rationale:

• This particular tree is actually a type of ornamental cherry tree. Cherry "Blossom" is incorrect as "blossom" refers specifically to the flower produced by the tree in real life. This may be an issue in future if Mojang decide to add a cherry blossom item to the game.
• There is precedent for using "tree" in the page name for ambiguous names: see Jungle Tree, Azalea Tree. Arguably Huge Fungus and Huge Mushroom might fit this distinction too, but that's for another discussion. Again this will avoid any potential future clash if Mojang decide to add cherries to the game.

Tarragon (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I would support renaming all features to "(Name) Tree". CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

In case Mojang will add cherry fruits in the future, we'll rename the page to disambiguate. No need to do it now.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 21:37, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. What are your thoughts about changing tree pages so they all include "tree" in the name for consistency? Tarragon (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and would violate the style guide. The words "oak", "spruce", "birch" etc already refer to trees first and foremost and the current titles match the in-game IDs. "Jungle Tree" and "Azalea Tree" are named that way because they also match the in-game IDs.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 21:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

"Matching in-game IDs" is great and all if the purpose of the wiki was to appeal to developers and not the general public. The first primary purpose _should_ be to be as easy for a casual player to understand and use. Tarragon (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

An "oak" is a tree, "oak tree" is redundant, no need to specify that. The same applies to pretty much all other trees except for jungle trees, and arguably azaleas since they are bushes generally and need to be disambiguated from the obtainable block which is called just "azalea". Since the ID-derived names are perfectly serviceable and easy for a casual to understand, I see no reason for staying away from those.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 23:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

My rationale is consistency. If we need to use "tree" for one, then using "tree" for all keeps things consistent and stops people wondering why one has tree and one doesn't without having to dig into the talk page to work it out. Then "Oak" for example can then be a disambiguation page and point to oak tree, oak wood, stripped wood etc, and also point to "trees" and any other grouping pages. Tarragon (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

And recently disambiguation pages for all woods(except for dark oak because thats on the oak page) were created, so we could just move those. CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As I'm new here (and wiki editing in general), what's the next step towards making a decision? Tarragon (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)