Should we split the Bedrock NBT question into different questions for each possible workaround?

Question

Here is a link to the famous Minecraft BE NBT question, giving you all the info you need about NBT in Minecraft Bedrock (mostly the fact that it's impossible, except for some workarounds).

I've seen a small comment discussion on the question that got me interested. It suggests that the question become the duplicate target for impossible NBT requests, and have separate questions for each workaround. This, according to pppery and cherryblossom, will prevent the question from becoming a megathread for all your BE NBT needs.

Because comment discussions don't usually get much traction, I'd like to open this one up to the community by posting it here. Do you think it's a good idea to carry out the requests? Why or why not, and how can we start?

---

To say YES, upvote this post. To say NO, downvote it. My reputation is not affected by meta up/down votes, so not a problem.

---

Visit the list of proposed changes.

---

Project status

The project has been completed.

Answer 1

Yes

In any other context, a question that asked "how do I make items placable on other blocks", "how do I create charged creepers", "how go I give players custom potions", and so many other things would be closed as "Needs more focus".

The fact that all of these things had the same "this is impossible" answer justified the original creation of the broad question, but it has now clearly gone astray from its intended purpose.

Answer 2

I think we've indeed been overconsolidating the NBT thing. A large fraction of recent close/duplicate votes have been exactly pointing to this particular NBT question. It's turning into a black hole for all bedrock command questions.

Yes, many things that are quick and easy to do in java edition due to the existence of NBT are harder to do in bedrock because of its absence. But many of these questions are not, in strict sense, duplicates. Especially when I see multiple cases of such closed questions getting a clever workaround answer later anyway that doesn't involve NBT in the first place, even if it takes 50 commands, 16 tons of redstone, and a massive complicated construction to do.

In all cases; most attributes of in-game objects can be modded anyway. While technical support for modding is off-topic, pointing out which json value to change where in order to modify a monster, item, etc. in some way that NBT exposed in JAVA but no longer in Bedrock would be on-topic, especially since NBT basically is in-memory modding anyway (compared to mods just changing those same JSON parameters on the hard drive).

I've even seen new askers explicitly mention the NBT question: they want to know if some non-NBT solution to their new problem, not mentioned anywhere in the canonical, exists. Yet even those still get flagged as duplicate, even when in some cases the answer turns out to be Yes.

When answering such questions, what about this modus operandi? There are three cases:

No possible workaround

• If you for-sure know that there's no possible workaround, check if a text describing what the user is trying to do is included within the consolidated question. This is important, since otherwise...

New users searching for the problem via google will not find the consolidated question if it does not contain the problem whose only solution is NBT. Let's say that NBT is required to

let a mob drop a note when killed by a specific player

The consolidated question should contain a list of things where we think NBT is required to be able to do these things, including (hypothetically here, in reality for me I don't know would be my answer)

dropping configurable items

conditionally dropping items

, so there's a clear description in the linked canonical question that what the user is trying to do is not possible, with a link to that part of the canonical question. New users can't comment, give bounties, or easily communicate, so will litter the site with duplicate questions if they can't find the canonical question, or can't find why their specific problem must involve NBT.

Then, and only then, should the question be closed as a duplicate. If it's not immediately obvious to a non-expert player why, a comment should be provided with the necessary logic as to why the use of the missing NBT commands is a necessity. If this logic is too long to fit in a comment, the question should simply be answered with said logic, not closed as a duplicate.

You know the workaround

• If you happen to know a workaround (which tends to be harder to do);

Link to the canonical question as related in describing how NBT would be used to solve in the JAVA version, then conclude with describing your workaround, and the possible caveats or limitations it might involve. It can be as easy as using another command, or as hard as having to write a modpack to get your desired changes implemented.

You don't know the workaround

• If you don't know a workaround, but do know a way of doing it with NBT: the most common case;

Leave a comment stating how in JAVA it can be done easily with NBT, but you don't know the answer for Bedrock, with a link to the canonical question. (So it shows up as linked/related), iff it isn't already pointed out by the asker.

Marking questions as duplicates when your 'duplicate' has a completely different title

Here's several resources on this meta pointing out why being too quick to label things as duplicate can be problematic:

• Is a question a duplicate just because it asks for something that can be part of another question's answer?
• Should different questions that yield similar/duplicate answers be closed?
• Duplicate Questions: A New Look

Answer 3

There has never been a definitive set of rules for the closures as duplicates, so I'll post what I think the community has silently agreed on doing:

Latest duplicate closure instructions

This post details the most up-to-date rules for closure of Bedrock Edition NBT requests.

• The post can be solved completely with one or more of the workarounds listed on the list: Vote/flag to close as a duplicate of that workaround. If more than one apply, vote to close for one, and add a comment telling others to vote to close as duplicate of the others. Do not vote/flag duplicate of 334102—the question should be closed as duplicate of all applicable workarounds but not 334102.
• Some of the workarounds apply, but there is still an unsolvable problem in there: Vote/flag to close as one of the workarounds, and add a comment saying that the problem is unsolvable, but those workarounds would be applicable—the question should be closed as duplicate of all applicable workarounds and 334102
• The problem is completely unsolvable: If you are sure that the problem cannot be solved, flag/vote to close as duplicate of 334102 only.

---

Important additional note: Using an NBT editor to modify item properties

It has been decided that using an NBT editor to modify item properties is now considered an official workaround for BE NBT—even though it's not really a workaround because it actually modifies NBT itself. This is because once the item is set, the NBT editor is no longer required.

If you encounter a post that tries to do any of the following, it is not considered impossible on Arqade anymore and should not be closed as duplicate of 334102:

• Lore
• Multiline item names
• Enchantments that are not normally available with an anvil.
• The Unbreakable NBT tag, stops items from losing durability.

Instead, these should be flagged/voted as duplicate of both 376557 and 374643.

---

If, while reviewing close votes, you come across a post with a comment saying that this is a duplicate of more than one, and you agree, please vote for the duplicates mentioned in the comment that don't have any votes yet!

If you encounter a post that does not follow these duplicate standards, raise a custom moderator flag, point to these rules, and they'll sort it out.

Questions, comments, or concerns about these rules? Comment below.