Tristan Abshire

It's not consistent with the behavior of the related items as well!
Why is this being so hard to get changed? I know that the solution is simple, and it'd make people's Minecraft-lives easier.
There is literally no reason for it to exist as is currently stands (Because it sounds like a bug right now)!

And this doesn't sound like a bug to you?
Sheep and wolf collars can be dyed however many times and into whatever color.
Beds and paintings can use any color wool for their recipe.
But dyeing wool blocks can only use white wool for it's recipe.

Bugs can also exist in people's logic too.

It's contradictory to the rest of the dyeing mechanics though!
Wolf collars and sheep themselves can be dyed orange, then blue, then white, then red, or whatever color dye you have on hand.
But as soon as you get it in a block form, only white wool can be dyed?

Look, I know that you guys can check for any data value in a recipe. That's how all the wood recipes still work, and why the bed recipe can use any color wool. So that's obviously not a reason why this is the way it is.
I can't think of any reason to have it be this way other than to annoy players who want white wool back without going and looking for more sheep and increasing their leftover wool more.

Kumasasa, I stand by the fact that this IS in fact a bug.

Try explaining it to a new Minecraft player though.
"You can dye sheep, a wolf's collar, and your leather armor whatever color you want.
But out of all wool blocks, only white wool blocks can be dyed white."

I can guarantee that most new players would look at you and say "What?", "Why?", or "That's dumb."

There really shouldn't be anything to reconsider.
At all.
It looks like a bug, and it sounds like a bug. I don't understand why they haven't done anything about this yet.

fuj1n, you think it's a feature request to make it so that you can use bone meal to dye more wools than white wool?
Because think about it: you can only dye white wool white right now.

Doesn't /spawnpoint @p require coordinates to function though?

And your system above would cause unnecessary jittering for the player

It should then only output the number of players it does change then, shouldn't it?

I mean, personally, here's how I think the scenario would go around if it were actual people.
You got 5 people, 3 of whom have various amounts of apples.
The admin says, "I'm going to take everyone's apples" and proceeds to do so.
He takes apples from the three who have them, therefore succeeding.
He cannot take apples from the other two, because they do not have any, therefore a fail.