Talk:Sapling

Archives

1. 2010 – 2016
2. 2017 – 2026
3. Current page

Split mangrove propagule

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)

Sapling Split

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 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 strongly oppose! I even think that the sapling page should be merged with the mangrove propagule. DappledForestCat (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue with this is that there will be less consistency. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I  Oppose! Every sapling is almost the same. And cows and mooshrooms have different names and functions. But saplings have the same block space, same name(which is sapling) and same functionality! ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

True, kind of... Dark oak saplings need 4 saplings to grow. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I still  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. 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. amethyst_hhh 21:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

True. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2026 (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)

I have a strong opposition for this change. If this were to be carried out, all the logs will be split. I'll copy this into my userpage. 6767a (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2026 (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)

Good compromise! CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed! I Still very very very  Oppose!!!!!!! They all grow into trees, they are all saplings, and like I said before, the only difference is that 2 of them you HAVE to plant them in a 2x2. That's it! ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

 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 talk 19:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

 Support for the differences stated above. 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)

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

 Support 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) amethyst_hhh 18:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I also believe in consistency! CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

This case solidifies my  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. 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) 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. Ayaan 08:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

We could have one general page, and then we could also have a separate page for each sapling. I think that is a good compromise. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2026 (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 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 21:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

We can have both a general page for all sapling and one page for one sapling each. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

 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) 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)

Yes! Having other pages for each sapling while still keeping the general page is a good idea. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I definitely  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. Ayaan 09:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 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)

We can still keep this general page while having separate pages, if we don't compromise then we will get nothing done. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

 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  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. 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)

 Soft support - Ironic 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  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) 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 never 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) 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 21:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Armor and Helmet are general terms, while Leather Armor and Leather Cap are more specific. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:29, 28 August 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)

 Strong oppose. Trees are a feature, saplings are blocks amethyst_hhh 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)

Ah yes, merge the sapling page with the tree page. This is totally not going to confuse readers on why saplings and trees are merged into one page. It would be a mess. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 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)

 Oppose, there is not enough fundamentally different about the saplings other than the trees that they grow, which are already their own pages anyway. 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. 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? NmF (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we need a compromise? CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 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)

I think keeping both the original page and the separate page for the saplings is a good idea. CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

 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 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 ( 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)

YES! This is what I want! CrazyBros64 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Erring more on the  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)

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

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

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

 Support, this would greatly clean up the page. 🍀CloverDoor (talk)🍀 19:23, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose - Usually I am all for splitting pages, but, after reading through all the reasons for opposing and the reasons for supporting, I am convinced that the Sapling page should not be split.Drour1234 (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. ~2026-PillagerFlowerSculk17086 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Like what? Have a separate page for each color of concrete, concrete powder, wool, wool stairs, concrete stairs, harness and cauldron water? Not even talking about copper. 6767a (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! It wouldn't make sense! ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

What next. Should we argue about splitting Earth:sapling!😂😂😂😂😂 ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I made Poplar Sapling, feel free to fix templates. It’s on User:GoIden Dandelion/Sandbox, just scroll past the weird stuff GoIden Dandelion (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)GoIden Dandelion

 Strong oppose, per MinecraftBedrockPlayer7, and the article is not like it is very long or overwhelming, like Villager, which I am pretty sure was already split. For Villager, the page had info that didn’t need to be on a general villager page, and the professions have their own dedicated pages because villagers are complex mobs. Saplings are simple blocks that have one function, growing a tree, in addition to the decorative purposes. Slimeball (Talk) 12:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

 Strong oppose per @Slimeball

EnigmaBlock 14:59, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Reason? CrazyBros64 (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

 Strong Support per Mudscape -- DIPANSHU | TALK 15:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Reason? Please give reasons. CrazyBros64 (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

 Neutral Per Mudscape and Slimeball and MinecraftBedrockPlayer7. Redstone Engineer (T/C/S) 14:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

 Support Saplings should be split into its own page. DriveOfficialMC (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Could we not do something like the Doors page? Where there is one page overall discussing saplings and then separate pages highlighting only that sapling, like Copper Door or Iron Door? Redstone Engineer (T/C/S) 17:32, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The problem with that is that doors are made of different materials. Copper doors are made of copper, iron doors are made of iron and wooden doors are made of wood. The same thing is done with slabs, stairs, and walls. Slimeball (Talk) 17:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

It is for this reason why I have not bothered proposing re-merging doors/trapdoors/pressure plates/buttons/fences. It is because the wood group, copper group, are separate from the stone group and the non-copper metal group; and merging different groups is wholly problematic, especially for infoboxes that can handle wood, dyed, copper, stone individually just fine, but once we merge different groups in a single page, it creates all kinds of inconsistent and messy disorganized article layouts.

And now that dyed stairs and dyed slabs exist; a single merged page for all stairs and all slabs is just no longer feasible. The only possible case I can see is that all walls could be merged back, but none of the other ones (unless we want to merge all the non-dyed stone stairs/slabs together into just stone stairs and stone slabs).

I was initially writing about this in my own reply, but this reply here makes it easier to separate then, but I'm in no mood to clean up my original reply.

Saplings do not have any overlap of different groups. We have already split azaleas and nether fungi into separate pages. But the remaining saplings there is no reason to split, and the functionalities are common across the remaining saplings left on this page. Any differences between the remaining saplings left on this page are fine and acceptable on the current sapling page. With the differences with tree growing requirements, we can clean up duplicated information and just have the tree requirements listed on the individual tree pages only (rather than duplicating it here on the sapling page), and we can direct readers to the tree pages where they can find the tree requirements. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, Redstone Engineer has a point. Could it be possible to have a page separate from this page where we could have general sapling info related to all saplings (such as the main saplings, azaleas, flowering azaleas, and mangrove propagules) while leaving the mushroom/fungus info to a page like fungus or mushroom? This page would be like doors or stairs or slab, while the saplings for trees would be moved elsewhere. The only problem I see with this proposal is what the page on saplings for trees would be named. Slimeball (Talk) 19:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

We should keep the current sapling page as is at the current article title of just "Sapling". Perhaps we could create an additional page, perhaps at "Sapling (disambiguation)", or "Sapling (block type)" that would cover the general concept of saplings, mangrove propagates, azaleas, and nether fungi. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

In that situation, it would be a "set index", not a disambiguation. Not sure what the precedent for naming set indexes is, but it's a good idea. GC (talk contribs) 19:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I created a draft page for what a potential new sapling page would look like. A set index page could be useful for something like this, but my draft is what a sapling page would look like if it were like doors or stairs. Page: User:Slimeball/Draft/Sapling (new). Slimeball (Talk) 20:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Any such page like this cannot replace the existing sapling page; but even if we created a new page at a different name it would still cause the issue of scattered, duplicated information, and someone updates one page but not the other. Replacing and overwriting the existing sapling page would cause lost information and make it much harder to compare and contrast various saplings. Keeping the existing sapling page with links to mangrove propagule, and azalea, would be much preferable. Delvin4519 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

There were various several arguments here saying "a split is no problem because the general page is kept". However; these arguments always have failed to consider the fact that whenever we do any split; a lot of information gets removed from the general overview page.

Door is a particularly bad example; and I noted various issues when stairs had its split completed by the original users in favor of the original split. Though we were able to restore a little bit of the information to the overview page, door remains feeling particularly bad considering the fact it still got brought up here before my reply. The reason I say doors remain a poorly done split is how difficult it is to quickly compare and contrast aspects across wooden doors, copper doors, and iron doors. The pre-split door page became "wooden door", then Mudscape (the author of proposing most of the splits) recreated the door page, but with almost no info and just some amount of duplicate information already on the original door page that became wooden door, and I had to go through and re-add and restore the history section for the door page.

But whenever we restore the information back to the overview page, now updating the overview page and the split page becomes messy and disorganized, and prone to misinformation and outdated information when updates affect one of either the split or overview page, but both pages do not get the update/correction, only one of either the overview or split page. I would still soft support a re-merge of door/trapdoor/pressure plate/button/fence (though re-merging remains tricky since it's copper vs. non-copper metal vs. wood vs. stone one one page, usually if a split, it should just be wood vs. stone vs. copper vs. metal vs. dyed separately, so 5-6 pages max; which is why I mostly avoid proposing re-merging doors/trapdoor/pressure plate/button/fence), as well as a more strongly a re-merge of all walls (but not stairs or slabs, but stone stairs and stone slabs could be re-merged; but all walls remains the strongest contender for re-merging).

I think with saplings, we already provide a preexisting table currently linking to all the individual tree pages. We should just direct readers who want to know about the growth requirements of trees, to visit the individual tree page about the tree they want to grow, to view the growing requirements for their tree. Otherwise, a split of saplings remains wholly unnecessary and overkill. Saplings do not have much information worth duplicating or splitting. Saplings are identical and share common functionalities. Individual information about trees are already listed on our current preexisting individual tree pages. Our tree pages function the same role as the split dye pages. But we keep all dyed products (wool, terracotta, etc.) and tree-derived products (sapling, leaves, logs, stripped wood, planks) merged. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I Still strongly  Oppose!!! That would be like us wanting to split the ore page! It just makes no sense! ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The ore pages are split. NmF (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

It is possible the reference was intended to refer to the concept of splitting deepslate ore variants from stone variants. (Which I do not support). Right now for all overworld ores, we currently have deepslate variants merged with the stone variants per each individual ore. Delvin4519 (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

There not split. Look at it ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I am changing my mind to  Support this split, mainly because this page is getting confusing. Azalea and mangrove propagules, functioning effectively the same as saplings, are not here and that is the biggest issue for readers at the moment. It wouldn't cause big problems to split this, and it allows us to rewrite this page so we can better inform about azalea and mangrove propagules, and also mushrooms and Nether fungi.

Over the past years I've seen many good splits and some bad splits, and I believe this could be a good split, together with Leaves being split.

My main reason to oppose is because I think that pages should be merged whenever it doesn't negatively affect readers. Having many leaves, trees, and some sapling-like blocks split and all the sudden these random blocks not does negatively affect readers. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

 Weak support for a full sapling split only if the merged article has mangrove propagules, azaleas, (and perhaps maybe nether fungi (especially) & small mushrooms tangentially related as well) re-added to the merged page. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

 Support In addition to different leaf drops and natural generation, the section about growing trees is mostly listing differences between different saplings. Usually, when looking for this information, there's a single wood type in mind and it's hard to find the specific type information scattered among other wood types. Miner (talk contributions) 15:44, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

 Support Per arguments above. Redstone Engineer (T/C/S) 18:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Feedback (Tue, 21 Apr 2026 23:11:13 UTC)

Resolved

I prefer related items like these to be kept on one page so it is easier to compare and contrast the differences.

--FeedbackBot 23:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Feedback (Tue, 30 Jun 2026 18:18:51 UTC)

Resolved

the Propagule is not in the article it is a sapling right???

~2026-DragonPigIllusioner18710 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a hatnote since it's a bit different to other saplings, sort of. See mangrove propagule for more info on it. I think including it in this page, especially if it is ever split, can be useful. Actually, eh. TheCaptainYaya 18:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Mangrove propagules were split from this page since they have some significant differences from saplings; see the Split mangrove propagule discussion above. The Mangrove Propagule page is linked in the hatnote at the top of the page and in the See also section near the bottom. Rampage455 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I know! It should be put back. DappledForestCat (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No

I think we should not split the saplings into independent pages

1:it would be way to much work

2:every sapling page would be ALMOST identical

And 3: its WAY to controversial to proced. ~2026-ParrotIllusionerBadlands12796 (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think so to the point that I think that mangrove propagules should be merged back to saplings DappledForestCat (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's A good idea ~2026-ParrotIllusionerBadlands12796 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep it this way. 6868a (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2026-LapisAllayDeepslate26385 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Feedback (Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:30:53 UTC)

Unresolved

claims that saplings can be grown on any block as of a 1.18 snapshot with no removal date. this is not a feature, at least not in modern versions

~2026-IslandCatRabbit32712 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)