Template talk:Block

Long boxes followup
Well, it has been a year since the last discussion, and I just finished removing the last of. So, what now? Do we just remove the row entirely, or leave the "See history" link there? – KnightMiner  t/c 02:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fine to remove now. People should hopefully have gotten used to clicking history in the TOC to find out if they can use something in their version.
 * I think it'd be good to review what fields we have in general, and see if they're all still relevant, and if there is anything else that should be there.
 * I'd like to remove:
 * type: not useful, the intro text often says what something is anyway.
 * flow speed
 * player movement speed
 * hardness: most players won't know what this number means, and the obtaining section also shows it, along with actually usable data. Blast resistance has the same issue, but we currently don't have it anywhere else on the page with player relevant data.
 * –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 03:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree on type, flow speed (there are only two liquids, should be mentioned in the article – lava's flow rate varies by dimension). Movement speed is also only used for water and lava, and "slow" and "very slow" aren't helpful. I don't know if we need the gravity field, which only applies to four blocks, all of which already mention their behavior in the body of the article. -- Orthotopetalk 04:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree on removing all those fields, plus gravity as Orthotope mentioned. I am not really sure where blast resistance could fit in articles though, so until we get something better with that I would just leave it in the infobox. – KnightMiner  t/c 19:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Majr and Orthotope. – LauraFi - talk  00:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree remove firstver, type, flow speed, player movement speed, hardness, gravity.
 * Blast resistance is a good example of a something which should stay in the infobox. For most blocks (other than those which come in multiple materials) it's a small bit of data that doesn't require an explanation in the article, just a link to the relevant article, so the infobox is a good place for it.
 * If we remove hardness we might as well remove tool as well, since they're both explained in the same place in the article. &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 20:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree we don't need the tool in the infobox as well since we describe it better in the text. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know about blast resistance. It is a meaningless number, which links to more meaningless numbers and (if you scroll up) a too complex for most players explanation of what it means. If the explosion mechanics cannot be simplified in a way for non-technical players to understand, we should at least move blast resistance down with data values and change the link to the explanation, rather than the section on other blocks.
 * As for tools: perhaps, but it does have an actual immediate use to players (e.g.: I need a diamond pickaxe to mine thing), whereas hardness doesn't. The obtaining section does also explain it further, but isn't necessarily on the page without scrolling, and that extra detail isn't necessary to obtain the thing. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not entirely meaningless. For example, Explosion tells us the limits for blocks stopping different kinds of explosions: "121.00 (charged creepers), 77.67 (TNT), 56.00 (creepers), 16.42 (fireballs)". Good to know to find out if a block is safe from Ghast fireballs. Anomie x (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed type, gravity, hardness, flow speed, player movement speed, multiplevers, firstver, and firstdev. Don't go removing these fields from articles just yet, in-case we suddenly decide we want them back. Now we can discuss any further changes to be made. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey Majr, isn't there supposed to be a History table, Issue and Gallery areas at the bottom of the template? Most (probably all) block pages have it. | AndrewAB (talkAndrewAB.png 11:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What do those sections have to do with this infobox? –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 12:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't get what you mean. Anyway, I'm wrong so yeah. Cut this part. I though that this template is supposed to be like this Stone page. | AndrewAB (talkAndrewAB.png 12:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Majr. Now that articles have good Data Values sections, would it make sense to simply remove the Data value and Name fields from the infobox? &mdash;munin &middot; Grid_Book_and_Quill.png Grid_Stone_Pickaxe.png &middot; 17:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all articles have Data Values sections. Those with just a single data value should probably remain in the infobox.-- ALWAYSFF talk·contribs 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Size for blocks
I've recently implemented a size parameter in the template for entities and added the values to all infoboxes of living entities. Working on this project the idea came to mind that this might also be a good parameter for the blocks infobox. Of course this parameter would only be used for blocks smaller than a whole block e. g. a chest. The values would be the ones of the hitbox. In contrast to entity sizes there would have to be three dimension, because width and length are not always the same like it is the case for all entities. So I want to know wether there is some support or any objection for this idea. The parameter would have to be added to the template by an admin as editing the template is locked for normal users like me. Fusseel (User talk:Fusseel)
 * Some mobs, particularly bosses, look like they are either bigger or smaller than they actually are. The BlobsPaper.png 02:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that someone finally commented on my suggestion, but I honestly wasn't speaking about mobs. I already implemented the size parameter for mobs one month ago and added the values to every page. I missed out on the ender dragon, as it has a multi box model and it is quite confusing where he is actually vulnerable. That would've been too much text for the small infobox, at some point I may take the time to add a separat section to the article.
 * – I was talking about a size parameter for blocks that would only be applied for blocks like chests as their collusion box doesn't quite match the size of a full block. Especially for the technical community this is an interesting value. I hope you're still in for that idea. Fusseel (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)