Module talk:Block value

Utilize for blast resistance values
Is it practical to modify this module to support alternate values, such as for blast resistance values, or to simply output a sting of text without the switch for numbers?

—KnightMiner  (t 03:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be possible to generalize the normalization code to a block names module or the like that could then be called by this and similar modules, but I'm not sure what Majr's planning with the normalization given the "Most of these transforms are unnecessary, but are kept for compatibility with original template" comment. I originally wrote the normalization code to allow input to be a bit more free-form/so you didn't have to remember the exact name to use to call the value for a given block ("wood stair" or "wooden stairs"? "jack-o-lantern", "jack o'lantern", "jack-o'-lantern", etc.? who the hell knows?), though, so my personal thought is that normalization in some form should be kept, though it doesn't necessarily have to match the current behavior. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The only thing stopping this being used for both is a good name for the module :).
 * As for normalisation: These templates are not something that are frequently used as part of the article text, they're mainly used in the infobox (although, maybe not so much in the future), in mining table for hardness values and the explosion page for blast resistance values. Thus, having free-form naming is unnecessary, just lowercasing the names is enough. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I had an idea a bit back when I wanted to combine both the transformations into one template, then run that template on the switch. I think I would have called it "blockString"
 * As for the free form naming, it would be useful to have a few of the aliases kept (e.g. web for cobweb), but really only a few aliases are needed, and can be added as necessary.
 * —KnightMiner  (t 14:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My best thought for a name when I made my above comment was just "Block name" or something similar. Obviously, I'm not about to be accused of excessive creativity any time soon. =D 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not "Block value", such as to say  —KnightMiner  (t 14:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was talking specifically about a module to normalize block names, not one to return various properties of a given block (for which "Block value" would probably be as good a name as any). =) 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 14:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)