Talk:Particles

I just uploaded a file with a rough explanation of what minecraft uses each of the particles.png textures for. It's incomplete (I don't know what the blue water droplets labeled "???" are for), but considering there's a terrain.png format and not a particles one, I felt it was necessary. If you know what the "???" is or have a better image, please edit it.--Liudeius 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What does Icon Consumption//Break mean? --☺ Sven R.I.P. Donna Summer 07:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot revert the explained particles.png explanation to the English version, whoever uploaded the image to the English version, please revert the Duestch version of the image back to English (previous version) in the English version of the article.

06:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Boeing747guy. [Creator of the Particles article]

Fixed. Reverting didn't work for me either; I had to re-upload the English one. You may have to clear your browser's cache to make it show up. -- Orthotope 07:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody add a photo of each particle on the wiki? That would be great. Enderderp572 14:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Plz add something to my Page!!!!

depthsuspend Particles are summoned near bedrock (level 0) of the world. --76.117.125.76 23:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as of 1.8. Skylinerw (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, In the pocket edition at least 0.12.0, if sand (or red sand) is worldgen'd suspended above air, it drips loose sand particles. I would add it myself, but I have no way of knowing what they're called. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
^T/_C 12:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of the bedrock names are entirely wrong. A list can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MinecraftCommands/comments/cbd56p/i_need_a_list_of_bedrock_particles/etg8rt7/?context=3

Since there is almost no name parity in this department, I suggest splitting these tables entirely. But I'm not going to try to inflict this upon this page myself. - tryashtar (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

campfire_cosy_smoke and campfire_signal_smoke has the same texture so they need to be in the same row, but I don't know how to set them to the same height. Luotiansha (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, they are actually different. Luotiansha (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a "Flash" particle in particles file, I have no idea what it is and what is its usage in game. If someone knows please inform me, it'd be much appreciated. Luotiansha (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It's from firework rockets. Luotiansha (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Bro! Luotiansha (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing. Luotiansha (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In the history section, it states that mobSpellAmbient was added some point in 1.4.4. However, I don't see any documentation of this particle anywhere else, and it can't currently be summoned with /particle. Did this ever exist, and if so, what was it? EiimRun (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Certain particles cause Molang errors on switch, does this occur on all versions? If so should the page be updated to reflect that? 71.221.80.188 Zoraman26

I think this page would look a lot better if each particle were accompanied by a rendered image of that particle with nothing else in the image, similarly to how pretty much everything else is shown on the wiki. Images of the particles appearing in the world could be next to the images that just show the particles and nothing else. AlienAgent124 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

1. I support this and would maybe help out at some point in the future, although right now I am tired and I am not sure how to get standalone renders anyway. Neverlix (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the Particles#Particle IDs section if the IDs are listed in Particles#Types of particles anyway? I think that section should be removed. BeetMacol (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Consistancy
2. A clear list instead of descriptions, images, tables, etc

That is why the section exists.Humiebee^{talk contribs} 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I might have redone the entire main section of this page over at User:Neverlix/Particles_page_test_thing, with wonderful things like all the particles included up to the current version and actual accurate descriptions of Bedrock Edition particles and I thought I'd come over here and ask for feedback or permission to add it to this page or something like that. I'd say probably split this page for Bedrock and Java edition, since they don't combine nicely into one table, and the page gets unmanageably long with both. Otherwise I'd also remove the particle textures table, since I just combined it with the Bedrock one; for Java the particle colors are hardcoded instead of just being in the default resource pack, so I didn't include a particle color column since all I could do is ​^{[more information needed]} ​^{[more information needed]} ​^{[more information needed]}, if anybody's got the knowledge and all to find that, have fun I guess. I haven't got screenshots for all the Bedrock particles yet, but I'm very tired and /tick freeze doesn't exist in Bedrock yet and I used that so much for the Java screenshots that I do not dare think of doing the 144 Bedrock particles without it. If you wish to know how I got all this wonderful info about which particle is which, I retextured each particle to a different number and noted down which was which very carefully over the span of a long time. Anyways that's all I can think of to say, pardon the wall of text. Neverlix (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

After forgetting to do anything about this for a good long bit, I realized the reason nobody ever saw this is because I didn't include an edit summary, (didn't seem necessary since it was a talk page, oops) but, if anybody who knows what they're doing wouldn't mind reading the above comment, that would be incredible, seeing as I still have no clue what to do with my whole page. Thanks a lot! Neverlix (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neverlix: I think splitting the page into Java and Bedrock is a good idea if that makes them more manageable without a lot of duplication of content. I looked at your user subpage and saw no problem with it, other than putting it into this article would make it even longer. So splitting would be best. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Alright! I still have no idea how to split a page, though, otherwise I'd just go ahead and do it. Neverlix (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neverlix: It's easy. Create the pages Particles (Java Edition) and Particles (Bedrock Edition). Fill them with content. After you are confident that they are complete, then we can make this article into either a more general article that covers common features, or a disambiguation page with links to the other articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Oh, that makes sense. I've created the two new pages, and as for this one, I'm not quite sure what to do with it, but I'll probably figure that out later. Thanks a lot for your help! Neverlix (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Neverlix: For this page, one suggestion would be, first remove everything that is already in the other two pages. If what's left over is enough for a stand-alone article (that is, it's more than a paragraph of information, or includes data tables that aren't in the other two pages) then keep that material. Add a small section for Java Edition and Bedrock Edition, use a template like {{main|Particles (Java Edition)}} under the section heading, and summarize that main topic page as needed. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Alright, thanks! That sounds good, I'll probably do it in a bit, since I'm currently busy. Neverlix (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I find the split between Bedrock and Java unituitive. With so many particles nowadays it might make more sense to have one article for each particle instead. This would also allow for a detailed explanation on how they can be configured/customized, for the particles that have more complex behaviour. | violine1101 ^(talk) 19:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, the Java/Bedrock split was mostly because they didn't combine at all nicely into one table, and the page was incredibly long with both. I could see splitting them entirely into different pages for each particle, but it would be a lot of pages-- there are somewhere around 140 particles in Bedrock and maybe 90-100ish in Java, and they're not at all consistent between versions-- one particle in Java is often 2-5 separate particles in Bedrock, and then there are some in Bedrock that are three separate particles in Java, and then some exist in one version that don't in the other, so that would probably have to be an article for each particle in each edition, or 240ish articles, most of which will be really short. Plus, most people aren't gonna be searching up 'magnesium_salts_particle'-- the average player doesn't really care about particles. It might be feasible with a lot of combining of articles, but seeing how the discussions on things like splitting the flowers page were going, I'm kind of scared of that. Plus, there's a lot of particles in Bedrock edition that as far as I can tell are unused. An article a particle sounds nice in theory, but practically it is a lot. Perhaps the pages should be re-combined-- maybe do something like over at trading and have the Java table and Bedrock table each under a collapsible section. (also unrelated but "one article per particle" is just a great sentence) -- Neverlix | they/them | (talk) | 22:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Neverlix here. I think the best course of action is to do what they said and have collapsed tables here. Additionally, I think there should be subheadings below that for the more complicated particles, like dust. 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

With the advantage of hindsight, I think the Bedrock and Java pages should be combined again. My main motivation in proposing a split was that it was very long, but that actually doesn't seem like much of a problem, and with the split, it's a lot more confusing and unintuitive. (Plus I think Bedrock's getting a little bit neglected) Sincerely, somebody who didn't realize collapsible tables were a thing and then didn't have the energy to suggest this for a very long while. -- Neverlix | they/them | (talk) | 17:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

True, Bedrock might well be being neglected, even if I haven't seen it. Though, yeah, I was surprised when I found out that they were spilt. Just so long as they're in separate sections/tables! I do not want them both cramped and squished into one table. Perhaps when the two have more parity, but that's not now. Sincerely, someone who really appreciates you replying to me after such a long time. -- Nerdyguy2000 talk edits 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly fixed 👁 Image
Slimeball (Talk) 12:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~2026-RavagerTerracottaHusk10215 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a unused particle called "noxious_gas_cloud"(or something else) I play bedrock because I'm mobile, and it says its java, so... For java players, please figure out the texture and info if it was used! ~2026-RavagerTerracottaHusk10215 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2026 (UTC)