Template talk:Breaking row

Where to add the table
Should this table be added to all blocks that are listed on the table? Even for blocks with a destroy time of 0 seconds? –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It would not be necessary on articles which take 0 seconds to break. Currently, usage on blocks is sort of experimental, but if it looks good in most cases we should discuss style guide implementation. —KnightMiner  (t 03:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the template should automatically hide empty columns to save space on the page. Also, as Anomie x pointed out on my talk page, the table gets moved below the block template on screens where it is not wide enough, so in addition to hiding empty columns it may need to be collapsed by default. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 11:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It may be better to create a seperate template for that, like maybe one that uses columns instead of rows. The template was originally made for Digging, and then a few of us were testing how it would look on other articles. I also have plans to incorporate it on tool articles.
 * Hiding blank columns would work on some pages, but it would still be large on pages that use all the columns.
 * But really on the block articles, either it would need to be placed lower, or use a similar template that has a smaller size. (the main problem with columns are the code is more repetitive, and I have to set a limit of number of columns) I'll mess around with something for that.


 * Maybe something like ? It currently is just a table with no logic installed, but it works as a preview. I removed both the tool and the hardness, since both are in the infobox. Also, if multiple values are needed, it will list them in another column.
 * —KnightMiner  (t 14:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A vertical table would probably format better in articles (darn Block box). Some block articles have multiple tools (for example, pressure plate) and the table seems kind of unexplained without specifying the tool, so I'd keep it. Hardness can go though.


 * Is "Bare hands" the best heading? Technically, it's "anything except the preferred tool". "Other"? "Wrong tool"? Not sure.


 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"

! ! Stone Pressure Plate ! Wooden Pressure Plate ! Tool ! Pickaxe ! Axe
 * + Breaking Time (seconds)
 * Bare hands
 * Bare hands
 * Wooden
 * Stone
 * Iron
 * Diamond
 * Golden
 * }
 * Iron
 * Diamond
 * Golden
 * }
 * Diamond
 * Golden
 * }
 * Diamond
 * Golden
 * }
 * Golden
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Can we do multi-column tables with a template like this? &mdash;munin &middot; Book_and_Quill.png Stone Pickaxe.png &middot; 15:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I plan on adding support for up to four optional block columns for the template. (also your preview's style looks better than my preview's style did)
 * As for the bare hands, it basically would need to be "No tool/Wrong tool", only in a way that does not need a /.
 * —KnightMiner  (t 16:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made a mockup of munin's table on my sandbox page. On an iPad, the table only narrowly fits (see image here), however on a page like Stairs with 8 stair types, many having different hardness values, it will be a nightmare making a table that fits on smaller screens. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs Edits 00:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, stairs only will have three columns. It is another feature I was planning, a "description" column for the sake of multiple items per row. Of course, the syntax for that parameter may reach something along the lines of grid. —KnightMiner  (t 02:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Memory error
I think I fixed the memory problems, as I got my sandbox usage load time from 22 seconds down to 14 seconds. See my sandbox and breaking time. Main reason I'm mentioning it is because I want to know if this fix can be verified, rather than me just breaking digging again. —KnightMiner  (t 14:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It was working, but 14 seconds for a simple table is much too long, so I've replaced with with a lua module which does it in 2 seconds. I also clarified the hand column with a tooltip. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We should likely also run the column variant using lua as well, as when I tried coding it, there was so much redundant code which lua could cleanup. (also, it was down to 10 seconds since the redo of hardness values).
 * —KnightMiner  (t 20:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Netherite Tools
With the upcoming Netherite tools, this template may have to be updated to include them. --76.110.120.41 12:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Haste, Mining Fatigue and Efficiency
This template has been around for ages, but I've always found it largely dissatisfying that none of these factors are accounted for.

Since Efficiency is without a doubt the most frequently encountered thing put her than tier that affects mining time, this should be visible by default, with unenchanted on the left, up to Eff.V on the right.

Haste and Mining Fatigue are lower priority and can be implemented later, but it might be tricky to fit a 3D table on a 2D wiki page. I'd think a system with four tabs would be sufficient - Mining Fatigue III first, then no effect (selected by default), then Haste and then Haste II. (Combinations of Haste and Mining Fatigue probably aren't worth documenting.)

Any thoughts on this? - User-12316399 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would adding Efficiency to this template, because it's so commonly used, and kinda hard to calculate. Though I think the template would get way too bulky with Haste and Mining Fatigue coming along... Maybe add a note below about how to calculate them, since they're not that hard to calculate? Sagessylu (discuss | edits) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Efficiency is certainly more useful here, unlike status effects. I believe this is one of the cases where radio buttons or a tabber which might be introduced with UCP could be useful. —  Babylon A S </b> *Happy Camper* 08:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Instant mining should be highlighted in blue, rather than green
Would be a good way to differentiate at a glance without having to read further into the numbers. - User-12316399 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)