Template talk:Environment

Can someone explain the point of  instead of just  ? – ultradude25 ( T at 04:22, 14 December 2010 (CST)
 * Using the value with the three braces is actually a parameter; when you invoke the template, you can specify a different width if you wanted. --JonTheMon 08:42, 14 December 2010 (CST)

I am glad I forgot about this now, because the layout here is PERFECT =D

I'll help by uploading small icons, to bring it into line with the block/item templates. I'll start at around 4:30, as I'm at college atm.--Kizzycocoa 05:32, 14 December 2010 (CST)
 * Excellent! I'm glad I didn't step on any toes.
 * The suggestion by DannyF at Community_portal, to "Maybe rename "Time and Light" to "Nature" and put Trees in there", appeals to me, but I'm not 100% certain. Either go for it, or suggest alternatives.
 * Thanks again :) Ephemeris 17:17, 14 December 2010 (CST)

The Far Lands
I motion that the Far Lands page be put under Category:Environment and added to the Environment template, specifically the Space row. Jaeil 03:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Icons
Can we get images for Rain, Snow, and Thunderstorm? --{ Fishrock123 } ( Talk ) 16:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I put together a potential thunderstorm icon. Let me know your thoughts [[File:lightning.jpg]] Qcdynamics 19:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit too shiny. That but "minecrafty" would be great Tinaun 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I all ready made an icon, I took the Thunder pic from the thunderstorm page, shrieked it to 16x16 and made the lighting uni-colored so it will stand out, when I'll get around to finish my environment template change suggestion I'll show that too, but for now I have my final exams to think about...--Yurisho 18:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * what does 'minecrafty' mean exactly? squared cloud? Qcdynamics 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

where to put Constellations?
two of us added Constellations to the template, I putted it in space and the other putted it in time, for now I'll delete he's version but will let you discuss the subject --Yurisho 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wiki-fighting is fun :P Seriously - considering Clouds is in the Time thing as well, I think it's more suited in that row. --Gemberkoekje 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, how is it part of the game space any more then Clouds? --Gemberkoekje 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * lets just skip this all and move them to "sky", k? --Kizzycocoa 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * there is no "sky" category...--Yurisho 18:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait! we can rename "Time and Light" as "sky" and put light in a new list:"Game mechanics"! --Yurisho 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he meant merging the constellation with the sky page or something... which is also fine to me --Gemberkoekje 18:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the sky page redirect to the "air" block so no. --Yurisho 18:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant, make a new category called sky, and remove any unused categories after that.--Kizzycocoa 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then consider it done! well, don't consider because it is actually already done...but...you get the point...--Yurisho 19:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is more a part of the game SPACE and less of a time measuring device..thou so I also think of the sun and moon but they where putted in time...all in all,I think that the names of the categories needs to be changes so that constellations can be at the same place as the sun, moon and clouds as "Time and Light" does not describe clouds... how about "Time, Light and Orientation".--Yurisho 18:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The new template structure.
If we keep the new template structure(which I would realy like to, because I made it) we will need to discuss several points it makes which I don't think I can answer myself:

A.Are trees a "natural structure" and thus fit that category more then "matter"? note that the blocks that form the trees are allready included in the "matter" category under "blocks".

B.should we keep Gemberkoekje's edit of the "Planned Features" and "Removed Features" groups?

C.what other "natural structures" exixt in the game? what is the definition of a "natural structure"? I suggest the following:
 * Every group of blocks that is formed in minecraft in a specific way doe to (a) code line/s on purpose is a natural structure.
 * thus making hills, cliffs, lakes, floating "Islands" and mineral veins "natural structures" --Yourisho 22:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should keep my edits, cause they are my edits XD - but the other templates have a similar structure, so having planned features and removed features next to current features is confusing at best. I would like trees, hills, cliffs etc. to feature on their own page, but I don't know how much is known of them.--Gemberkoekje 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point with the other templates...and I think you can make a page for most of them if you REALLY want to and try hard enough...but that is not a good enough excuse to make one...but you don't have to give them a page, you can use the # to link to them, you know like in "map#Lake"... --Yurisho 23:08, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree to B. and to put trees into the natural structure group. For other natural structures, I agree to the definition but I don't think that simple things like hills, cliffs, etc. should be added, only structures that have their own page. – Scaler (t) 20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should take all the "Map features" paragraph off the Map page and put them all in a page of there own, give them a name, and link that page in the template? --Yurisho 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did just that, now let's see people's reaction...--Yurisho 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

snow icon problem...IT'S WHITE!
yea...the snow icon is quite invisible...do someone have an idea on how can we fix that? maybe putting a background?
 * I was thinking about using a gray background, but this will wait until I finish making a better template(it's still quite incomplete --Yurisho 16:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Making the snow particles black, like on Cobweb. C ali nou - talk × contribs » 17:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not just put a sky behind them? For example:
 * Black snow would look awful :P --Warlock 17:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of sky-color background, and I'll do it, again, when I finish with upgrading the template. --Yurisho 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done – Scaler (t) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow you couldn't just wait did you? you did that thou I said I'll get to it myself...fine, as long as the job is done it's O.K by me --Yurisho 18:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there was small "bugs" I wanted to fix (transparency on the edge of the cloud icon, white pixels missing on the pickaxe). Thought it would be better to fix all this simultaneously. – Scaler (t) 18:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't noticed all of this, it is good you edited then.--Yurisho 18:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Template suggestion
I worked hard to make a new template I think is better in every way then the existing one, and here it is: NOTE:this test template links to icons that had changed positions, and may look strange

The sum-up of the changes:
 * The sky, Planes(now renamed Dimensions because the Nether is called a dimension.) and natural structures are now sub categories of world properties(now renamed geography.
 * The overworld was added to the Dimensions category
 * Stars where added to the sky category although they link to the moon page(which now stores all the info about the rest of the stars as well), for completion sake.
 * Fluids where taken out because if I link to fluids I need to link to solids as well, but that's only blocks, items are also divided to tools, food, plans etc. and in the end that's too much detail for a more general template, and all the pages that I listed above are accessible through they're respected category anyways(a link to food is already in the items template etc.) so there is no need to link it here.
 * Light and Opacity where taken out completely as they are properties of blocks, and are linked at every block, so there is no need to put them, again, in a general template.
 * The map properties that where removed are now listed under removed features.

But, the work here isn't done yet. as you can see Geography is too detailed, I suggest making a new template to list Geographical stuff and put a link to an article named Geography(that will be made) at this template so it could really live to the name of general template to anything in game. I also ask you to tell me if anything is missing, as I did my best to search all the categories I saw to find the best articles.

About the EnvCSS.png file(the file of all the sprites used in the template): I made a new one, and will upload it IF this new template will be excepted. detail on the new EnvCSS.png: --Yurisho 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * will include a new order in the sprites so that blank spaces will be removed(one existed in the original and as I worked, more came), if I'll have the time I might also order them.
 * better player and rain icons - player icon is less red and rain is actual in-game rain(instead of asking Paint.Net to resize the rain file and them uni-coloring it).
 * a thunderstorm icon, I basically took the image in the thunderstorm page, resized it to 16x16 and uni-colored the lightning - I gotta say it looks grate!
 * better altitude icon(added normal ground and a sun and clouds!)
 * chunk icon(my first from-scratch pixel art, I know it's bad, don't hate me...)
 * Map icon(image of 3 axis)
 * improved item icon - added flipped shovel
 * EDIT:I knew I forgot something...also added dirt with grass on the side icon as an overworld icon.--edited by Yurisho 19:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, add back in fluids and light, and remove stars, and it would be a lot, lot better than current!

fluids should be added mainly as they have very, very unique properties, and aren't really blocks. light, well, it's the cause of mob spawns. simple. stars? that is one sentence, and moon is already linked to.--Kizzycocoa 19:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stars are there, as I said for the sake of a complete list of anything in the sky, at worst think of letting it stay as a way to prevent the remaking of the stars page.
 * As I said - adding fluids stars a chain reaction: if we add fluids we must add solids, if we add them both then item groups should be added and so on and so on.
 * Remember that fluids ARE linked to from the blocks template, and that's good enough IMO, because if you say blocks, then fluids is included in the blocks.
 * I don't like light for the same resign, if you add light you add opacity, if you add them both, which are block properties, then do you add blast resistance and data values too? they ARE block properties, but they are not part of the environment, and again - every block page links to it, so if we say blocks, the light is included in the blocks.--Yurisho 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * stars shouldn't be there, as there is too little information about them. hence being in moon.
 * fluids are the most special blocks there are, as they are NOT blocks. they are not woonen blocks. they are fluids. solids are shown by blocks.
 * light determines a LOT more than opacity, blast resistance and data values. the latter two are technical, opacity is irrelevant, and light? that determines if a mob spawns or doesn't. if wheat grows. if mushrooms multiply. if a tree grows. if mobs burn etc.
 * it is the most influential aspect of Minecraft.--Kizzycocoa 19:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As it seam we can debate about stars as much as we want, but we cant reach a conclusion, so lets see what others say.
 * About fluids:I want to ask you one question that will tell me if fluids are blocks or not: In game, are fluids a derived from blocks or something slimier? if yes - it's out, if no - they go back in.
 * Yes light is important, but this is not the template of things important, making your claim useless.--Yurisho 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they are still part of the environment. Also, I agree with the layout of the proposed template. There aren't 11 different major categories, and it's easier to read. Drenay 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone updated the EnvSprite template with better human head(exactly what I did), a new altitude(but mine is better IMO), and a new rain that is far Superior to both of my versions, so I will still make all my changes to the EnvSprite, except for the rain. just saying.--Yurisho 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, little update - ordered the icons who is first in the new template, added star icon and made the white part of the biome icon transparent. also, I forgot to say that at first I wanted to give every entity a link in the template but linking the template to tiny parts of articles just looked strange...having links to primed TNTs and projectile arrows just doesn't fit the generality of the template IMO...but an entity template to list them sounds nice...but then again it WILL be tiny...--Yurisho 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the sub-groups, I prefer something like this: User:Scaler/test.
 * About adding fluids, I'm undecided. Fluids are blocks, but they're specific enough to be added in the template…
 * I'm for adding light, as it is an important part of the environment (and not opacity, blast resistance and data values). – Scaler (t) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IDK, I like the sub-groups allot, they show clearly that one group is a sub group of the other, on the other hand what you suggest is not really clear IMO.
 * Did you mean to say "unspecific enough"? Any way - you said it you'r self:They ARE blocks...but you know what...we can get fluids inside just like they did with sticky pistons and redstone on the Blocks template...what do you say?
 * I still think that light is a property of a block, and even more so when 1.7 will come and it will, literally, be a property of a block.--Yurisho 12:41, June 15 2011 (UTC)
 * well, it seems quite overwealming that the community endorse fluids and light being re-introduced.
 * as for stars, as an admin, I cannot allow them to be added. it is double-linking an article, and it only has a tiny section, as stars have no information.
 * I'm going to go ahead and add it in with the proposed majority-voted additions. --Kizzycocoa 19:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All right! my template is added! I'm sad for stars though...but you can't win everything...uploading new EnvCSS, prepare for some odd icons placment til I sort everything out--Yurisho 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

O.K I finished all the side job...now please don't kill me for the chunks icon...couldn't think of anything else... also, I think fluids should be in small and in barracks as I already suggested...they are just...part of blocks...--Yurisho 20:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * looks good! and the chunks icon, for the subject, is very good.
 * as for liquids, that can be put up for discussion now. we just needed to know what can and can't be added. now we can focus on that. --Kizzycocoa 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yea, it is actually now a new subject so I'll open a new topic...--Yurisho 21:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Put fluids in barracks?
Well because it is actually a different subject then the rest of my template suggestion, now that it is implemented, I went ahead and made a new topic: I suggest putting the fluids link in small tags, and in barracks near the blocks link, just like it is in the sticky piston or the redstone links. I think so because fluids are a sub-category of blocks.--Yurisho 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion cleanup? + critique
What's the protocol for removing old comments/topics? (for example, the whole topic 'snow icon problem...IT'S WHITE!' no longer deals with the current version of the template)

It's spelt 'brackets'.

Entities: Are these really part of the environment, or just a byproduct? I feel like the environment should only deal with that which is created upon map generation. I mean, most people make a house, but that's not part of 'natural structures' because it wasn't created upon generation. Likewise are items part of the environment or another byproduct?

New Template Icons: The purpose of icons is to be immediately recognizable, such a small area is next to impossible to build something realistic. For example, I had no idea what the altitude icon is until I blew it up 200%. The thunderstorm icon is also difficult to understand because it started as such a large image. Again, simple is good.

The items icon now looks cluttered. What's wrong with a single pickaxe? I immediately recognize the triple axis, but I don't know if the average minecrafter will. I'm assuming the triple axis is just being a place holder for the removed features?

Qcdynamics 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A.Protocol...non... normally when a talk page is too big it is archived, but most pages don't reach that level...and that's pretty much it...if an admin think this talk page should be archived then it will solve you'r problem...
 * B.grammar Nazi, change it you'r self if it's that important to you...
 * C.The Environment template is about things around you imo. I looks at it as a general template - a template that unites all the things in the game, and the only reason geography and weather is that detailed is because they don't have a template by themselves.
 * D.You have a point...the altitude and chunk icon are quite bombarded considering there size...aaahhh it's so hard to work with 16x16!! about thunder - I actually like it...maybe the cloud in the middle can go away but it's quite good imo, gets the job done...
 * E.Because did you ever see only one item in a general icon? that's blasphemy! no but really - one item is just...not general...
 * F.What is wrong with the 3 axis? Ii think people will get it...and yea it is a placeholder as they are talking about maps and I don't want to waste my time on removed stuff..--Yurisho 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * E.If you're going for a general item feel, shouldn't it be something other than tools? I considered pairing the pick with something else, but as I was skimming through the items I couldn't find anything that would fit. Pick and Lime dye? Book and Shovel? Milk and Axe? I can't find any natural pairing that don't fall into only one category of item.


 * F. The icon should correspond to the page, and cartography only deals in latitude and longitude. The triple axis is overkill, a compass rose may be more appropriate. Alternatively, maybe you can merge the Overworld page with that page. The last topic on Map suggests the desperate need of an overhaul.


 * At kizzycocoa, thanks for deleting my entire topic. Also thanks for reading past the first paragraph to see that the criticism was for the new template rather than how we structure our talk pages. Frankly, I couldn't care less about how the talk pages are structured. Finally, thank you for clarifying that maintenance/order is an entirely unworthy goal and that my intelligence is below average for desiring these things. [end sarcasm] I actually spend some time writing these things, it would be appreciated if you read them, or at very least ignored them. Qcdynamics 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * E.exactly, nothing fits naturally, so I have no other way...
 * F.I'm having a hard time understanding what you meant in the first sentence, please re-write it. How can a triple axis be an over kill? it's quite simple. Do you mean a compass with a rose? Idk...and only the last paragraph needs an overhaul? the whole page is a mess IMO!--Yurisho 07:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * F. Look at Compass rose, but map is not about cartography (Qcdynamics, you must be mistaking with maps (Item)) but about worlds structure and deals also with altitude. – Scaler (t) 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * E. My point is that since nothing fits naturally, it would be just as easy to leave the pick as is.
 * F. I realize map isn't about cartography which led me to suggesting a merge with the The Overworld page. I merely suggested a compass rose because of the name. Like I've said above, icons should immediately relate to the page.


 * The reason I think the triple axis isn't appropriate for the map page is because altitude has completely different characteristics from the other, horizontal, coordinates; that is why it needs it's own page. I agree that altitude is important in the overworld, but it is fundamentally unique. Regardless, I think the idea has changed into whether or not The Overworld and map should be merged. Qcdynamics 18:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * E.You know what? I'll try to find a combination that looks nice, even thou it's not natural.
 * F.altitude all ready has it's own page, I think that the problem is that 'Map' is a too generic name, and now that we made a overwold page, the natural structures part will move there, the far lands part shouldn't be there from the start and sizes has there own page, we are with coords...the page has nothing to say anymore...it should really be merged with the overworld IMO.--Yurisho 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)