Forum:Better categorization

I feel like the categorization system for many Minecraft objects is very outdated and we should rethink it. So far, I looked mainly in "Items" and "Blocks", but I’m sure that other categories have their own problems. --Melwin22 (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a massive inconsistency between those two categories: Template:Items automatically adds its respective category to an item page, while Template:Blocks does not. This results in all items belonging to the default category, while default category for blocks contains only the main page and sub-categories. I’m not sure which behavior is better.

If we're to choose between having the blocks navbox add the blocks category to every block page, or make it so the items navbox no longer adds the item category to every item page, I'd much rather do the latter assuming we also add subcategories to item pages. I don't think a category with like 600 items is immensely useful, you will find the item you are looking for via smaller categories. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
20:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yea I think I agree, good point. --Melwin22 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: User:Vdiu added category:blocks to the blocks template. --Melwin22 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This categorization didn't change much from 2011. „Natural blocks”, „Utility blocks”, „Manufactured blocks” and „Generated structure blocks” (created later) seem to be the four main categories, but each of them has an unclear definition. I slightly redefined „Natural blocks”, trying to make the category internally consistent, however it’s more difficult with other three.

Current definition of a „natural block” says that it can be generated by the terrain generator with „generate structures” option off. Is this a good definition? There are still some uncertainties. End dimension can’t be accessed at all with this option off, so is End Stone really „natural”?

You can still use commands to go to the end, so we can say that the end is naturally there, but inaccessible on a physical (Survival mode) level, without generated structures. --Simanelix (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Melwin22 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Do these should include all blocks from structures? This would include many „natural blocks”, as structures can generate almost any block these days.

I honestly have to question the usefulness of this category and whether it needs to exist in the first place. There's so many structures in the game at this point that a good chunk of all blocks in the game are in this category, who is actually searching for a block based on whether or not it generates in a structure? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
21:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know who is searching, maybe it is useful for some specialized cases... the main case I can think of is if someone is trying to play a world without structures and wants to figure out which resources are obtainable and which are not. In such case though, the category should contain only blocks that can generate exclusively in structures, like End Portal Frame or Gilded Blackstone. --Melwin22 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Same question as with structure blocks. Should these categories overlap? Also, what does it mean for the player to „create” a block? Does feeding turtles counts as „creating” turtle eggs, filling end portal frames counts as „creating” an end portal, defeating the dragon counts as "creating" an end gateway? Etc.

These sounds like the results of processes related to gamemplay features. "result of gameplay feature" is definitely an interesting category though!

• dragon egg
• turtle egg
• frogspawn
• dead coral
• dead coral fan
• dead coral block
• nether portal
• end portal
• end gateway
• chipped anvil
• cracked anvil
• damaged anvil
• mud
• wet_sponge
• ice
• weird frost-walker ice
• waxed copper
• lit candle (note)
• cake with candle (note)
• cake with lit candle (note)
• fire
• dirt path
• extinguished campfire (note)
• charged respawn anchor (note)

note: The marked blocks are not technically different blocks from their conterpart, they are just in a different state.

--Simanelix (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Many of mentioned by you blocks can generate in structures or even without structures, and I don't know what really connects those. "result of gameplay feature" is highly unclear and I feel like it would include many, many more blocks than what you mentioned. --Melwin22 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the worst out of four main categories. I don’t know how to approach it in the slightest. Definition is extremely unclear.

this category just seems to be every block that has some sort of player interaction (either a gui, or something clickable like a trap door) and is probably fine as it is.Consumed (Talk│Contributions) 21:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest changing it to something like "Interactive Blocks" or "Interactable Blocks" Hoppp (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

No... not really. I thought about this category for quite a bit of time and no definition I came up with really works. You propose "usable blocks", or blocks that can be right-clicked (or used via different keybind if you don't have a standard mouse). That is one of the ideas I had. Category as of now contains lots of blocks that are not usable in this way (Frogspawn; Frosted Ice; Fletching Table; Funky Portal - these are just blocks starting with letter F). On the other hand, quite a lot of new blocks would have to be added: all types of soil (usable with shovel to make dirt path); logs, wood and copper blocks (usable with axe to strip bark/wax/oxidation), and so on. What about a conduit? A very useful block, IMO should be called "utility", but can't be interacted with right click. Also, basically every solid block can be right-clicked if you have a flint and steel in hand. Other ideas I had include:

• blocks with GUI (only about 20 of those; respawn anchor, cauldron and campfire don't count, mentioning the most useful ones);
• blocks that can be right-clicked with an empty hand (includes the previous one and much more; respawn anchor counts, same as doors, fence gates or signs; no blocks like dirt or logs; however cauldron and campfire still don't count, neither does lodestone or conduit)
• complicated definitions, like "GUI or setting spawn point or giving effects or changing item forms" are encompassing more blocks but are much less appealing. --Melwin22 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Non-solid blocks does exist, while "Category:Solid blocks" does not exist. I'm guessing this is because there are more solid blocks than non-solid ones, but maybe this category isn't needed at all? Maybe "solid" should be a parameter in the Template:Block? It is a binary property, at least for most blocks, just like "stackable" or "renewable".

People are more likely to want a list of non-solid blocks I'd assume, they can be walked through and are therefore unique. Solid is the default expected property of a block, the vast majority of blocks are solid, therefore they're uninteresting and a list isn't really needed. So personally I think this is a situation where nothing needs to change. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
21:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are many smaller categories for blocks. Are all of them needed? Category:Climbable blocks seems a bit random. Or maybe this is still too few? How about adding a category for each tool – „blocks that shovel/pickaxe/axe digs faster”, or a category for blocks indestructible in Survival, etc.

Categorization system in items is completely different, as many items are just a part of „Items” category and not any other sub-category of items, like Blaze Rod. I feel like sub-categories of items would be good to have, even just based on the Template:Items, or on the creative inventory tabs. Or maybe this is a valid system and sub-categories for blocks are bad instead?

I think subcategories would make sense for items, the difference between the amount of blocks and items there are isn't that large. We could create subcategories based on how items are split up in the items navbox. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
20:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple categories covering both items and blocks: for example, Category:Plants. Should such categories even be a part of either of Blocks/Items? Maybe just move them directly to Category:Minecraft?

Category:Plants is primarily blocks, so it's not a good example. Moving it to Category:Minecraft might be a good idea though. --Simanelix (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Said category contains: 10 features, 7+ items (depending on how you count) including 2 that are not plants, and 2 things from MC Earth. If you want more examples, Category:Food and Category:Fungi also contains objects from multiple groups. --Melwin22 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The game has multiple objects that in theory can be classified as both items and blocks, such as Nether Wart, or both as items and entities, such as Painting. Maybe this is not a big issue as pages can be in many categories simultaneously, but I’m mentioning it anyway. Painting article in its first sentence says that it is an entity, but page still belongs to Items category… something feels a bit off.

I think a good place to start would be to organize blocks in the same or similar way to the java creative inventory (because it has more granularity than BE). However, I'm not sure that the non-solid blocks category should be outright removed, as it is a useful way to browse these types of blocks. Perhaps a category for each of the infobox parameters would be useful, but I'm not sure if that would make things more or less confusing. I think this discussion should go hand in hand with the discussion about potentially splitting the navboxes up - actually I'm not sure how navboxes exactly work but I would imagine they are inherently connected in some way already. In that case the smaller block categories would be the standard. The biggest question for me is how to deal with the mixed categories and pages. I'm not sure there is a clean way to do that, but I'd love to hear some ideas. Ishbosheth (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was expecting responses to the individual problems I mentioned, not an overall opinion... but I guess I can't complain too much since nobody else seems to care. Java Creative inventory does indeed have more granularity than BE, but it has its own problems. There are 5 tabs for blocks and categorization is based on very random criteria, and I don't really like that. "Building blocks" contains most blocks in the game; "colored blocks" on our wiki would be very small, since we don't have separate pages for each color; "redstone blocks" contains a multitude of things that are not even blocks in the first place. Also, this would completely delete the current categorization system, while I was trying to fix it/update it instead. --Melwin22 (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

If We could, I would much rather start from scratch. The current system it so messy and random, the whole system needs a re-work. We need defined categories and sub categories for entities, blocks, sounds etc. The current system was made a decade ago but minecraft was so small then and it's much more complicated now. Im not sure how we would go about a total categorization change, but working out something like that would be ideal. Consumed (Talk│Contributions) 17:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, I mostly agree and that's why I made this topic. However it's easy to say that the system needs rework and much harder to actually rework it. I'm glad I have your support, but if you could provide a little bit more examples of your ideas it would be great. --Melwin22 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://minecraft.wiki/w/Forum:Better_categorization?oldid=2777029"