Talk:Ocean Ruins

Underwater ruins is a minor structure. Combine it on there. --HaydKenMutthew Talk 10:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support --Pepijn (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Disagree. Doesn't seem like a minor structure to me; it's got many different types, and a few different loot tables. The page right now just isn't as fleshed out as it could be. Also that page looks like it's become a dumping ground over the years. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 12:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Disagree I think both of you (@HaydenBobMutthew and PepijnMC:) should take a closer look at the structure if you really think it's "minor". Underwater ruins are an even more complex system than villages and those already have at least two articles dedicated to them. The page is only so short at the moment as the content was released in fact yesterday. – Fuzs 12:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Then flesh the page out. Atm it's a mess and does not warrant its own page. Also, do not ping me for discussions I'm already a part of, it's annoying and useless. --Pepijn (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think if you look at how a wiki page for a new feature typically comes together, in previous releases, you'll remember / see that it always starts out really stubby and unfinished, and only grows slowly and by degrees as interested parties contribute. There's not precedent for insisting it be complete in a time span as short as a day.

And even beyond that, the state of a page at any given moment isn't what informs us whether the subject matter needs a page. – Sealbudsman ^talk/_contr 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Disagree. Every single generated structure that's a building, with the exception of witch huts (which I think I'm going to request to make a separate page soon, I have it in my userspace), has it's own separate page. Even some small structures, such as dungeons, have their own pages. Like Fuzs said, underwater ruins are one of the more complex structures in the game, and it doesn't make sense that small structures like dungeons would have their own pages but the most complex structures don't.

Honestly, I think once players do a little bit more exploring in underwater ruins, we may find certain patterns such as the same buildings that appear several times, and then we can add much more information to the article (like the village article). Also, I would suggest that we remove the merge template for the time being.--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 13:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Disagree Even Tree has its own page, and i think Underwater Ruins are a lot bigger structures than trees. Also, i believe that next snapshots will give them a lot more content. 85.76.72.73 14:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

After details about the structure of underwater ruins were added, the article is now longer than that of dungeons. Do you think it would be ok if I removed the merge template, also since the majority of people did not want to move the page?--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 00:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Then this is the main article.

Like this:

Main article: Underwater Ruins

--HaydKenMutthew Talk 10:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In the gallery, there are several pictures of underwater ruins that do not fit any of the ruin types. For example, the first one contains cracked stone bricks, mossy stone bricks, chiseled stone bricks, and regular stone bricks. However, none of the structures in the table show any more than 2 types of stone bricks. It's like this with some of the other images in the gallery too. I'm pretty sure all of the pictures were taken in 18w09a, so I'm really not sure why the table doesn't match up.--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 14:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It specifies it's an incomplete list. It's still being worked on. --Pepijn (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thx. The only reason I would really care is so that I can take pictures of each structure, but it can wait until the list is more complete.--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 15:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I read somewhere that game doesn't merely add the structures which are coded in the file to the terrain, but somehow combines the three types of ruin (brick, cracked and mossy) into one single building that has parts of each structure. I can't confirm yet that it's what's happening, but that would explain why the pictures in the gallery look nothing like the structures in the game files. --Morenohijazo (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I never realized that on the table it said "Generates combined with (so and so)." That explains it. However, this still leads to the question, what should I put for the image if it always generates combined with the other 2 structures?--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{Talk • Contributions} 16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Right now I'm just doing rowspan for all of the structure types that the image applies to (that means that I'm making it so that the cell containing the image is spanned over x rows). Do you think that's okay?--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{T • C} 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't had time to dig into the code, but it looks like it uses the same generation system as fossils, which have separate files for bone blocks and coal. During structure generation, it randomly decides which of the description files to use for each block. Would it make sense to combine the rows and just list it as e.g., "97 stone brick (normal, cracked, and/or mossy)"? -- Orthotope^talk 21:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I was originally going to do something like this, and just combine each structure together. However, they aren't all direct matches block count-wise. Even the amount of stone brick can vary. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I was the one who created the table. In each description, it says it combines with the other two variants of that structure. This means it'll use a combination of each stone type, the gravel layout, etc. Also, it seems plants can override the blocks. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the way we have it right now is fine - as you can see in the table, I'm spanning the images across all of the structures that generate combined.--👁 Image
Madminecrafter12^{T • C} 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an isometric render of the underwater ruins, since every other generated structure already has one. 46.132.191.233 06:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's already been done almost a month ago. It just needs to be added here. It's dimetric and not isometric btw, and usually for buildings we don't use renders but screenshots made with a special tool. :P – Fuzs 09:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Per mcw:Style guide#Article titles, strictly interpreted, this article should be titled in the singular. However, doing so merits discussion because whereas "an underwater ruin" is certainly an appropriate singular phrase, "underwater ruins", used like a mass noun having a plural form and a singular denotation, is perhaps more common. That is, if one refers to "those underwater ruins over there" they are usually taken to be referring to the site as a whole, not to the individual ruined structures collectively. So this could be regarded as an exception to the style guide (which maybe should be amended to authorize it in some cases, as in Wikipedia:Manual of style). Please discuss: Should this page be moved to Underwater ruin, and if so should a redirect page be left with the plural name?

👁 Image
 Support with ambivalence. I would also support adding a redirect page with the singular title as an alternative. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 17:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support (from the person who created this page as "Underwater ruins" :)) I don't that this would be an exception to the style guide - even if it were most commonly referred to "Underwater ruins," this shouldn't make a difference, as the proper term for the generated structure is "underwater ruin." I definitely think that regardless of whether it's moved or not, the other case (either singular or plural) should redirect to the content page, which is why I created the Underwater ruin redirect. The new redirect shouldn't affect moving this page to that title either, as it's a redirect to this page and no further revisions have been made to the underwater ruin page.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't created the redirect. First, because it was implicitly part of this discussion, and second because now, if the decision is to move, we'll have to get the redirect page deleted first. Using copy and paste to move a page is strictly prohibited. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's that case when autoconfirmed users can move a page to a redirect to it while erasing the redirect: see WP:MOR. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should have explained that better in my first post. Just move the page as normal and the redirect will automatically be deleted (it's further explained in the link AttemptToCallNil provided) - however, you can't delete the redirect if it has a history, meaning that it would be much easier to move the page normally than it would be if {{delete}} were added. As for the first part, I don't think the creation of the redirect is really a big deal. Even though there may be a few users who don't think it's necessary, after all, it's just one redirect and having it wouldn't really hurt anything (WP:CHEAP).-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
18:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I never knew that special case existed, even on Wikipedia. Thanks to both of you for teaching this old dog a new trick. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose Not only I at least partially agree with your reasoning, the word "ruins" is somewhat special in that it seems to generally be more frequently used in plural. The Wikipedia article is called Ruins (although its initial name was singular, it has been moved, and it doesn't seem like the new name has ever been questioned thereafter). Merriam-Webster lists "ruins" in the appropriate meaning as "usually used in plural". I would not particularly object to a redirect from the singular title though. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 17:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

AttemptToCallNil's argument convinces me that it's fine the way it is, and since Madminecrafter12 has already created the redirect from the singular and no one else seems to have any comments, I don't think there's anything left to discuss. – Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"Ocean ruins" is listed on Crowdin and in the game command, not underwate ruins. -- Ff98sha (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Moved – Nixinova 👁 Image
 👁 Image
05:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova: The general consensus from a previous discussion looks to me that "ruins" is more commonly used to describe structural ruins. The article content also refers to "ruins" frequently.

While our style guideines recommend singular titles, the word "ruins" in English is a special case, with a plural noun being used to refer to a singular collection of ruined structures. Is there a reason this article is titled using the singular "ruin"? ~ Amatulic (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Structure ID as seen in /locate and advancement location checks, it's Ocean_Ruin, not Ocean_Ruins. Because of that, it's the name of the structure; there's no visible in-game names for structures. FVbico (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support moving to Ocean Ruins, as it's the in-game translated name used in Bedrock Edition for the /locate command.--Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The article currently only mentions that drowned generate in ruins in the history section; the same goes for the drowned page. Is anyone able to check the code to see how many drowned generate in ruins (or if they spawn continuously), and are they specific to only certain structures? I tried looking in NBTExplorer but was unable to find anything so far. –Sonicwave ^talk 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Using NTBExplorer you can see some blocks are of type Structure Block with some attached nbt data, in Data Mode, with metadata: drowned. This triggers a function on chunk generation that creates a single drowned for each such structure block.MestreLion (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Page says "All but two of the structures will contain a loot chest with loot inside", but only `mossy_1` does not have "1 Chest (random loot)" in its list of blocks, which is inconsistent with above statement. So, which information is true? If the former, which other variation also does not contain a loot chest? --Mestrelion20090 (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the picture for big_warm_4 since it was an incorrect picture because it showed big_warm_6 instead. Can someone upload a new one? --37.120.202.6 23:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a peculiarity about ocean ruin structure, as some may have noticed: for instance, the "big_brick_1, big_cracked_1, and big_mossy_1" are actually the same structure unit, there are 3 of them because when generated they are all integrated together, so that in one structure there would be all three types of bricks (ordinary, cracked, mossy). In such cases I'll only render the "pure brick" one, at least for now, because to render the real thing I need to find it in a world where even using locate command it would take too long to find the correct type due to the low chance. Luotiansha (talk) november 2021

The article still contains useless outdated loot tables in addition to the 1.20 loot tables, that are marked as "upcoming". I'd remove them myself, but I see that's done with templates, so I'd rather not mess that up with my unfamiliarity with this wikis templates. GMRE (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The page does not specify the internal filepath of the loot tables used in the ocean ruins chests, and I think it should. Nataly171 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that's fair, though structure loot tables are not specified for any structure on the wiki (as far as I can tell). Considering this would be a larger change, it would likely warrant a post on the community portal talk page or the forum. – ZacNVR (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed the Tildes~ to En Dashes– to (In my mind) comply better with the general style of the wiki. Feel free to revert this or start a discussion, but please also add this on my talk page, as I want to know about it. Hoppp (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this page should be split in half. I have a few reasons for this.

1. As of 1.20, they now have distinct archaeology loot tables. Paired with Java and Bedrock tables being different, it creates quite the confusion when trying to find information.

2. They already have completely different block palettes, which further bloats the page.

3. They are internally distinct (minecraft:ocean_ruin_warm, minecraft:ocean_ruin_cold).

Overall, I think they'd be a lot more useful split than merged, and more accessible - now there is genuine reason to be looking for one over the other. At this point, the only things they have in common is their chest loot table. BD (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 SupportI agree.Drour1234 (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drour1234:, please edit your message to use the {{c}} template. It looks like this in the source code: {{c|support}} --Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support The page is quite long. The biome, composition, and archeology drops are pretty simple differences, but these differences make for a pretty complicated page. Let's keep ocean ruins, both so we can avoid redirects and so we can avoid duplicate text content. We can start by creating project pages:

• Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/Occean_Ruins
  • Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/Occean_Ruins/Warm
  • Minecraft_Wiki:Projects/Occean_Ruins/Cold

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 01:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

This kind of thing doesn't usually warrant project subpages. Probably best for a userspace or maybe sandbox subpages. Also, not "Occean". – ZacNVR (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

What about calling the pages Ocean Ruin, Cold Ocean Ruin, and Warm Ocean Ruin?Drour1234 (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

no this is a bad idea a prefer it like this {{c|oppose}} and its the same structure type like we dont have diffrent pages for every type of village we shouldnt have diffrent pages for every type of ocean ruin ~2026-AmethystMuleChicken12297 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

New proposal: the page should also be moved Ocean Ruin for 2 reasons:

1. Pages are supposed to be named after the name or ID of the object the describe from Java Edition, and ID in Java Edition of the structure this page describes is actually Ocean Ruin. Furthermore, Ocean Ruins is not a valid structure in any version of the game.
2. Pages on this wiki are supposed to use singular names where necessary. Most pages with plural names have a plural name because the object they describe is actually plural; example: the bricks block is plural because it is composed of multiple bricks.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, although actually this case is very similar to villages. If we split this we should also split Village — Misode (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral, actually after the Java name comes the Bedrock name, after the both edition's names comes the ID, and in Bedrock are called "Ocean Ruins", so if the page is split should be "Ruins", plural. UnExpectedDino 👁 Image
ᐸ talk | contribs 01:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Extremely Strong support CrockCraftMC (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, It makes lots of since since the structures are found in different biomes, appear different, and generate separate loot tables. Finky (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No as these are not parts of the structure definition. Arina (she/her) 07:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I completed both of the draft pages for the warm and cold ocean ruins, so they are ready to be redirected from the original page ocean ruins. MobHunter101 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2026 (UTC)