Talk:Sapling

The article does a good job explaining how much space each sapling needs above in order to grow. Don't saplings also need a certain amount of space around? -98.246.128.140 05:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This sentence doesnt make any sense to me: ".. spruce can also grow on farmland, and 2×2 trees check for dirt or grass only under the northwestern-most sapling." 178.155.238.164 18:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That means that you can plant saplings in a 2x2 space, instead of just 1 sapling, uses 4 in total. Normally, saplings require a certain block type to grow into a tree. If you do 1 sapling, it needs dirt or grass under it. If you grow them in a 2x2 grid, it only checks under the northwestern most (face North in game, and look at the sapling on the far left, that is Northwest) sapling. Presumably, the block under that sapling and only that one needs to be dirt or grass for the entire 2x2 tree to grow. If it isn't clear after that, idk how else to explain it. 32.212.102.239 06:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In 16.1, when creating a superflat creative world with a layer of oak saplings and flying up vertically, I found that the trees formed a smooth circle that didn't extend out to the full render distance, and didn't have the jagged edges we'd expect if it were based solely on chunk loadedness. So there must be a maximum distance from the nearest player, beyond which saplings don't grow. Should the article indicate what this distance is? (With acacia, dark oak and birch saplings, the circle does seem to follow chunk edges; jungle and spruce saplings won't grow if they fill the entire layer, nor will crimson or warped fungi.) Seahen (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I came here specifically looking for this information. JadedDragoon (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, that distance is for random ticks in genral, look up the gamepedia page for randomticks for that stuff.--80.101.24.9 16:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Boas

I think I know why saplings change, but here's a quick list of things that have to happen: 1. The world has be loaded in Beta 1.4_01 or older. 2 Saplings have to exist on the ground, chest, inventory, or furnace. And the converting reason is probably because the saplings used to share the similar item id (ex. 4/0 4/1 4/2 4/3, where as an example the items are 4/0 = White Wool, 4/1 = Red Wool, 4/2 = Purple Wool, and 4/3 = Black Wool) saplings did this. Another note is if the world is loaded too fast like loading a Beta 1.6.5 world in 1.13 converting will not happen. Anyways, the item ids most likely are the reason the sapling change from worlds. Iuyfgdejkourfychnm (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be necessary to clarify the information about 28 seedlings in the natural generation section and transfer it to the chest loot table

Mangrove propagules are obtained in a fundamentally different way from other saplings, and they are also grown differently (they can be waterlogged, they create muddy mangrove roots, and they have 4 growth stages instead of 2). What makes even less sense is to put propagules in the sapling page, but have a separate page for azaleas, along with the fact that mangroves have a separate page from trees. I propose that we have 3 separate sapling pages: sapling, azalea, and mangrove propagule. Edit: The alternative is to merge azalea, but I'm not really in favor of this. Blobs2 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree completely. Mangrove propagule should be on a separate page from saplings. Perhaps a link between the pages would be appropriate. SirDaddicus (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. I wanted information about Mangrove Propagule, but was redirected here unexpectedly. I think we can agree they are both "blocks used to grow a tree" but I don't consider them a "sapling" when they are both named different and behave differently-- Twisted Code a.k.a. Macks2010 (Talk) 16:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and split out the propagule material to Mangrove Propagule as a standalone article. Amatulic (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! SirDaddicus (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone should rewrite the first sentence:" A sapling is a non-solid block that can be grown into a tree." into "A sapling is a non-solid block that can be grown into a tree. (except azaleas)." Enderpixel199 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Not needed. Azalea already has a separate page. BDJP ^(t|c) 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

In currect Growing trees section, it says that "Oak needs at least 5 spaces above (3×3 column) to grow normally. If a block is present in the growth space (but not directly above the sapling), the tree still grows, but is forced to grow a large variant." However, when I test in game I find out that solid blocks do not prevent oak sapling from growing unless they occupied one of the 1×4×1 space above the sapling (where should be trunk). Other saplings' situations are similar to above (too wide). Is current information wrong or outdated? Don Trueno (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Sapling#Post-generation Do cherry trees drop more saplings or do they just have many more leaves? Because when I cut a cherry tree I get so many saplings. I am a noob, sorry if I asked something stupid. 79.11.19.155 09:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is random chance so it is possible to cut down say an oak tree and have every leave drop a sapling, but I will check just to make sure. CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked minecraft loot table folder and the chances seem to be the same. CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I just checked that section and there is no typo. BDJP ^(t|c) 04:00, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Each sapling should have their own article. They are all seperate blocks. I know that there very similar but all villager professions are literally the same mob and they each got their own page, so why not saplings. CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Villager professions got their own pages because they all have different trades. See Talk:Villager#Split villagers by profession 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Different saplings grow into different trees(which already have there own seperate pages), they have diferent methods of obtaining, different requirments for growing, and mangrove propagule has already been split. I know that's because mangrove propagules are different, but its easy to see how huge the page is. They may be similar, but so are cows and mooshrooms, and they have seperate pages, so why shouldn't saplings be split? CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I still 👁 Image
 Oppose. The only difference, other than the one that needs to be in a 2×2 square to grow, is that they grow into different trees. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

User page drafts have already been started and it is probably too late to oppose. 245e (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

They shouldn't've been created if there was no consensus. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In that case they can stay in the userspace. No one says "well the page is already created, we must move ahead no matter the opposition". Long ago I supported splitting all the undyed blocks, but one user insisted undyed blocks do not be split. I've left those pages in the userspace since then. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You thinking that's the only difference proves this page needs to be split. CrockCraftMC (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

And that difference has to do with the tree, and not the sapling. If we decided that the wiki should split over "a single difference", then we'd end up with so many unnecessary split hard to find pages with information scattered all over the place. A single difference means we can still keep some pages merged just fine. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Same. I think we shouldn’t split the page. 6767a (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

We should have a page for each sapling and a general sapling page. 6767a (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - mangrove propagule already has it's own page. There are a lot of differences in how the saplings are used with regards to space requirements and either one or 4 saplings required to grow. I think that it will be easier to learn about the different saplings if they have their own pages. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 19:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support for the differences stated above. 👁 Image
QwertyLilley [ talk ] 22:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is a draft for oak sapling if the page is split: User:CrockCraftMC/sandbox/Oak Sapling CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

So are we gonna split this page or what? CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Villager professions interact differently with several game systems, such as job site, trading, an Hero of the Village. Saplings function as block variants, like logs, planks, or copper blocks. Those blocks similarly have different methods of obtaining but interact with game systems the same. The sapling variants themselves don't function differently, the trees do, which is already covered on their respective pages. GeberWolf (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, as per both CrockCraftMC and Mudscape 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
05:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
Ja17 05:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

If we are splitting this page, we should split the other wood types. (Such as planks) 245e (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not the same, saplings have many differences such as how to grow and how common they are from leaves drops. Aside from nether planks and bamboo planks, all planks are the same except for there apearence. You can suggest for planks to be split, but it doesn't affect this split. CrockCraftMC (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It is just for consistency. 245e (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Funny enough, one of the reasons I suggested this was to be constistant with trees, which already have sperate pages. CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I know, it is just because all of the other wood type-related blocks are in a page together. I would like a page split for Leaves, Wooden Door, Wooden Trapdoor, Wooden Fence, Fence Gate, Wooden Slab, Wooden Stairs, Planks, Shelf, Wooden Button, Wooden Pressure Plate, Sign, Hanging Sign, Log, Stripped Log, Wood, and Stripped Wood. The pages not being split just bugs me and especially when Mojang adds a new wood type. 245e (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You can request this but please request it in there respective pages. CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I know, but I forgot to mention it above. 245e (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

If it affects that many pages it'd probably be best to do it somewhere more general, such as the com portal (i dont know if that'd warrant a forum page, but I'd assume not) 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This case solidifies my 👁 Image
 strong opposition in my original reply to this topic, and extending to mushrooms as well. Some reader or editor is always going to make this as basis for splitting the entire wiki into hard to reach bits and pieces that readers will have a hard and difficult time finding. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. This will split each block as its own page. Which is completely standard for the wiki. The information will be in the same order as always and we always include the disambiguation oage st the top. If you think this will make the wiki hard to gather information on, then the whole premise of the wiki needs reforming. Additionally, the sapling page will (probably) be kept, like Nether fungus, so we have more articles, making it even easier to find information, broad or specific. 👁 Image
Ayaan 05:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The reason why we don't want to split every single block and item is because we usually want to get readers on a single page where they can find complete information on a subject. Splitting the page, well, splits information, or else you're just duplicating. For example, with these saplings, this page currently describes what each individual sapling does (which tree it grows, how, and where to obtain), and it makes it easy to find differences or compare saplings. We only want to split pages if the current (merged) page is overwhelming or confusing, which is not the case here. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
07:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't work when I want to see a page solely for the oak sapling. Additionally, there are more unique sentences than generalised.

This page is the epitome of bloat as it has so much extra information about other blocks that I wouldn't care for if I'm searching only for the oak sapling. The reason we need a split is because you already have the ability to search generally while I have to navigate through the cherry, dark oak, jungle, birch saplings to find information about the oak sapling. 👁 Image
Ayaan 08:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone is using the split of saplings to justify splitting every single wood derived block. If every single wood derived block was split into individual pages; the wiki will become an incomprehensible unreadable mess where no one can find what they are looking for. It would become impossible to update every single wood related block with new update changes in due time due to all the extra load placed for contributors of the wiki. The fact that someone can do that is not something we can allow to degrade the readability of the wiki. As such we can’t afford to allow such situations to result. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

How come trees have seperate pages, nether fungi has seperate pages, and yet saplings gets so much back lash. The splitting of saplings has nothing to do with the splitting of every other wooden block. Saplings work in different ways, planks are the same block with different textures. This page is already being split, I don't know why there are still no comments in this topic. CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Trees generate differently. This is a difference in tree generation. Tree generation should go in the pages about individual tree pages. Saplings haven’t grown into trees yet. People see saplings as individual blocks. Trees are generated features and generated world features have more leeway in being split since they are all unique and not just retextured blocks. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

All of these points have been refuted countless times by various people over the course of multiple years. I really do not understand what is motivating you so strongly to lie like this, to be so wrong despite everything, but please understand that these points have not had any weight for a long time. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

In the end the question is what is the wiki for ? A useful and efficient location to find information for new and experienced users ?

Splitting everything up "because we have to" can influence the site accessibility in a negative way. There should be more reasons then "because other topics do it as well".

Personally as a user i find the central location of the saplings more easy to use and effective. The differences are too minor to warrant a split up. For saplings with a lot more differences a separate page has been made.

If we split it up i have to open 7+ pages and switch between them all the time if i need information and compare their differences. This is a negative effect for the user.

An example as movie collector. I sort them in the cabinet based on title. That is the rule. Should i follow that rule blindly ? Then you have titles like "The Da Vinci Code" or "The Equalizer". Suddenly all there are a lot of titles under "T". I choose, for usefulness reasons to take the second part of the title. The D in The Da Vinci Code and E for The Equalizer. Same thought applies to saplings. Tanj (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why site accessibility is negatively impacted by splitting? You as a reader that prefers one very large page are not negatively affected by splitting, because when you search for that central page you will still find it, but a user that instead searches for just one sapling will not get all the other fluff. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Mudscape. - Ssysi - talk 04:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose, the current sapling page is perfectly fine. Simply look at the obtaining and usage sections, they're not very long and describe each sapling well. Splitting the page is just duplicating a lot of information and spreading it, while it's just not necessary. Not every page needs to be split. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
06:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

We will keep the current page pretty much exactly as it is now, there will just be additional pages to sort of act as a filter. CrockCraftMC (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I definitely 👁 Image
 support this as follows the consistency for the split pages for flowers and planks. They do not share any common feature except for one; that bonemeal + sapling = tree and that they share the same last name. This is clearly not enough to separate them as mushrooms are (becoming) in progress to being split despite sharing identical qualities as the sapling. Additionally, this clearly hasn't stopped the planks article; also sharing the same last name and features.

The argument that duplicate information will made across articles cannot be made as there is more uniquely identifying features for each sapling than there is generalised. Surely a paragraph that fits for every split sapling article cannot weigh more than actual unique qualities littered throughout. 👁 Image
Ayaan 09:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose. - Too much of a can of worms and a dam breaking loose and open. Soon this will sprial in a domino effect. Soon people will be clamoring to split leaves, logs, and then every wood derived product and dyed material would end up getting individual articles.

See MinecraftBedrockPlayer7's response. I will repeat verbatim:

“

Simply look at the obtaining and usage sections, they're not very long and describe each sapling well. Splitting the page is just duplicating a lot of information and spreading it, while it's just not necessary. Not every page needs to be split.

„

— MinecraftBedrockPlayer7

Delvin4519 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Leaves, logs, and wood are literly just the same blocks with slightily different textures. Saplings have complely seperate uses from eachother. When going through the planks page, they all serve the exact same purpose and do the exact same thing. Saplings behave differently and grow differently. Your right that not every page needs to be split. But I'm asking to split a pge that list a few plants that barely behave the same way, not to split sheep into a different page for every single color. CrockCraftMC (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned this in a reply above. The differences have to do with how to get trees grow. Trees are different, so that is why the requirements to create them vary. But it is a difference of trees, not a difference of saplings. We can keep trees split, but saplings itself do not carry the differences inherently. The difference is with the trees. Ditto with the bee nests. They are to do with the tree and not the sapling. To be frank, that should just be on the individual tree pages and not on the sapling page. But saplings itself doesn't need to be split. Delvin4519 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The trees that have no code associated with them are the cause, not the literal thing that causes the tree to be placed? That makes no sence at all. Trees are a feature. That's like saying /place structure trial_chambers is a trial chamber thing, and there for all information should be put on that page. CrockCraftMC (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The information about trial chambers is on the trial chambers page. The command page only covers information about the command. For saplings it is the same thing. You can place a sapling anywhere. The tree only grows in specific circumstances. Those circumstances belong on the tree page for how to grow/obtain the tree. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -Drour1234 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Weak opposition I don't see the need to split this page because the current page is already organized and the new split pages will be very similar, changing only some generation information and how to plant them. I also don't see much reason not to divide this page, but the main problem with this is if we start to divide everything of wood. Perhaps adding sapling information to the tree page (as suggested with spawn eggs/entities) would be a good option, keeping this article as an overview. In any case, I remain slightly opposed to this proposal, perhaps also due to the additional work of having to update several pages and also translate into other languages.
  — Herobrine222376 ^{( Talk | Contributions | pt-br )} 18:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that there isn't a lot that separates the different saplings besides the growing pattern for dark oak saplings and what tree they grow into so unless someone points out a more significant difference between the saplings I don't think that splitting the sapling page is a very good idea. Also even though mangrove propagules have been split that is a special case and technically they aren't even saplings, even though they still grow into trees.--Fast385 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Number one, it's not just dark oak saplings, pale oaks saplings have that behavior too. In addition to that, spruce and jungle saplings grow into a different tree when planted in a 2x2 pattern. Number two, crimson and warped fungus have there own pages, and there is no way that's just because one can be crafted into warped fungus on a stick. Number three, they are much different from eachother than say, planks. They grow into different things and have different requirements. The only reason they are the on the same page at this point is because there name is tree type + sapling. If mangrove propagules were called mangrove saplings, they would probably still be on this page. CrockCraftMC (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Throwing in a 👁 Image
 Strong Support - the main advantage I see here is that the tree articles are already separate: oak, birch, etc. Plus, different saplings have quite unique and sometimes obscure (and sometimes buggy) requirements for when they can grow, which I think would much better be documented with separate pages. | violine1101 ^(talk) 11:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the only sapling already split from this article is the mangrove propagule. It's still a sapling for all intents and purposes and should be included in this article, which should serve as an overview over all saplings. | violine1101 ^(talk) 20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I think mangrove propagule is split because of it's hanging version. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I would say either all of the saplings should get split or the mangrove propagule should be merged back into the general Sapling page. Fast385 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support - Ironic 👁 Image
08:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Overall, I think we are in favor of splitting the page, if anyone still has a reason the page shouldn't be split, please respond to this comment. CrockCraftMC (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I, and a few other people are still 👁 Image
 strongly opposing. I think the wiki is already getting very much bloated with completely unnecessary articles that are only duplicating/separating information that easily fits on one page (seriously, why are we getting pages on Armor, Leather Armor, Helmet, and Leather Cap while they are all covering the same thing??). We should just stop splitting it "because it's a different block" - we should decide what's the best format to distribute information to readers. Provide arguments about that instead of listing the differences between these blocks or talking about consistency with tree pages. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
19:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of pages are being split that being split(do we really need a page on every single armor trim) but that shouldn't stop us from splitting pages entirely. I feel like if this doesn't get split, a lot of other Besides, listing differnces between these blocks is how you split a page. They only real similarity they have is the name. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What I mean is that we should split a page when the content fits on one page fine, and I don't see a single problem with this page. The only real similarity they have is the name - that's just not true. All saplings are exactly the same, except a few saplings which grow 4x4 and some generated loot, but that's no reason to split it. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
20:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay then, what similarities do they have. They grow into trees, okay, lets get everything that grows into trees on this page. They drop form leaves, we better get all ores on the same page because they all drop from ore blocks. They aren't solid, okay, so are like at least 25% of all blocks. CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain why any reader would be benefited by merging Leather Cap into Helmet, or by merging Helmet into Armor? - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This is just starting to feel like a discussion to split because "we ran out of things to split". We have already listed a lot of reasons for why we should not split this specific case. The differences have to do with the tree, not the sapling. Saplings have identical placement mechanics. However, trees having different growing requirements. We can keep the sapling page merged, but have the tree articles split. One covers a block that is identical, the other covers a world generation feature that is vastly different between variants. We should not just scatter and duplicate information all over the place. There are situations where splits make sense and where it is logical to keep the pages merged. This instance is one where it's best to leave this merged and deal with the differences on the split tree pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The trees do not have different growing requirments, the saplings have different requirements for growing into trees. Saplings are really not that similar at all. I have hear tons of differences and a lot of people saying they are the same, but I don't think I have 1 reason why they are the same. They just have a few similar mechanics that's all. The name is a big part too. If mangrove propagules were called mangrove saplings they would still be on this page. There are tons of other pages that should be merged, such as smithing templates, but there are also some pages that are being overlooked. Nether Fungus is split, Mushroom is split. Azeala leaves and mangrove propagules aren't on this page. The name is really the only reason all the blocks are still on the same page. All of the pages are already being made and a few are even complete. Every time someone says the difference is the trees that is incorrect information. Trees are features and all information that needs to be on the page is on the page. I'm not just trying to split this page for the sake of it, I'm trying to split it so that readers can read about a block without having to read info on tons of unrelated blocks. As time goes on and more saplings are added this page will start to become a bloated mess so can we stop that before it starts. CrockCraftMC (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are not different requirements for saplings. Those are different requirements for growing into trees. All saplings have the same hitbox and placement mechanics. You are discussing the process for obtaining trees. If a reader wants to know how to grow a tree, they would find it on the tree page. Growing into trees is a common usage among saplings but it is not necessarily the only use of saplings. The trees having different properties is the difference and we already have split pages for trees so we can keep the articles concise instead of making a million different articles about the same thing. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

How else would you grow a tree? — BabylonAS 19:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Saplings can be used to grow trees; but it is not the only use. Trees themselves have different growing characteristics and so we cover the growing requirements for trees in the individual tree pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I’ve asked, is there any other way to grow trees without using saplings? — BabylonAS 19:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

If a reader is looking for information on growing trees, then the tree article is the logical location to provide the information. The trees having different articles are where we would list the size and space requirements to arrange saplings to grow the tree. Saplings themselves all have the same placement mechanics. What placement that allows the tree to grow specifically is the limitation and differences between the trees themselves. The sapling page discusses the saplings themselves and would point readers to the tree pages when mentioning saplings can be used to grow trees. If a reader wants to know how to grow trees and what the growing requirements are to grow the tree, they can read the tree article. If a reader wants to know how to obtain saplings and what saplings can be used for, they can read the sapling article. But growing trees is not the sole only use of saplings. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

So can we grow trees without saplings or no? Stop evading my questions. — BabylonAS 20:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

No one said they don’t. This split proposal is a proposal to split saplings over a difference that has to do with trees and not the sapling. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Then what if instead of giving saplings there one page, we added the informtion on how to get and grow them on the tree page. The history section might be a little weird but aside from that it could possible work. CrockCraftMC (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose. Trees are a feature, saplings are blocks 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

We are discussing properties of trees that are listed on the sapling page. We are not merging saplings and trees. This is not understanding what the issue is currently is. Delvin4519 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support Some of the saplings are actually not 100% renewable, as when you grow them from a tree, there is a slight chance that you don't get any saplings back from it (Some can be obtained through other means, so they are 100% renewable). Splitting the page would allow for explanations on this for each individual type, and the effect is a bit different for dark oak and jungle. Cobl703 (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose, there is not enough fundamentally different about the saplings other than the trees that they grow, which are already their own pages anyway. 👁 Image
Sightnado ^{t | c} 06:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

So again, its a pretty even split between support and oppose. I will say that one of the main reasons people are opposing is because they are they have to many similaries, but no one has really stated what similarites they have aside from growing into trees. I still maintain it would make no since to add the growing requirement to the tree page when trees are just features when the sapling is what actually grows. From the already created pages there is definitly enough info for them to be split into seperate pages, and it makes no sence for such a basic block to have such a large page. They are just as similar as grass and podzal, or zombies and husks. Until someone actually states a reason why these blocks are to similar to avoid splitting, I don't see any problems. CrockCraftMC (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You say they are just as similar as grass and podzol. Grass blocks and podzol are similar, but not as similar as saplings are. You also say that nobody stated what similarities they have aside from growing trees, but you can just look at the usage section like people said and they have a lot of similarities. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

They can also be composted was like the only other similairity. Growing into trees isn't exclusive to saplings either. Even if they are similar, they have enough differnces to be split, which in my opinion is much more important. Its not even going to hurt anything if they are split. If anything it's benificial to the reader to be able to read about a specific sapling. Plus, you can't just say Grass and Podzal are less similar then saplings and then not provide any reason why. CrockCraftMC (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

What about using them as fuel and putting them in flower pots, those are similarities. Also what other blocks can grow a tree? 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. If the reader wants to read about a specific sapling, it's currently a little tricky to do that. The similarities mentioned, apart from the primary usage, are pretty minor -- a lot of things can be used as fuel or placed in a flower pot. Sure, only saplings can be grown into trees. (According to tree, the only post-generation method is saplings -- sure they can generate naturally but no other block can be used to grow trees, unless huge fungi are counted as trees.) But these trees also have their own characteristics, hence why they were split.

Also, don't forget. If a reader wanted to know about saplings in general, the overview page would still exist. The split pages are just an aid for someone looking stuff up about a specific sapling. And also, don't forget that splitting one page doesn't mean others have to be split. These things are determined case by case and while cases can be used as precedents, they don't objectively mean anything.

So to put it short: the opposition has some very valid reasons, but they aren't exactly showing why that means that individual pages can't exist. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  17:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

My only worry is that the original page is going to be reworked. Having all the general info for all saplings (especially stuff like loot tables) in one place is extremely beneficial so I don't have to jump between 8 different tabs. Shadowblitz (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The page would be reworked a bit, but it'd be similar to smithing template, which still has an overview of all the info you need. It'd just be much more compact because there's more space on the individual articles. | violine1101 ^(talk) 21:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - If a reader searches for cherry sapling, just tell them about cherry sapling. The hypothetical negatives of splitting have been objectively disproven over the years, why this is till controversial is a deep mystery. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
21:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the controversy of splitting in general comes from the lack of a clear consensus about what should be on an overview page. I think there is a large group of users who want overview pages to contain as much info as possible, but there is another large group of users who think some info should only be on the split, or "children" pages to prevent duplicate info. Not all overview pages have been created equally. For example, the Smithing Template page contains most of the info you could ever want to know about smithing templates, and I think is probably the best example of an overview page. But pages like Helmet, Leggings, and Chestplate have had some info removed such as generated loot or natural generation; that info only appears on the split pages. If I added that info back, would it be noncontroversial, or would someone undo the change citing a DIG-related reason? With the smithing template page, a nice compromise seems to have been reached where there is one page with almost all of the info, and several pages about individual templates to appease everyone. I think if split proposals would contain a guarantee that most of info on a page would remain intact, there wouldn't be as much controversy.

Our terminology may also be problematic. Maybe a page like Smithing Template is actually a "reference" page rather than an "overview" page. Maybe the Smithing Template page wasn't really "split" in the traditional sense and we need another term for that. Rampage455 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Smithing Template is definitely one of the best overview pages; Flower is also pretty good. IMO overview pages should still be as complete as possible and highlight differences between variants. For this reason I find Door (and similar pages) among the worst in this regard: the one major difference between wooden/copper and iron doors is never mentioned anywhere, and even the crafting recipes were removed. I don't have a strong opinion on splitting saplings (👁 Image
 Weak support), but if that happens I'd like the overview page to be kept more similar to the former examples than the latter.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 04:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Nerdyguy2000 and Harri. –LauraFi - talk 08:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Erring more on the 👁 Image
 Support side. The oft-mentioned tree growth requirements (arguably the most useful info on individual saplings) are just as relevant to the saplings as to the trees themseslves because saplings (and equivalents like azalea blocks or mangrove propagules) are the only way to grow trees after initial generation. Also, only a subset of tree subvariants can be grown from saplings, and those can all be listed on each sapling article. Note that this split should not be used to justify splitting other tree/wood-related articles. — BabylonAS 08:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Ofcourse. Saplings are all different while other wood related blocks have no differnces aside from nether woods don't burn. CrockCraftMC (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the problem is the usage of the world "split". we not literally splitting the page, we are just creating additional pages to go with the existing one. I've also heard that the tree that grows being the only difference(which is not true) isn't enough to split the page. The only reason multiple blocks or items should ever be on the same page is because they literally function identicly to each other. Aside from nether planks not burning, all planks behave exactly the same, which is why they are on the same page. If things were on the same page because they were "relatively similar", then pretty much all items would be on the page, all zombie variants would be on the same page, heck even horses and donkeys might be on the same page. At the end of the day the reason this wiki exists is to help players understand minecraft. I started with split because I wanted info on why my pale oak saplings weren't growing and was annoyed I had to go through info on all the other saplings just to get to pale oak, and if this split can help 1 person, it can probably help so many more. At the end of the day the point of the wiki isn't to cram as much info on 1 page as possible, but to make it a easily accessible guide to all things on minecraft. CrockCraftMC (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -- 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 17:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Yes of course! That would be way better for all saplings. KorayTehGOAT (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support CubeCode94 (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

HI, anyone know why it create mega pine instead of mega spruce and its req to create mega spruce? ty QuocAnh102 (talk) 10:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

It's random, no way to force to get either. CrockCraftMC (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Splits do not affect your ability to do that because the combined page is kept. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
23:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

~2026-RavagerTerracottaHusk10215 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2026 (UTC)