Talk: Block of Copper

Split proposal[]

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

The result of the discussion was do not split

The blocks have almost no use except decoration and it would be inconsistant with the Sandstone articleHumiebee^{talk contribs} 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

OpposeI'd say no, since the block appears to operate in the same vein as Stone Bricks and Nether Bricks, meaning they should be on the same page because they are part of the same block. Waxed Copper should also be on the same page, since, like red nether bricks, it requires a separate item to craft. PixelPickaxe (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see why a graphical variant of a decoration block with the same mechanics should be separated. SuperCofee (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reasons above. – Unavailablehoax (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, as long as cut sandstone remains on the Sandstone page, this should not be split.---Humiebee^{Discuss anything with me Look at my edits} 02:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

? I think that the split idea could be done by the following reasons:

The Copper Block and Cut Copper blocks work differently.
- Copper Blocks are used as storage blocks, while Cut Copper is a decorative block that can be cut into stairs and slabs.

However, the split also couldn't be done by the following reasons.

Both oxidize, and they are very similar on looking. Also, as comments above said, Cut Sandstone is with Sandstone, so for parity reasons they should stay.

At a personal opinion, I think that this discussion is over, as many here said that they oppose. Supeika (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the split template.---Humiebee^{Discuss anything with me Look at my edits} 12:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Not even a day of discussion can NOT define if there is a consensus. Give at least a week for people to pop up with opinions. Dhranios (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why I said "personal opinion". I'll wait until a complete concensus. And it's true, people need to share their thoughts about this. Supeika (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed (again) becuase a week has passed and ALL the comments are oppose. :PHumiebee^{talk contribs} 21:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose while yes, copper blocks are technically storage blocks, theyre arguably mainly a decorative block, have almost all the same functions as cut copper, and are extremely similar. to build onto the sandstone/cut sandstone analogy, you could argue that sandstone is a storage block for other sandstone variants, because you can craft them into the other sandstone variants. however, there is no argument about sandstone and sandstone variants being split. Imgntn (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The different variants of sandstone are merged, as are the different variants of stone bricks. The regular copper block has no special properties. And waxed copper should definitely not be split, since it looks exactly the same as unwaxed copper. Blobs2 (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The Great Spring (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose -98.230.115.82 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - I oposse too. Copper is confusing because of all thier variants so it will be more understandable if all is in one page. Also, copper blocks all come from the same thing, so it should be in the same page. Now, more than a week passed since the beggining of this discussion, and all opinions say oppose, so I think it is time to remove the split template. -Peruvian Ball (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Opposing because these blocks have no use but for decoration(besides the fact that non-weathered non-cut copper blocks can be used as a compact storage for copper ingots). It isn't useful to split this article up. Blockofnetherite ^{Talk Contributions} 17:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up the page[]

i kinda feel like this page should be cleaned up a bit, i mean like "Waxed Copper or Waxed Lightly Weathered Copper or Waxed Semi-Weathered Copper or Waxed Cut Copper or Waxed Lightly Weathered Cut Copper or Waxed Semi-Weathered Cut Copper" seems a little excessive (same for cut copper), maybe just lump it all as "Waxed copper" and "Cut copper" and then have like one of those gifs that rotate thru the diff amounts of weatheredness. whats yalls opinions on this? --Imgntn (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a good idea. However, there aren't different types of copper, there are different clasifications. The "Waxed Semi-Weathered Cut Copper" copper its a Waxed copper, with semi-weathered age, and its a cut copper. What I am trying to say is that there are different ways to group copper blocks (because, of what I understand, there are more than 30 copper blocks) and we should put them all. However, placing all the copper blocks separated can be also a good idea, because we could write what are the different building uses for each block. --Peruvian Ball (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I mean, like just for the crafting recipes. It's a bit of an eyesore. I do see your point though, its a pretty good point. --Imgntn (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Not really as the wiki says that the in game name should be used. (MCW:Style guide)Humiebee^{talk contribs} 21:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

How about a chart? I'll create one for scrap and send a link to see what you think. – Unsigned comment added by MetalManiacMc (talk • contribs) at 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

Weathered Copper BlocK[]

Why does this block has a capital K? I'm talking about the MC-203555 bug. --83.142.57.33 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Because Mojang made a typo they didn't bother to correct yet. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 20:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed – Unsigned comment added by MetalManiacMc (talk • contribs) at 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

21w05 oxidation changes?[]

The article currently says:

"They have four stages of weathering (including the initial unweathered state), and advance to the next stage of weathering every 50–82 in-game days (1,200,000–1,967,999 game ticks, 1000–1640 minutes, or 16 h 40 min – 27 h 20 min)."

This may have been true before 21w05a, but in that update it was changed to use random ticks, which should mean that it's probabilistic rather than having a set range of possible times. Like, it would be extremely unlikely, but a copper block could in principle oxidize immediately after you place it. It also seems to me like being next to an already oxidized block improves the chances of oxidation.

If someone could look into the code for more precise mechanics it would be great, but at least the current text should be removed because it's no longer accurate I think. CrCl3 (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Waxing with honeycomb in Bedrock Edition was added in 1.16.220.52[]

Waxing copper with honeycomb was introduced in Bedrock Edition in beta 1.16.220.52. Even though it was not mentioned in the changelog, it is still in the version as seen in ECKOSOLDIER'S video about the beta.. In 14:01, he tried to wax the copper with the honeycomb and it really does turned the copper into wax copper. A little information about it must be in this article. Slardna (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I've taken the liberty of editing your comment to make it more readable. (There's no need to use <ref> tags on a talk page.)

If you're just pointing out that the article needs updating: The beta release just came out a day ago, and it's perfectly normal for a few days to pass before somebody writes it up, so just be patient. (I assume you know that the wiki is maintained by volunteers, so it's nobody's job to update it and there's no schedule.) Or, if you're just eager to see that the update is done, why not update the page yourself? Anybody can edit the wiki. — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 16:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not update the page myself because I am worried that the edit may be reverted by somebody in the wiki since they don’t know that it works on that build. Slardna (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As of right now the page is up to date - Wahlrus (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Where should we put the detailed description of copper oxidation?[]

I find a helpful video from ilmango, and would like to organize the content into text. But where should we place them? It seems that the best section is "Behavior" but it is just for mobs. Putting them into "Obtaining" or "Usage" also sounds strange though. Hope someone can give me an answer, thank you. Kakagou12341 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Good question. It seems to me that your problem is that oxidation occurs autonomously and changes the block over time, which is something few blocks do and which therefore seems more like a behavior than a usage or a method of obtaining the blocks. However, copper isn't the first block to have autonomous behavior: Virtually all plants grow without player intervention, so maybe you could take your cue from them. Wheat growth, for instance, is described in an ad hoc Farming section under Obtaining. I think you could do that, with the subsection named Oxidation instead, because oxidation actually is how you obtain those variants, right? — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 06:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Kakagou12341 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Oxidation or Oxidization[]

This might be more of a chemistry question in fact but what would be the correct term, "oxidation" or "oxidization"? The page uses both terms and I don't know if they're even synonymous.. Pescavelho (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Scientifically, it should be oxidation. Nevertheless, the English language accepts both. MetalManiacMc at your service fellow human! (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be "oxidation", but don't agree that either is equally acceptable. The Corpus of Contemporary American English reports that out of over a billion words catalogued, there were 1155 instances of "oxidation" versus only 20 of "oxidization". — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, yes, they're synonymous. Merriam-Webster's entry for "oxidization" merely redirects the reader to "oxidation". — Auldrick (talk · contribs) 13:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency in oxidation chance formula?[]

In the formula describing the chance for oxidation, it states "Let a be the number of all nearby unwaxed copper blocks with same oxidation level, and b be the number of unwaxed all copper blocks that have a higher oxidation level." In the example given, however, it then says "For example, an unweathered copper block surrounded by 6 unweathered copper blocks and 6 exposed copper blocks...In this case, a = 12, b = 6, and m = 0.75." If "a" is the number of nearby unwaxed blocks with the same oxidation level, it should also be equal to 6, since there are 6 blocks with the same oxidation level and 6 have a different one. CreeperSpawner (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked the original source and found the issue. "a" should be all nearby unwaxed copper blocks regardless of oxidation level. CreeperSpawner (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)