Talk:Rock

"Rock"?
Wouldn't a better name for this page be "Stone (disambiguation)"? ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 03:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - probably should move this there, leaving a redirect (i.e. rock goes to "Stone (disambiguation)"). --Pokechu22 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How would we go about actioning this change? ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 01:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement on rollback reason
Since February 2021, this list has been moderately geologic in nature. Prior to that, it described most rocks as "variant of stone."

In early December 2021 (just a few days ago as of this post), I wanted to provide a list that orders and describes the rocks instead as game elements. In order to preserve the writing that was done prior, I made it a dual list; the first iteration being game elements, and the second iteration provided a geologist's perspective. This edit was reverted by BDJP007301.


 * Revert edits by JavaRogers (talk) good faith, but we absoutely do not need to list rocks twice. Just the "gameplay perspective" is enough

A little confusion here -- In the spirit of the rollback, I restored it to only the game elements list.

So --

I'm strongly in favour of keeping the second (longer-standing) list in. I argue that they both provide a gameplay perspective and belong on the wiki. The first describes rocks "as game elements" -- telling their place in the context of Minecraft's code. The second list (and we're referring to this page version) is intended to help players uncover the story behind their worlds. Mojang implies tremendous amounts of untold lore in the game, putting large amounts of storytelling in the players' hands. But the world is still set on Mojang's stage. We find given elements in the game (like villages, fortresses, strongholds, & bastions for example) which our own storytelling naturally works around. Finding certain real-world rock types in the game (like tuff, coal, and sandstone) are also elements of your Minecraft world's history, having to do with the world's formation. From the tremendous amounts of slate in the world depths to granite exposed at the surface, it all means something. The second list just helps the community in reading those elements.

BDJP007301, is it simply having two lists you are opposed to (per the edit reason), or are you opposed to the geologist's list? With the "absolute" phrasing in your edit reason, I take it you have a strong opinion.

This is open to the community's input too.

——JavaRogers (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I liked your addition of the geologic list. The list isn't overly long, and provides an interesting perspective to players unfamiliar with geology. I would like to see it restored.
 * My main complaint is that some things in the gameplay list are just wrong. The list of ores should include all the ores, not the stuff you get from ores. The structural blocks should include all the ones that are actually found in structures (such as sandstone in desert villages). Amatulic (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to have your support! :D
 * The reason lapis & coal were the only entries under ore rocks is because they're the only ore resources that are actual rocks. Funny enough, plants & plankton growing, dying, and being buried is considered deposition on a geologic scale, so coal is a sedimentary rock. Lapis is a metamorphic rock, made of lazulite, calcite and other minerals.
 * I think one would consider a mineral-bearing ore block a rock, so I'm not opposed to the list of ores.
 * As for structures, I'm hoping someone who's more familiar with what's a structure and what's not can take up that part of the list XD

——JavaRogers (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)