From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is only for discussing the Sandstone page.


WHY has this been edited to say that spiders cannot climb two types of blocks!? Has the person editing ever had the chance to watch spiders climb sandstone? My guess is no. My friend and I built a sandstone fort and mocked spiders before realizing that they can still climb sandstone and that we were royally screwed. - threeivalor

I removed that part as I can also confirm that spiders can, in fact, climb every block in the game. --Flippeh 23:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So can anyone give any info on what the explosion resistance of this thing is? Better that wood? Worse than cobblestone? Fenix3

I will test it later. I want to know if it will withstand ghast fire. Levy 09:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Since 1.3 sandstone is at the bottom of sand, should it be moved to the natural section?

Sandstone isn't at the bottom of all sand but it's been moved. Morder 20:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
AFAICT Sandstone no longer appears naturally in 1.8 (there is regular stone at the bottom of all sand instead). Pruplethingz 03:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It would have to be a bug, I would think, because I generated two worlds in the first pre-release of 1.8 and they both have sandstone at the bottom of sand. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've generated multiple worlds since 1.8 release and haven't found naturally generated sandstone in any of them, even when there is no cave/open space below it. If it's a bug, it's not confined to Pruplethingz.


"As of Beta 1.3, Sandstone can also be found in Desert Biomes in the form of Pinacles." do we have evidence for this? Raiu tree 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pinacles? either way, was a junk entry. Cheers for pointing it out! --Gnu32 05:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported sand[edit]

However, if a lake occurs in the space it may carve away the sandstone and result in unsupported sand.

Unsupported sand is also possible without a lake:

Floating Sand.png

DiEvAl 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Um.. The floating sand is SandStone, It not a bug or glitch it how minecraft generates the world. It will fall if you mine out the sandstone or part of the sand. WiiMaster890 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look to the left, there is clearly floating sand unsupported by sandstone at the bottom. --Buddy13 18:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is old news; the map generation code has been capable of creating floating sand at least since I started playing Alpha back around the Halloween update. ダイノガイ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 06:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Why is sandstone a sub section under sand? Grass/Dirt a Subsection of the other.

See my post here: Talk:Moss Stone

Ajc 1254 22:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New Hieroglyph Sandstone[edit]

In trivia, it says the second new hieroglyph sandstone texture appears to be an unreleased mob. I looked at it closely, and realized it could resemble a mummy or a viper's head. --Apocalyptic Builder 03:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like they're gonna add pyramids and mummies :D I hope they do! Electrk 08:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like a Creeper face. I changed the name to Decorative Sandstone since it's not exactly a Sandstone block with hieroglyphs. - Asterick6 06:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

New sandstone recipes[edit]

Well, 1.2.4 is out, and i already figured out the new sandstone blocks recipes:

Clear sandstone (CS)[1]:

Sandstone = S


S S = CS


Hieroglyph Sandstone (HS)[3]:

Sandstone Slab = SL




--Gil2455526 17:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I found something weird, you can make Smooth Sandstone using ANY type of sandstone. So you can use ordinary Sandstone, Hieroglyph Sandstone or Smooth Sandstone in order to make Smooth Sandstone --CheatCat 18:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
yeah, I just added that to the trivia a second ago, I am wondering if this is a bug or not, and whether they (you can make slabs out of any as well) should be given recipe tables (or alternating images).
On a similar note, should we count the sandstone slabs making H.S.S as a way craft sandstone recipe? (Someone did)
Thirdly, If we do, does someone who understands the tables better want to pull it into the other (normally you don't have two tables, but one with two rows)Cultist O 18:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved the hieroglyphic sandstone recipe down to 'As crafting ingredient', since although actual sandstone isn't involved in the singular process of crafting slabs into it, slabs were made from sandstone, so logically, sandstone was used 'as a crafting ingredient' to make the hieroglyphic ones.

--louis058 19:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

you seem to have mixed up the recipes for the smooth sandstone and heiroglyph sandstone--Electrk 19:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I am still operating based on the horizontal line one and the four panel one, and was under the impression that hss came from the panelled one and that sss came from the line one, is this not the case? Also where are these new textures from? My minecraft will not auto update past 1.2.4 where they apear as I said. Woops, someone changed my tp... using default now, but still, slabs make hss and blocks make sss which i believe is what I have and what is in place.
Furthermore, the reason the slab -> (whatever kind) of sandstone was not in the as an ingredient spot, is because sandstone slabs are the ingredient, and this is not the slab page whereas it IS actually a recipe making sandstone as we are considering both HSS and SSS as simply Sandstone variations. Can we get a third opinion? (Fourth really, because I agree with the original implementer) Cultist O 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture/name[edit]

The picture in this article for Hieroglyphic Sandstone is actually the picture for Smooth Sandstone! Can someone fix it? I dunno how to. :/ --Sanoth 19:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think it may have been due to the perceived backwards crafting recipes (unconfirmed). If this is the case they should BOTH be switched to refer correctly, instead of both backwards. Also whatever image we were getting for a bit there from smooth_sandstone was invading the page, so we need a different one. Cultist O 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but i have no idea how to do those things. And when will we know the official names of these blocks btw? --Sanoth 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I also do not know to fix the image name or upload (or get) a better HSS one(otherwise I would have done.) Are we sure they will have official names? Is cracked stone brick really an official name? The official name seems to be Sandstone and nothing else up until now. Cultist O 19:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the images for the two new blocks for the inventory images. The big image I'll leave to Ultradude since if I render it will be inferior. --KaizenNeko 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
yeah. but at least people from mojang has called cracked stone brick "cracked stone brick". --Sanoth 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Was unaware of the mojang reference on that one, but I have no way of knowing when they may mention the block. To KaizenNeko what exactly did you do? I appreciate the new image, but the names are still backwards.

Isn't it correct now? --Sanoth 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that HSS is the one with the creeper face (made with slabs), and that SSS is the one without... at least on my comp when I mouse over it says the wrong words... Cultist O 20:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

HSS.SSS.jpg --Sanoth 20:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

cashe wipe fixed the issue, sorry Cultist O 20:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
They usually do. I was confused when I uploaded the corrected versions because the old image showed for me as well, but I said to myself "Duh, clear your cache." :) --KaizenNeko 00:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


I believe this is how it should be if we're being consistent. I know it is redundant but remember that one material described on this page is being crafted into another. —Fenhl 20:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, happy now, only question left is name validity Cultist O 21:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically, neither are valid names if you go by the in-game popup. Unless Jeb gives us something to officially call them, the descriptive names should work for the time being.--KaizenNeko 01:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hieroglyphic Sandstone?[edit]

Ok the name "Hieroglyphic" Sandstone is a completely made-up name that someone/some people here decided to stick in this article and use for this texture. I don't think it's a very accurate term, so I have replaced it with "Decorative" Sandstone until Jeb decides on an official name. (This adjective isn't exactly easy to spell as well considering Jeb misspelled it too; I think "Hieroglyphic" just makes it more complicated). - Asterick6 06:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

'Hieroglyphic' was more apt for the textures added in the 1.2 Preview. 'Decorative' is equally descriptive for the new one, and considerably easier to spell. Of course, that won't stop someone from making a high-res texture pack with reasonably authentic hieroglyphics by the end of next week. -- Orthotope 07:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the name "Decorative" Sandstone isn't the real name either. Let's just change it to say what it looks like. Hieroglyphs. --Lolmaster 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Not going to revert again, but I'm also not going to make the edits required either. If you want to change it back to Hieroglyphs, then at least change EVERY instance of Decorative to Hieroglyphs.--KaizenNeko 21:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Redacted, the edit I was referring to was by an unregistered user. Icon-KaizenNeko.pngKaizenNeko (T|C) 05:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... now we need to update it to the real name, Chiseled Sandstone. File:Grid Decorative Sandstone.png needs to be moved or re-uploaded to File:Grid Chiseled Sandstone.png, and all links that link to the file need to be updated. - Asterick6 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with calling it Chiseled Sandstone, as that IS the official name, but it can also be called carved Sandstone. Either way works, but this is just a suggestion for future use. PrinceCooshie101 02:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Conjecture tag[edit]

I've revised Asterick6's Conjecture tag. The tag defaults to article name being disputed, but in this case that's not what's in question. Instead I've put a Conjecture|block before each one of the new block's names. --KaizenNeko 20:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be valuable to add the old textures to the gallery?[edit]

I have them on my PC and could upload, though they should still exist on the wiki if someone wants to find them. Cultist O 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Other blocks have their old textures listed under their history. The caveat is that they use Ultradude's renders for them. Maybe shoot Cool12309 (he's been maintaining the renders lately) a note on his talk page to see if he'd be willing to do them for Sandstone as well.--KaizenNeko 02:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I just linked them in the History section. - Asterick6 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandstone Stairs can't be crafted in survival (PE)[edit]

It says "Sand Stone Stairs" and it cannot be in Survival as it isn't saying Sandstone. Check Talk:Stairs. Minecraftaddict154 13:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Best Uses for Sandstone[edit]

I reckon the best uses for Sandstone really depend on exactly WHAT you are building. Regular Sandstone is best for general building, Chiseled is best for columns, archways, halls ect., and Smooth is best for pillars and support beams. If anyone has more suggestions as to the best uses, please feel free to post and add some ideas!! PrinceCooshie101 02:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to split[edit]

The result of the discussion was do not split.

Wolffillms proposes a split into Sandstone and Red Sandstone.

Reason: Sandstone and Red Sandstone are two completely separate blocks and are recognized as separate in-game and in the code. Also having two blocks on the same page can confuse readers.Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose. Without explicitly trying to recapitulate the arguments from 6 months ago at Talk:Red_Sandstone
We don't merge or split things based on being the same in code, or being different in code. By that measure, we would separate minecraft:log from minecraft:log2, and minecraft:red_flower from minecraft:yellow_flower – code is just not a measure we use because it leads to bad outcomes. Generally speaking we try to group things that make natural groupings, that is, groupings that make the reader have to click around less. All logs on one page for instance. There's no need for all logs to be on separate pages, because even though they generate in different trees, they are the same in all other respects. The reason I bring up logs and flowers is because it's the same with the types of sandstone – they're identical in every respect except the particulars of where they can be found. Is there an argument you would apply to sandstone that wouldn't also split logs and flowers?
As for being confusing to a reader, could you elaborate on something confusing you've found? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with flowers and logs sharing a pag, but the reason I am saying that the page should be split is because they are completely seperate in game. As for the reason it could be confusing to the readers is because they ere seperate blocks in-game and in the code. Wolffillms (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that they're any more "completely separate" than two logs or two flowers are. Can you give an example how they're different? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 23:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
They are seperate because logs and flowers are recognized as the same in the code, while sandstone and red sandstone are completely different in the code. Wolffillms (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok but in what sense are they the same in code? There are minecraft:log and minecraft:log2, and there are minecraft:red_flower and minecraft:yellow_flower. In the code at least at this level they are different. Same as minecraft:sandstone and minecraft:red_sandstone. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 Oppose as per all reasons brought up last time that a merge increases usability. GoandgooTalk
19:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The whole reason I brought it up is because I do not believe that the decision made last time was right. Wolffillms (talk)
 Oppose as the only main differences between the blocks are the texture, ID, recipe, location and a few other useless details. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This is what makes all blocks different from each other and is why I believe they should be separated. Wolffillms (talk)


The result of the discussion was do not split.

No new argument has been presented here versus the previous discussion, and, as of this point, consensus is not likely to change at any time onward. Further attempts to force a split of these articles without any significant / new arguments in favor of such a split will be swiftly closed and may result in the proposer being blocked by an administrator for editing in a disruptive manner. -BDJP (t|c) 05:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The majority of flowers have the same ID, which is minecraft:red_flower and the majority of wood have toe same ID, which is minecraft:log. On the other hand sandstone and red sandstone have two completely seperate ID's minecraft:sandstone and minecraft:red_sandstone. Wolffillms (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose per discussion above. -BDJP (t|c) 14:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What you're describing, it sounds like, is that our policy ought to be that we split things by block id, but to make certain exemptions. That's not really how we do things, we don't split / join block or item pages based on the id in code. Notice that flower is composed of two full block ids, and several but not all states of another (tall grass) block id. It's a mishmash, but it ends up being the right solution for a person looking to read about flowers. Same with sandstone.
I realize you mentioned that in the very beginning too, that having red and yellow sandstone on the same page could be 'confusing' to a reader. Can you give an example or two about how having both sandstones on the same page could be confusing – at least, any more confusing than having all the logs on the same page, or all the flowers? And without reference at all to the block ids. Was it confusing to you in some way? Maybe you could start there. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unused variants?[edit]

There are 6 total variants actually, 3 of which being unused. The unused ones are: 24:3=very smooth variant. Has top texture on all sides except bottom. 24:4=course variant. Has bottom textures on all sides but top. 24:5=I like to call it the fine variant. The fine variant has the normal top texture (on the top) but it has the inforeserved6 texture on all other sides. This was only tested in PE, so if anyone notices its in the PC version, tell me.-- 01:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)14152cool

On the PC version those don't work, they render as the giant purple/black block. But yeah, we should probably have this PE stuff represented in the data values section. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 03:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Red sandstone can not be naturally generated[edit]

Since 1.10, due to the formation of sandstone will not replace the floating sand, so that the red sandstone can not be naturally generated.---Wcwdqc (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That's right, it was 16w20a. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 01:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
So the page needs to be updated.-Wcwdqc (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
That's right. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Updated! Thanks. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)