Talk:Chain

Feedback (Sun, 14 Jun 2026 02:37:47 UTC)

Resolved

There should be a link that redirects to Dungeons: Chains.

--FeedbackBot 02:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That is what Chain (disambiguation) (linked at the top of this page) is for. Sightnado ^{t | c} 15:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Remove this page and Bars

There are only 2 variants of chains and bars. I believe overview pages should not exist when there are just two variants, like what we did on Nether fungus. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

 Strong oppose, deletion of bars, chain, and fence. (And for that matter; nor should nether brick fence be merged with fence; iron chain with copper chain, iron bars with copper bars) Each block shape is notable for a dedicated article page. Especially with fence; the "main baseline variant(s)" is ambiguous; and so aspects that apply to multiple variants should be loaded from the main page and not any subpage or page of a specific variant.

This isn't some sapling/fungi page with varying uses. With these blocks sharing the same block shape, the properties are common because of the block shape. The differences stem due to being a wooden or copper variant. And we have door, trapdoor already split and have overview pages. So there is no need to merge iron with copper, wood with nether break; nor deletion of the overview pages. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you are not getting the point. We are talking about two articles here. Why, when there are two separate but similarly functioning blocks, do there need to be three pages describing it, and why can't a reader just get all information relevant to the block, on that block's page?

The need of "overview pages" applies to splits covering many more pages but these aren't being discussed. This is nowhere near the level of work for editors, it's actually more work to maintain two pages and an overview than copying some info. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

The iron and copper variants can be merged back to this page. But the infoboxes have to stay separate; the iron and chain variants have to be in separate infoboxes and cannot share the same infobox. The same with wooden and nether brick fences. The history sections also have to remain separate for the iron/copper variants and the wooden/nether brick variants.

But this page (and the Bars and Fence page) cannot be deleted or redirected.

We can either keep this page; and merge the iron/copper variants back into this page (ditto with wooden fence and nether brick fence merged back into Fence)

Or we can keep this page; and leave the split iron/copper and wooden/nether brick pages separate.

But this page, and Fence and Bars as well; cannot be deleted or redirected.

But we should keep this page if there is a 3rd variant of bars, chains, or fences in the future. To merge copper with iron; or nether brick with wood; makes the article super confusing discussing 2 different types. Nether brick is not wood; and iron is not copper. That's why the history and infoboxes must have remain separate and cannot be merged; even if we decide to only do 1 article and eliminate split pages. But block shapes have article notability and warrant a dedicated article; so we ought to avoid deleting this page, Bars, or Fence. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You are again not getting the point. We're not discussing fences, and we're also not discussing merging pages. How should the Fence page affect what readers will find on Iron Bars? There is no need to follow consistency, we should just apply what's the most convenient for readers. And that's putting all info from Bars and Chain on the split pages. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

All info with bars and chains should be on the main Bars and Chain page. If split pages are needed then we can use additional pages for the iron and chain variants. But the main pages at Bars and Chain should not be removed. The block shape in of itself is enough for notability as a dedicated article. Delvin4519 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

If the pages are already split, then what benefit does the "overview" page provide over the split ones? How is that better than integrating all info into the split pages? MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 12:44, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

When it comes to the overview pages for block shape pages (bars, chain, fence, stairs, slab, wall, fence, door, trapdoor, button, pressure plate, etc); the overview pages function identically across all of these blocks shapes covering different materials (wood, copper, iron, nether brick, stone, dyed, etc.)

The overview pages for block shapes is supposed to cover properties pertaining to the block shape. The split pages covering individual material are supposed to cover properties pertaining to the individual material.

So info about copper oxidation, data values; wood flammability, iron needing redstone, is on the individual split page. Block states and opacity properties, belong on the overview page.

Bars, chain, and fence are all identical and much more simple, and the simplicity means fixing errors here is trivial. This isn't like a sapling/fungi/mushroom/tree page where information is so complex we get rid of the overview page for fungi/mushrooms. Nor is it like door or pressure plate where functionality is more complex, and warrants being on the individual page, or information is too scattered over the complexity.

The arguments seen here are basically the same as those in Forum:Merge single block features into their main articles where the argument was "why have 2 separate bare bones features when they can just be merged", and the response there was "one is a block, the other is a feature, they are not the same".

I don't see any need to deviate here or with the other block shapes (door, trapdoor, wall, stairs, slab, button, pressure plate).

One here is a block shape article covering attributes of the block shape. The other is a article covering properties of the individual material. But they are not the same.

The scope of the article is clearly defined. If something is broken, then correct it back to the proper scope. These are very simple block shapes. Correcting errors in these bars/chain/fence pages are as easy as fixing Kelp and Kelp (feature). This isn't a sapling/fungi/mushroom/pressure plate/door situation. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)