Talk:Materials

Shouldn't this be a category?
I really don't see the point of this page, as it is a pain to add new materials to, and the only content could easily serve as a category description. I would opt for either deleting this or redirecting it to a category of the same name. – KnightMiner  t/c 04:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As it is, it's mostly a duplicate of Category:Raw Materials, so I don't see much need to keep it. However, blocks in Minecraft do have a material, which controls some of their properties; there's some (outdated) data at User:Orthotope/blocks. Would it be worth rewriting this page to document the concept of block material as used by the game itself? -- Orthotopetalk 06:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would find that useful, many of our blocks state individual properties that are actually linked part of their material (for example, each type of wood separately lists things like flammability and transparency). Since MCP is in 1.8 now, the information won't be too hard to update.
 * The actual page can describe the various materials, and which blocks use each of them. – KnightMiner  t/c 16:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not seeing this conversation when I skimmed this talk page, I independently created User:Anomie x/Materials more-or-less intending it as a replacement for this page. There's a slight bit of history there (mainly KnightMiner fixing bad grammar from me incompletely rewording sentences, and leftovers from a search-and-replace), do we want a copy-paste move or a history merge? Anomie x (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally, when I rewrite an article, I just do a copy paste move, and mark the user page I used to rewrite it for deletion or redirect it to the article. – KnightMiner  t/c 19:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Anomie x (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What is this solid vs. solid blocking material nonsense? One page says the only solid block you can go through is coweb and then you have this confusing mess.  Maybe these materials should be described as blocks that can suffocate you if you exit out of observer mode inside these blocks. 67.34.74.253 20:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"nodrop"
I still find this "nodrop" property added by User:Seahen inappropriate, since it doesn't have anything at all to do with the material. It just so happens that for a few materials all the individual blocks are coded not to drop anything.

Add it to trivia if you want, but don't go pretending it has anything to do with the material. Anomie x (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that since it is not related to the actual material data, it would not belong here. The article does specifically state specific types can and do override material properties, so I would suggest just tweaking the "Need tool?" note to state even blocks that do not require a tool to drop may still not drop anything, and remove the unrelated "nodrop". – KnightMiner  t/c 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, for mod authors using this article as reference, it would be useful to know what the actual default properties of each material are; that all of the currently-existing blocks in vanilla Minecraft override a property isn't important here. -- Orthotopetalk 19:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Split Blocks section into Solid and Transparent
Because we're dupplicating the table of these blocks on the solid block page, I propose to split the entire blocks table on this page (the subpage) into two tables/subpages, one for the solid ones, and one for the others. Then we can simply re-transclude that solid block subpage into the other page as well and not have to duplicate only a (the biggest) fragment of the table there. – Jack McKalling 09:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a separate page on solid blocks? The way I see it, it just describes a specific subset of blocks with not much content not present on the Block article. Almost the same with liquids, actually. And why do we have the list there instead of, you know, pointing readers to the category? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Solid Blocks is a separate page, though it has a lot of info on it. But I do know why we don't point to the category. The category does not show any images, and is not convenient for players who don't know the names - for instance because they have/play a different language. I'm not saying we should visually duplicate the table on both pages, but if it is what we decide to do, then I suggest to do it the way I described above. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 09:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So we don't expect readers of the English wiki to know the English names of the in-game concepts (items/entities/blocks)? (And we expect them to be able to comprehend the corresponding articles?) Also, the way the images are presented is not useful for a search, given that no names are provided, and the unstoppable animation is distracting. Maybe a list (not a table) with images, names, and short descriptions would work? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 10:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I like you suggestions, and I support different solutions to the current table. But my issue is with the duplication of the whole thing, I'd like to have that fixed first for now. When the Solid Block page transcludes a fragment of this one, any changes we implement later will automatically be shared between the pages. – Jack McKalling [ Book and Quill.png Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 10:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Change to more directly reflect code?
I want to go through and update all the information here. Now that we have access to official obfuscation maps, should we update the names of everything to more closely reflect what the actual code says? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)