Talk:Red Sandstone

Better with sandstone?

Should be merged with sandstone

The result of the discussion was do not merge.

Both share the same ID, and they are therefor technically the same block. All the recipes are also the same, so I believe that the two articles should be merged. Clone200 (talk)

They actually do not share the same id, but the rest is the same. (did you notice the other post?) --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 15:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose. Sand and red sand don't have any variations. Sandstone and red sandstone do. This is similar to how the stone variants each have their own article, but the polished versions don't. Also, red sandstone doesn't generate as part of desert temples or villages. —F‌enhl 15:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose — Itouchmasterpro ^{d c} 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose. Itouchmasterpro, can you fix the link to your user page in the signature to be User:Itouchmasterpro instead of [[Utilisateur:Itouchmasterpro]]? Also, Dand0 wants to answer. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
12:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ya, I forgot that Red Sandstone generates only in Mesa caves, but is it so hard to write this in the article?. Yes, they have different IDs, but does it matter to a normal player and why it can’t be written in header, in the “ID” section? They have the same mining speed, the same texture, the red have the same texture, but red colored and the only exception is Decorative Red Sandstone, that has a Witch face, while the yellow one has a creeper one. --Dand0 (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

They both are solid, both aren't transparency blocks, both’s blast resistan is 4, both’s hardness is 0.8, both are not renewable, both are stackable into 64, they both need any pickaxe, they both have the same crafting and the same crafting recipe for stairs and slab, both have the same data values and data states (prefix “red” is added for the red one). --Dand0 (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, both are short articles. Laura Fidalgo ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose I disagree. Dand0: We should merge Stained Clay with Hardened Clay because they have the same blast resistance, almost the same texture, tool, etc.? I don't think so. Laura Fidalgo ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Stained clay and hardened clay have majorly different obtaining, and only hardened can be used to craft stained, so that is a completely different case. –KnightMiner ^(t|c) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Is is really that hard to combine/bad looking? The two blocks, apart from different generation, are the exact same block. –KnightMiner ^(t|c) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

KnightMiner: Yes, you're right. But I still disagree. Laura Fidalgo ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 13:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not good with English “Crafting usage” system, therefore I ask, if it is possible to make crafting usage look like I did (crafting sandstone slab and red sandstone slab combined)? dand0 (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, by combining the recipes on the Stairs and Slab pages. –KnightMiner ^(t|c) 14:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Different blocks must be documented each on its own page. Exceptions are similar blocks such as all 3 variants of yellow sandstone, and granite and smooth granite, but never red and yellow sandstone. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
12:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose -JEC^{6789 (T | C | Boo!)} 13:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguments? dand0 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Normal sandstone and red sandstone have many differences, for example, red sandstone only generates by mesa caves, and normal sandstone generates in many places (e.g. desert villages). Red sandstone and normal sandstone also don't share the same id (24 for normal sandstone, and 179 for red). -JEC^{6789 (T | C | Boo!)} 13:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Will be written in “Natural generation” section.
2. Technical data may be one of the criterions, that influences at separating or combining articles, looking into non-technical parameters, they have not much difference.
3. Sarcasm? dand0 (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

1. Okay, I guess it could, but I still disagree with merging the two pages.

2. …

3. No. -JEC^{6789 (T | C | Boo!)} 14:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Of those supposed "many differences" why does everyone only list the same two? Different data values and different generation. Are there any others people wish to state, or should I assume there are only two differences?

As for different blocks being documentated on different pages, what about fences, doors, trapdoors, and fence gates? the difference between those is identical to the differences between these (data value, difference generation)

–KnightMiner ^(t|c) 14:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And then, I agree. Laura Fidalgo ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I now agree too. -JEC^{6789 (T | C | Boo!)} 16:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My criteria doesn't require different types of wooden fences, doors, logs, planks, etc to be on separate pages. Ideologically, wood logs can be on the same page, but sandstone with red sandstone can't. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Main differences to be concerned by me are data values and graphics, if not more. For example, granite and smooth granite are very similar, but diorite and stone differ in looks drastically. Prismarine bricks have noticeable tile borders and cracks, plus they are smoother, separating them from normal prismarine. Similarly, sandstone variants are similar enough to be on the same page, but sandstone and red sandstone very differ in color which, together with different block IDs they use, is enough to require separate pages for them. Logs don't fall under the criteria, even with different block IDs, because of their relative big similarity, and so are leaves. Even if the above is incorrect, I would like to keep everything as it was and don't let the 2 types of sandstone be described on a single page. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think for those reasons we really need an official policy on article merging, rather than a case to case basis. I started a discussion on such, but there were only two of us there.

As for visuals, I really don't think a texture is enough of a reason to keep article separate, or else should we separate wool since they are drastically different colors. Red sand is simply a red variant of sandstone. In terms of what people need to know, do we really need to send them two places to tell them identical information, except with a different color prefix?

–KnightMiner ^(t|c) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you saw my above argument?? I have a very weird criteria that doesn't let the wool be split into 16 pages. Same with slabs, logs, planks, leaves and the like. Maybe stop this and leave it as it was? -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
08:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean the data values argument, or the texture argument? Both of those are not the primary reason we should split or merge. Red sandstone and sandstone are as identical as log and log2. The only difference is the color of the output. Both types of logs craft different colored planks, causing different colored wooden items. With the sandstones, both types of sand craft both types of sandstone, which can be crafted into both types of sandstone variants/slabs/stairs. –KnightMiner ^(t|c) 14:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I re-thinked about this. Now, I think that probably once a third type of sandstone would be added, we can merge this pages (compactness' sake). Or, if there are some differences between their real-life counterparts, we may decide to or not to merge based on that (real life basis). But I don't fully know. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
13:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't do anything with this, most now agree. And I now 👁 Image
 Agree too, as there might be new sandstone variations. KnightMiner? -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
08:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Waaaait. Fences, doors, gates and whatnot use data values/block states for orientation. Sandstone use them for decorative forms, which are different blocks, even if only by texture. Now I 👁 Image
 Disagree again. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
08:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So that basically means we'll need different pages for cracked, smooth and chiseled sandstone? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Yellow sandstone and its decorative forms are on one page, red sandstone and friends are on another. And, sandstone wasn't originally meant as something with different color variations like fences, so I still and always will vote on no. -- ♦ 👁 Image
👁 Image
15:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Both sandstone and red sandstone have different data values and different ID names. Therefore, 👁 Image
 I'm in full opposition of this article being merged! Another thing. Why was this consensus renewed in the first place? BDJP007301 01:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

BDJP007301: "Both sandstone and red sandstone have different data values and different ID names. Therefore, 👁 Image
 I'm in full opposition of this article being merged!" Only for that? See KnightMiner's workbench page. –LauraFi - talk 22:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• BDJP007301, what do you mean? Did you oppose because each color has variations, like me?
• LauraFi, arguments also have their weight. For example, the argument saying that each sandstone color having variations, just like granite, diorite and granite having their smooth variants, has a significant weight.

--Naista2002, now NickTheRed37 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Wow wow wow WTF? firstly,NOT the same ID rssID:179,ssID:24.Secondly,under red sand there is what?stained clay ,red sandstone in mines only.Lastly,if you look chiseled red sandstone VERY carefully,you will see the difference with chiseled sandstone.See why not?–Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.101.224.9 (talk) at 2:44 8 January 2015‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Except visual, generation, and ids does not keep the logs separate, now does it? Generation also does not separate stained clay, nor stone bricks. –KnightMiner ^(t·c) 03:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes because the only differences are the color and the carvings on chiseled sandstone. The same goes for the stairs and slabs. It is simalar to oak fence vs. acacia fence. It is true that you can't combine them, but that is because they are not exactly the same. Still, it would fit right in.71.35.109.25 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So! Diorite, Stone, Granite and Andesite share their basic Block ID, but have separate pages. Sandstone and its Red variant have different ID's, as already said. So NO! –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.113.249 (talk) at 12:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Forgotten counter-argument

Reboot

The result of the discussion was merge with Sandstone.

This page should be merged with sandstone. The following sections would be easily combined:

• The infobox
• The section "Obtaining"
• The section "Usage"
  
• The section "Data values" (Types of sandstone only)

This covers most of the article. Why everyone opposed makes no sense at all.71.212.10.80 03:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   Support. I originally opposed against this, and I held that for a long time. But now, I recognize red sandstone as a true variation of sandstone, especially since in real life it mainly only differs by an amount of some mineral that dyes it red. I would suggest anyone who opposes to go to nearest real-life mines of both yellow and red sandstone, give probes of them to geologists, have them analyze the composition and compare. — 👁 Image
  NickTheRed37 (talk|contributions) 09:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• 👁 Image
   Still oppose per comments from the closed discussion.BDJP ^(t|c) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  Don't insist on your arguments if opponents have applicable counteraeguments to them. As Majr once said, organizing based on data values doesn't really help anyone. — 👁 Image
  NickTheRed37 (talk|contributions) 06:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  I have some scientific research explaining the differences between regular and red sandstone from Sir Archibald Geikie, a Scottish geologist and writer:

  “

  The colours of sandstones arise, not so much from that of the quartz, which is commonly white or grey, as from the film or crust which often coats the grains and holds them together as a cement. Iron, the great colouring ingredient of rocks, gives rise to red, brown, yellow, and green hues, according to its degree of oxidation and hydration. Like conglomerates, sandstones differ in the nature of their component grains, and in that of the cementing matrix. Though consisting for the most part of siliceous grains, they include others of clay, felspar, mica, or other mineral; and these may increase in number so as to give a special character to the rock. Thus sandstones may be argillaceous, felspathic, micaceous, calcereous, &c. By an increase in the argillaceous constiuents, a sandstone may pass into one of the clay-rocks, just as modern sand on the sea-floor shades imperceptibly into mud. On the other hand, by an augmentation in the size of the grains, a sandstone may become a grit, or a pebbly or or conglomerate, so that the difference between the two rocks is little more than one of relative size of particles. The cementing material of sandstones may be ferruginous, as in most ordinary red and yellow sandstones, where the anhydrous or hydrous iron oxide is mixed with clay or other impurity-in red sandstones the grains are held together by a haematitic, in yellow sandstones by a limonitic cement; argillaceous, where the grains are united by a base of clay, recognizable by the earthy smell when breathed upon; calcareous, when carbonate of lime occurs either as an amorphous paste or as a crystalline cement between the grains; siliceous, where the component particles are bound together by a flinty substance, as in the exposed blocks of eocene sandstone known as "grey-weathers" in Wiltshire, and which occur also over the North of France towards the Ardennes

  „

  — Sir Archibald Geikie, Textbook of Geology, page 158

  If you don't believe me you can read the original text here. BDJP ^(t|c) 13:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  Real life ≠ Minecraft. –LauraFi - talk 14:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  And it is just a couple of minerals that differ, and perhaps structure, but there is only one sandstone structure in the game. Let's beat ru:Обсуждение:Ифрит! — 👁 Image
  NickTheRed37 (talk|contributions) 08:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• 👁 Image
   Agree. –LauraFi - talk 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• 👁 Image
   Agree - I was never involved in the previous discussion, but it always puzzled me why the two pages are separate and why there seemed to be so much opposition before. Yes there are counter arguments - mainly they look too different, they generate differently and the data values are different. However, ultimately they are both just two different types of sandstone and essentially the same block. Ultimately there are major usability benefits to combining the pages. I really don't think that using the argument of how they appear in real life exactly supports this proposal, but anway... –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk
  Contribs 07:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• 👁 Image
   Agree - My thinking is that from a casual-reader point of view, it makes exactly as much sense as combining sand and red sand articles, or for that matter the red and brown mushroom article. Since they're both about a type of 'Sandstone' I think it would be a natural thing that a Person-Reading-About-Sandstone would want to read about them together.
  I don't go for data-values arguments (I think I once did, but I don't anymore) because I'm not convinced a reader reads through that lens. Where I would draw the line for merge-split decisions in general, I couldn't give you a simple explanation, but subjectively I would picture the wiki as more user-friendly with these sandstones merged.
  As for variants and types and sorts and etc, I notice that Wood has two block IDs, each with its own variations. It seems to me that if we can manage to put all wood with its all species and rotations on the same page, we can probably put all sandstone with all its colors and carvings on the same page. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
  ^t/_c 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  👁 Image
   Agree - Agree with the above argument by Sealbudsman. For any practicle purpose, they are the same block. --Illidicia (t+c) 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• I give up. I 👁 Image
   Agree. I'm done with this wiki because people treat as a minority due to my condition. BDJP ^(t|c) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  You put this under my reply, BDJP007301; are you addressing me? My reply had nothing to do with yours, I wasn't picking on you, I was expressing my opinion on the subject, and without the slightest reference to you. You're not being treated as a minority based on your condition, you actually are in the minority on this discussion, by virtue of your stance on the issue -- and it's perfectly fine to be in the minority. No one of us is compelled to agree with anybody else except insofar as we actually agree with them -- and that's your right as well, you aren't compelled to switch your vote to agree, until you really do agree. People are replying to your arguments on their merits as they understand them, not with any reference to your condition. Are people going after you for your condition in some other page than this one? Because they're not doing it here. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
  ^t/_c 19:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry about that. I've edited the formatting to reflect this. Anyway, NickTheRed37 once did due to the "1.4.6 controversy", explicitly stating that my condition was not a reason to revert text from a bug report to a "bad condition", and also threatened to treat deleting a message being equal to edit warring on an article. BDJP ^(t|c) 20:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  I think if it were me, I would also consider it disrespectful to invoke my condition like that. I see it's been eating you, and I hope people keep in mind to use a little more courtesy, going forward. I think when passionate disagreements like 1.4.2 bugfixes or sandstone merging happens, it's best to just put your idea out there, listen to one another's ideas with as much respect as you would give your own idea, and at the end of the day remember that you're one of many, and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. I believe in letting people talk and figure things out fresh, I'm not one for shutting down discussion, even if it was considered resolved not too long ago. Sometimes the first decision isn't the best, that's why it's never wrong to revisit. Anyway, sorry for straying from the Sandstone topic. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
  ^t/_c 22:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

BDJP007301 had quickly closed the new discussion, even after I replied with my changed decision. He thinks that given there is a consensus against already, no new arguments, like that real-life factor, will be at all applicable. I would also say that consensus must be based on applicable arguments (which also have their weight), not a number of users voting for/against, and thus closing of the original discussion wrong. — 👁 Image
NickTheRed37 (talk|contributions) 15:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The old discussion only closed less then a month ago, so I doubt enough opinions have changed to make a new discussion worth it, though I personally don't see why the new discussion must be closed, as long as it is not an excuse to ignore all the opinions from the old discussion (meaning, before implementing any changes, many people from the old discussion should agree too, as most of them figure they already stated their opinion, so no point stating it again). As we currently lack a policy on closing topics, if you think it relevant to discuss I would try either the MCT:PORTAL or the talk page guidelines.

As for the "applicable arguments", who is to decide what arguments are applicable? If your argument is good, people will agree, otherwise if people disagree, maybe their arguments are just as applicable. The reason number of comments makes the most sense is because there is no non-biased way to judge which side made the better case, so usually majority agreement decides. –KnightMiner ^t/_c 16:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally would never be opposed to reopening topics. As long as it doesn't turn into a game of quickly getting small consensus to overturn a previous large consensus, in order to justify some reversal on a decision, I don't see the harm in discussing. Even if the ideas are just rehashes or seemingly irrelevant to some people, that would make itself plain the the course of discussion, and people will vote, and it would be fine. My opinion. – Sealbudsman (Aaron) 👁 Image
^t/_c 19:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

NickTheRed37’s conclusion