Talk:Block of Quartz

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Come to think of it, is this reversible?[edit]

I don't see a recipe for getting back the quartz items, and the recipes I do see look more like sandstone than like a mineral block. When mined, does the basic block drop 4 quartz, or itself? If it's not reversible, then this isn't a storage block. --Mental Mouse 03:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a storage block, the blocks only drop themselves.

Also, the Block of Quartz has a really low blast resistance, when a creeper exploded within a 5x5x3 block of it, all the blocks in a radius of 2 blocks were gone. Only the corners remained. So, probably a similar blast resistance to dirt. -kastor1994

I would concur with kastor1994 on quartz block's blast resistance. I tested blast resistance by setting off a TNT block inside a 5x5x5 chunk of different materials (gold ore, quartz, stone, dirt, grass) and the remains most resembled dirt or grass blocks - almost completely obliterated - so I would surmise that it's either 2.5 or 3. -- darkwyrm

Weird links[edit]

Why does the "see also" link to a page on "decorations" (I.e. flowers, saplings, mushrooms) in CLASSIC? This should be fixed or removed. -- 01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks, whoever fixed it. -- 15:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Pillar Quartz in Wrong Place[edit]

The pillar quartz recipie should be under "as a crafting ingredient", but I'm a noob with javascript so I can't do it. :P –Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:42, 20 June 2014‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

This page is about all quartz variants. And JS has nothing to do with it. MattTalk
⎜ 14:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Three-sided pillar[edit]

Where does the image of the three-sided pillar come from? As far as I can see, it's not in the game: /setblock doesn't offer it, the debug stick can't get it into that state and it's not on the block states page. Fabian42 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

It exists only in bedrock edition, see data values section. FVbico (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Split proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't think the topics are diverse enough to warrant separate pages, and definitely not 5 separate pages. I might support splitting smooth quartz into its own page, as it's the most different. Otherwise,  Oppose the split. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would propose following the way stone splits up and have “block of quartz” “quartz bricks” and “smooth quartz” as their own pages and continuing to have chiseled and quartz pillars as sub-blocks within “block of quartz”. I think that’s consistent with the way other pages are structured and doesn’t created a whole different page for each and every block. I  Approve the split if done this way. Adeseo (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd  Support this, though not for the reasoning discussed below. They just feel like obvious places to draw the lines. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd  Support this split, I think that the quartz pillars and the chiseled quartz block doesn't have enough features to have its own pages.--Wappeynappey444 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I also  Support this split, because Quartz Bricks seem to have substantially different crafting use information from Quartz Blocks, and while Smooth Quartz can also be used to craft slabs and stairs currently requires an unusual footnote. Splitting in this way would most effectively simplify the crafting information, which is currently about half of the page. EiimRun (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I  Support splitting Smooth Quartz and Quartz Bricks. Currently, my philosophy is that every block which can be made into other blocks like slabs and stairs, should get their own page. Chiseled Quartz and Quartz Pillars cannot, so they don't necessarily need get their own page.
While were at it, can we also discuss the same with Sandstone? — Thomanski | t | c | 13:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This seems pretty reasonable,  Weak support for that right now. By that logic, sandstone would be split into "sandstone" (+ chiseled), "cut sandstone" and "smooth sandstone", and stone bricks into "stone bricks" (+ cracked and chiseled) and "mossy stone bricks", right? What about red sandstone or red nether bricks, would they be split?--Capopanzone (talk | contribs) 20:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I  Strongly oppose the split. They are very similar and it would be an excess of pages. Also, Thomanski wants to talk about Sandstone. This talk page is meant to discuss topics about Quartz Blocks. If you want to discuss sandstone, go to the Sandstone talk page. — 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd  Weak support, the fact that 5 blocks are on the same page makes it sometimes hard to search for informations and also to edit. MrJam003 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose the split into 5 different pages. The blocks have a lot of information in common and are only decorative. --dr03ramos Piston JE2.gif (talk) Admin wiki[pt] 10:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we decide on this please? — 14:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
How would you feel about a 2 or 3 page split as discussed above? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That would be fine. — 15:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Would support it being split three ways, since it fits better eith how other pages are split for now. - User-12316399 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I  Support spitting it up because it would make it easier to document things that are unique to each block, such as Bedrock Edition accidentally using the regular Quartz texture for Smooth Quartz for more than a year now, how Chiseled Quartz was flipped after the 1.14 re-texture, and information about upcoming Quartz blocks, etc. Adervae48272 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I partially support a split, but 5 different pages? I'd say wait until another block related to quartz pops up, and then we talk about it.Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 Support --Minecraft loot (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the best way to do it would be to have one page for the normal block of quartz, and another for all the variants like smooth quartz, quartz bricks...etc. like how stone has it's own page and it's variants, stone bricks, cracked stone bricks...etc. have their own page.--Pxlop860 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, we don't split the stone brick variants, so why should we do it here? Also, the only difference between the quartz blocks is the recipes. Minecraftexpert123 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 Strong oppose for splitting no, the reason why smooth stone, stone, and stone brick were split was because 1. smooth stone is used to craft blast furnace and stone brick is purley decorational and stone has many purposes. Splitting this is unnesicary because these ALL these blocks serve no purpose except for decoration so like the only thing different is crafting recepie, no split at all, keep them together.Humiebee (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose. As long as the individual blocks lack their own unique purposes, splitting this article would lead to needless duplication of content. When one or two of them eventually become useful for something other than decoration, those can be split out. But at this time, it's too soon. ~ Amatulic (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 Support I thing this is like blackstone or stone is splitted into the many pages. User:xrup (talk)
 I disagree it's OK –Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 16:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
 Very strong support to split Smooth Quartz Block away from the other four. Many players will make purpose-driven choices with regard to smelting, blast resistance, and slabs/stairs; one of these blocks is not like the others. The fact that there are separate lines for SQB's blast resistance and hardness in the infobox, plus that the SQB has its own breaking speed column, plus the fact that the SQB has its own separated crafting template boxes for slabs and stairs and the block's lack of interchangeability with the other quartz "variants" for those recipes is notated, all create a pile of evidence that the block should probably have its own dedicated page for its unique information.
While I understand we are not discussing Sandstone here, if anyone wants to bring up how Smooth Sandstone and Red Smooth Sandstone exist on the page with Sandstone variants, the argument from precedence or parity would only lead me to encourage the same split on those pages instead.
Lastly, while it would be a new paradigm for this wiki I believe, there is the possibility that distinct-but-derivative blocks such as the SQB could have its own dedicated area below on the page. The page name would be Block of Quartz, but Section 1 would be Quartz and Section 2 would be Smooth Quartz. Hence, every current section would drop a heading level, e.g. Quartz's section 1.1 would be Obtaining and 1.2 would be Usage, and Smooth Quartz's section 2.1 would be Obtaining and 2.2 would be Usage, etc. Raggleton (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 Very strong support splitting into 2 pages. The Great Spring (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 Strong oppose Why don't we make pages for Cracked Stone Bricks and Mossy Stone Bricks? Individual pages for every dyed variation of every dyable item and block, why don't we? Individual pages for every tier of every armor piece? Separate articles for every single one of the different blackstone blocks? Smooth Quartz is probably distinct enough to have its own article, though. SuperCofee (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 Strong support They're right, while all the other blocks have their own, quartz variants do not CherryBomb314 (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 Weak oppose now. I support splitting it into Quartz Block and Smooth Quartz but not the others. I still  Oppose splitting it 3 different ways.Humiebeetalk contribs 14:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Due to quite clear consensus Smooth Quartz Block had to be split up, I've gone ahead and done so; I'd suggest making a new discussion about splitting up the remaining ones, as smooth quartz was the main "offender" of unique info, and everyone who supported might want to check again if this still needs further splitting up. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 21:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need more discussion for futher splitting quartz. Most people (including like 10 people) supported splitting off smooth quartz but not other quartz. Pretty much everyone supported just a 2 way split so i'll close this if no one replys in a week.Humiebee (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bugged crafting in Bedrock 1.16.[10][edit]

This bug is affecrting quartz bricks and all new nether blocks recepies in Bedrock. Currently crafting table returns 1 block insted of intended 4. Use of stonecutter is advised. --19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Is correct the blast resistance of the smooth quartz block?[edit]

I've been working on a building made of smooth quartz block in the nether, and so it's exposed to Ghasts' attacks, so when one of those attacked me while building the fireball BROKE these blocks. According to this page, smooth quartz block have 6 blast resistance, enough to resist fireballs from Ghasts, but something is not right. Or this page is wrong or there is a bug on blast resistance. Georgie (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)