Talk:Crying Obsidian/Archive 1

Archives

1. 2011 – 2013
2. Current

Bleeding Obsidian

I don't know about you but this looks a HELL of a lot like the nano-metal in Tiny Tank. Maybe Jeb played it and thought "hehehe maybe notch won't notic this little file...*copy**paste*...I will insert this later" and the rest is history...Wrestler987 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't this block called Bleeding Obsidian a few days ago? --Nerfman100 17:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ive gone through the small history, It was never called bleeding obsidian. Though, is it possible to get this item onto the map via /give?, if so, what code number? --Neil2250 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was a page here about it before. --Nerfman100 01:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't get it, it isn't an actual block (you probably know this by now). It was only known as bleeding or crying obsidian for it's appearance. Elite6809 (talk) (forum) 19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I think because jeb tweeted about this block being a change-spawn obelisk, I think the page should be renamed to that. Piber20 04:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That is definably a valid idea. However, i think "change-spawn obelisk" was just a discription by Jeb (correct me if I'm wrong). Plus he quoted the texture as "Crying Obsidian". --Imdill3 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

False information

Please don't insert false information onto this page. Just last night I signed up here on the Wiki to remove a completely false statement from the page. Here's what I removed, which was added onto the page by User:NathanIsEpic999:

" It actually has no current use in the game, but will drop a strange sort of dust used to create a special torch. The torch doesn't produce light, but it creates a new type of portal if used in the right spot. Can only be placed in the Nether instead of the surface world. "

I also went ahead and changed all the information in the infobox to ?'s. This block is not available ingame yet, and is simply just a texture at this point. Please keep false information like the above off of the page. However, I'd like to say something to NathanIsEpic999; I apologize if what I removed was actually true, and if it is "true", please provide the source of where you heard the information. Thanks. Minecraftinerryday 14:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"It actually has no current use in the game, but will drop a strange sort of dust used to create a special torch. The torch doesn't produce light, but it creates a new type of portal if used in the right spot. Can only be placed in the Nether instead of the surface world."
^ this kinda reminded me of this here: Portal Gun v1 for BETA V1.3_01
--Bambooz 18:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Remind me again why this page exists?

Conjectural articles honestly have no place in a wiki dealing with the concrete, especially when we already have the concrete that says that the item in question does not and will not exist. Plus, the existence of this article will just drag in even more retarded noobs than it already has. --GreyMario 00:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well as we can clearly see above this sentence, it's already dragged in one "retarded noob" who doesn't understand why this page is here. It's here because it should be. Now go away. That Canadian Guy 03:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Kindly [redacted] off with your pretentious attitude. --GreyMario 21:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, there's no call for that sort of language. This is not a conjectural article because I can go to my minecraft.jar and look at this texture. There's your hard evidence. This merely explains to the, ahem, "retarded noobs" what the weird blue-and-purple thing is. Until it no longer exists in the jar file, it is still "in Minecraft". If jeb_ removes it next update, we can safely say that it no longer exists and then remove this page. But not an inch before that. Jaeil 22:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Even at that point, I wouldn't say the page should be removed. If anything, it should just make a note that it used to be in the files, never made it into the game, and at this point is just something that used to be there. We still have pages for lanterns, gears, and sponges, and this mystery block has certainly had more impact on the game files at this point than lanterns we only heard talked about.Serow 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If we were to merge them into the Blocks section that we'd have to move a lot and the lantern's coming to Minecraft in no time at all. Gear and Spong are also useful articles as Sponge can still be used in a few games, and mods may use gears for experienced players. Rocĸetor ^talk 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

But don't you think it's interesting to keep it for historical purposes?

Anyway, I do, and I know there are others too, so it will not be deleted. If you don't like it, then don't read the page.

My Hypothesis

This is my hypothesis on this so-called "bleeding obsidian."

I was thinking that maybe jeb_ was going to add bluestone dust to the game but ran out of time or something. Maybe it was going to be in the Nether or somewhere else? What do you guys think? Electrk 16:28, 26 March 2011 (PST)

It probably was for the Nether, but we shouldn't put speculation in articles per rule 7A. Alphap 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't technically count as a "normal" page. Electrk 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I really thought this was going to be a teleport block for a player to teleport around the overworld or The Nether compactly. perhaps Flint and Steel the Mystery Block and set a number, it will dial a code to a matching pair. Rocĸetor ^talk 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

When I first looked at the texture I thought it was a special nether lapiz ore. Piber20 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Electrk 05:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Spawn location info

Does that little bit about the bed respawn in 1.4 really need to be there? It doesn't even remotely belong unless additional information that ties it to the mystery block is provided. Was this block originally thought to be used to set the spawn point, once it got added to the game? If so, that should be added if the spawn bit is to be kept, IMO. —Neithan Diniem † 02:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Name (important!)

On Jeb's twitter he called it Crying Obsidian because he was replacing the crying obsidian file with grass edge. dk how to do links, so heres a copy-paste:

For texture packers, the grass edge tile has replaced the crying obsidian in the texture file 2:20 AM Apr 15th via TweetDeck

--Rocĸetor ^talk 10:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is required. One of the reasons it is removed, apparently, is because it's functionality is replaced by beds. Wouldn't you want to know why a block was not placed in the game if you happened to go across it's page? Ytuio9 14:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Considering this is just a texture (which has even been removed as of 1.5) and there is no coding for this, I don't see any reason to keep this page.

It's obvious it won't be added again (or the texture wouldn't have been replaced), and there's going to be no more information about it, so it'll remain a stub on something that doesn't exist at all in the game. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 02:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That would also warrant deletion of the gear, would it not? --{ Fishrock123 } (Talk) 03:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The gear actually existed ingame at one point. It should probably be kept for historical purposes. -Alphap^T~C 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well gears have plenty of information on them (and Notch showed them in a video once), whereas this is just a stub. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 03:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't really need this anymore as it will be removed from the file in 1.5, unlike the quiver, which will stay in the file. Delete this when 1.5 comes out. --Rocĸetor ^talk 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you guys dont need to delete it. its a memento of an abandoned project. I use it as my login background and i hanged obsidians texture to bleeding obsidian, because i prefer it. PLEASE DONT DELETE IT - Mrburger 20:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Mrburger

lol what? Anyway, because of how minor "crying obsidian" (when did it become crying?) is due to lack of information and the fact it only manifested as a texture, this article should deleted and the information should be kept in some kind of page related to behind-the-scenes stuff or as a subsection of Jeb. Hell, we can even make it redirect there. --Gnu32 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"is due to lack of information", so your saying we should just delete all of the stubs because they lack info too? --Imdill3 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Stubs (valid ones) are stubs because so far nobody's fully written them up yet; they still have information to put in. Crying Obsidian has absolutely nothing about it other than it being a "failed project" by Jeb. --Gnu32 15:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's already a "deleted" section (that it currently appears under) that seems useful for historical archiving. I typically don't suggest deletion of anything from an informational wiki, as it can be nice to have history. Why not leave it alone? Besides, its removal from the file doesn't necessarily mean it'll never be used, just that it's not being used. It wouldn't be that difficult for them to have saved a copy to put back in later, when/if the block is implemented. Gatherer818 01:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing, there's absolutely no reason to remove this article! It has rare (and sourced!!!) information, it was apart of Minecraft, the information is legit, it's history and it's interesting information (imo). If anything, removing this article would be like removing the [TNT] article, any argument to remove it would be pure opinion and a negative effect on the wiki. --Imdill3 04:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it has nothing to do with Minecraft except being in the texture file at one point. I'm for deletion simply because its actually from a previous project of Jeb and never really featured in Minecraft at all. Someone who never went into the game's jar wouldn't even notice it. However, I do think that it should be mentioned on Jeb's article, because it does have something to do with him. Its no Minecraft content, its something Jeb left there.--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 09:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your exactly right on one thing "being in the texture file at one point". It was at one point apart of Minecraft. Why is it so hard to keep good content? Here's an analogy: What if Mojang thought that no one was using sandstone? They wouldn't just remove the whole thing.

Okay, but it has to have a subtitle and the information still on his page. Seriously, its historic bits of info is why I love MCW. If we put it on jebs's page, including all info, I would be content. this info should stille be accessible - Mrburger

Weird, obscure, forgotten bits of historical info make for the most interesting bits of trivia. If Minecraft wiki doesn't document it, who will? It is definitely part of Minecraft, just a minor one that was very easy to miss. It's also not a stub if every bit of information that could be ever reasonably be expected to be gathered is on the page, and sourced appropriately. Manifold 19:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I do think we should add this as a subsection under Jeb's article. We don't have an article on the "Fire Tex" found in terrain.png, as nothing is really known about it. We do know a little about this "Crying Obsidian," but it's nowhere near notable enough to have its own article. --Zrowny 20:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It was called Crying Obsidian since that was the last name Jeb called it, on his Twitter. I don't think it should be an article by itself, as it is not even in the block files anymore, as such we should delete this and redirect it to Jeb's page, and add in a section about Jeb's abandoned projects.I'm for deletion; reason: not in minecraft and has been confirmed by Jeb that Crying Obsidian will never be in the game again as of Beta 1.5_01.--Rocĸetor ^talk 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept for historical reasons. But I also agree that this shouldn't be it's own article.--DemonSlayerThe3rd 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be deleted, since it is in the terrain.png. Yes, it's still there. Just check, it's right next to the obsidian. ~Balleo 9:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No it's not. If it was, grass would look like obsidian. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As Ultradude25 said, its not in the terrain.png at all. Again, I think it'd fit nicely on Jeb's page, with a redirect leading to it. Its not in the game, never has been, and not related with Minecraft except for having 256 pixels in the terrain file. (unused, even)--Quatroking - MCWiki Administrator 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it should NOT be deleted, because it does have something to do with minecraft, and if someone wanted minecraft information, they'd come here first; so yes, it should be kept for historical reasons, and it will be a good source of information for anyone wanting to know more, because they had heard about it and wanted to know what it was. That's how I got here. ScipioWarrior 23:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I think having a texture in the source as well as a few tweets from an important dev should meet notability guidelines for a Minecraft wiki. If we go by wikipedia standards, notability isn't temporary, saying it's not in the files anymore shouldn't be a valid argument. I don't think it should be moved to Jed's page, because it really isn't related to him, unless we made a list of all the other features he added/worked on. Romnempire 01:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the information "it was only in the texture file" is valuable information in and of itself. Without that information existing somewhere, someone could mistakenly believe that it was more than that. An article that clearly and succinctly sets the record straight is of extreme value in and of itself. --Captain Ford 00:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Will officially not be in Minecraft again, not in the terrain.png anymore, block never made it into Minecraft (only as an unused texture), it's use has been replace by beds. Redirect this article to a 'deleted blocks' page or something. As far as I'm concerned and as everyone else should be, if it's not in the files, it's not Minecraft. --Rocĸetor ^talk 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But, you do admit that it was minecraft, so were quivers, gears, ect. --Imdill3 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we start deleting everything that was removed from the game, like Rana? </sarcasm> --Imdill3 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Rana was actually in the game, and has a good amount of information on the page. This just existed in the texture file for a few versions, and the page is basically "it's an abandoned idea replaced with beds". Quivers were actually used to hold arrows and is still in the texture files. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 03:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned and (i think) everyone else should be, if it has ever been in the files, it is Minecraft. I think it should be within the project goals for MCWiki to be a history of Minecraft, not simply a shoddy hyperlinked Prima guide. But then, I'm new to this wiki, is there a community/admin consensus i don't know about? romnempire 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But this article has never been, is not, and never will be! This article is useless! There's no evidence for it to return! Nothing! Unlike quivers, which may have a use to extend arrow capacity per slot to 128, or something. --Rocĸetor ^talk 05:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate - I think we have different goals. I don't think a history of Minecraft is useless, and things that simply could-have-been, to the point they got into the codebase, if only a little, are useful for a history. You might think a history of Minecraft is useless, and that this should simply be a player's guide, in which case I would agree there is little to no merit for this article, but I don't think this should just be a player's guide. romnempire 05:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't you understand what I'm saying - I want an article with old and deleted items/blocks/mobs! I agree with your point, but I don't want an entire article on it.Then we'll have a massive amount of stubs in the future. --Rocĸetor ^talk 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't need a page on every single tiny thing that existed for a few versions or less, because they'd all be stubs. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 11:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is no longer a stub, which is fine because this is 100% of the information available to us. Anyway, we have several people who want this information preserved in some way, so let's focus on how to handle it. The options I see are to move the content to Jeb's page, keep the page as it is, or to make a "deleted blocks" page that would include this, gears, etc. I'd prefer to either keep it on this page or to make a "deleted blocks" page. Manifold 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your right, if a wiki had a page on every single little thing, it would be extremely messy. However, This item is original and wouldn't fit in any of the current articles correctly. --Imdill3 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Imdill. But the thing is, the minecraft wiki still has plenty of room to grow. We shouldn't consider deletion of this unless the wiki becomes too cluttered. And I don't think it will any time soon. --Draexzhan 19:10, 31 May 2011

Please,do NOT remove Crying Obsidian. The minecraft wiki is big enough to hold everything. Look at how many articles there are! There is enough room for everything in minecraft. When there is a lot of articles, it will not get more "messy"! It will still be either classified in the same way or a better way!--ZFXD 07:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Put on jebs page

I agree, we should put it on jeb's page. another section maybe like this:

Abandoned projects

• crying obsidian(little summary of what it was suppose to do.)

--"_"oyster"_" 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because the crying obsidian is a stub does not mean it has to be deleted. It may come back as a stronger type of obsidian or a new ore. Just because its removed doesn't mean it won't come back. Rana was removed due to her creator left mojang, however a mod was created to bring her back (which is now outdated). Giants are still in minecraft as a mob only can be spawned with SMP commands or SSP mod commands. They had a est run video from notch however they did not even get a stub even though they are present in the game today. The giant got 3-4 lines of info when it could have a page of its own. Same could apply to the crying obsidian. To Ultradude, there is a section for deleted blocks: its called 'removed' with at the minute has 3 blocks and 1 item including the crying obsidian itself. Wether it was placeable in minecraft or not it was in minecraft and therefore a page is required. Nothing on these pages 'remain a stub'. They just have missing information that users don't know. The quivers wasn't used by players. Only be skeletons early on but the fact you could stack 64 in 1 square made the quiver obselete. The crying obsidian was removed as a terrain but if you say because there was no coding and it was removed doesn't say much. It just means that you find it useless because there isn't enough information for it. The unused blocks in minecraft are just as much to minecraft as wood is to a player when you start a world: necessary. They probably replaced the crying obsidian because it would save space on the terrain since it has quite minimal space at best. In short, keep it where it is and do not delete it. Mannather

There is no good reason for it to be deleted for me. A wiki like this has to contain as much information as it can have, and since this block was a part of Minecraft at one point (even if it's only in the texture file), the page deserves to have its place on this wiki. Deleting this page would be like hiding a part of the history of Minecraft. Olip96 17:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jeb has confirmed on his Minecraft wiki talkpage that he will never add Crying Obsidian. It's up to you guys if you want an abandoned projects title on Jeb's article. --Rocĸetor ^talk 10:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This page is a deadpan, so it should be removed. I DO think we could make a page for removed features/content, which could include crying obsidian, quivers, gears, etc. --SUPACRAAZZEE 23:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That kind of page would seem a bit too disorganized for me. Why not keeping it like it is now ? As far as the "removed" category isn't too loaded, it can't be really disturbing... oɩıᴩ⁹⁶ 23:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How about moving this to a trivia secton on the obsidian article? I think completely removing this information from the Wiki is a bit harsh. I also agree with Supacraazzee's idea. 10hailfire10 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. There's not enough content on the quiver, gear and Crying Obsidian to warrant their own pages, in my honest opinion, though a page describing planned but abandoned/removed content should cover everything, as there should be enough content between the three of them. TheDGG 02:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was only featured in the terrain.png, it's part of Minecraft, no? It's not as if having one stub on the blocks page is 'cluttering' it. I say you should leave the page, it's part of Minecraft's history. I say stop making a big deal out of it. It isn't as if you can't sleep at night because you know that Crying Obsidian is still on Minepedia. Just let the article be, it can have its own page. EKitty 9:44 PM, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep: There is no rational reason to delete perfectly good content. People who support this deletion need to realise that this is a wiki, not a list of blocks and items. Legoless 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea to add a "Removed Items" (or some other name) page and put it there (definitely don't think it should be outright removed). I think putting it on jeb's page is a bad idea however. It doesn't really have much to do with him. To use an example - should Gears, Quivers, etc go on Notch's page? No one is going to that page to read about those items. They are going there to read about Notch. Same situation here. --Warlock 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, who in here is REALLY bothered by this article (and the quiver / gears one) ? Who really CAN'T use this wiki with that article on the block's page ? Guys, it's perfect the way it is now, there is no reason to change that ! oɩıᴩ⁹⁶ 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care either way personally - I just don't think the info should be outright removed (or that it belongs on Jeb's page). --Warlock 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I found out that jeb_ finds this page useful! [1] Drenay 19:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Create Sub-article: This object was only in the minecraft texture files for a week and was never, nor will ever be, in Minecraft itself. A wiki is a detailed compilation of things people may find useful or interesting - Not a mashfest of stubbed information about things that existed for a few days then were removed with the only information about them being "They're an abandoned project. They got replaced by beds. the end". Personally, if we have so little information about this subject and we'll never have any more as it was removed forever, I think it should be merged into another article, or put into a Trivia, because I know people will want to know what Crying Obsidian is, but I don't think we should have an article about every little removed item if we only have less than a paragraph of information in it. TLDR; Something we have so little information about doesn't deserve it's own article. Instead we should put it into a Trivia or make it a subarticle on another page. Turtleey 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says it was in from beta 1.3 to 1.5, that's two months, not a week ;). -Pteropus 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep it - if we were to get rid of Crying Obsidian, should we get rid of the articles for Sponge, Gears, and Locked Chest as well? How about the articles for Steve and Rana? Should we remove all the information pertaining to old releases from other articles as well? It has historical interest, if nothing else. -Pteropus 19:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I think, with the only links to removed content being in Template:Blocks this is perfectly fine. – Flying sheep 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it for sure. just because it "wasn`t part of the game" doesn`t mean it`s worthless. The idea of changing your spawnpoint was a Minecraft milestone. Sure the position was taken by Beds, but Crying Obsidian started it. It has a great historical value. If you want only current things in your wiki wy don`t we just delete information about Survival Test,Classic,Indev,Infdev, and others. If you don`t like what the wiki has, make your own wiki. Plus, Information on the Crying Obsidian is scarce, making this article more valuable than it already is. You shouldn`t merge it, because then people could more easily wipe it away without notice. Sirs for deletion, you have just been told by an 11 year old. A SMART 11 year old.166.127.1.225 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)psycodragons

The guy above me who posted last has a point. If you want this removed, then we might as well delete The Classic, Sur. Test, Indev, infdev, Alpha, Beta, and other pages! This is important history! Trying to remove this is somewhat trying to remove WW2 from history books! So if you try as you might, It's not going to happen. EVER.(No Offense,) Get over it. EDIT: Sorry! Forgot to login!71.71.215.134 22:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Creepergoboom64

1.5

If anything, it should be moved to grass, because for whatever reason, crying obsidian is the new side of the grass block.

0.0 It IS in the place of grass in the texture file but your idea is just... Well, stupid. --NEG4tive 13:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He probably did what I did when 1.5 came out and forgot to replace the Crying Obsidian texture with the Sidegrass texture. It actually makes for some really ugly sidegrass.  :/ --Markus 21:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Explain? I have perfect sidegrass... do you mean in the inventory? That works fine for me... as well, the texture was removed, so it's not possible... Cool12309^(T|C) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My sidegrass was iron blocks for a while, not sure about you guys... --SUPACRAAZZEE 23:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You were using an old texture pack, or a mod overwrote that spot(like ModLoader). -Alphap^T~C 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

New Seeder Tool?

What's this part about the new seeder tool and iron blocks? –The preceding unsigned comment was added by FelixGriffin ^{(Talk|Contribs)} . Please sign your posts with ~~~~

It's probably referring to typing "iron" in the Random seed field. -Alphap^T~C 00:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's also because someone apparently used an old terrain.png to generate a new world, making the wrong textures appear. I'm removing it. LTK 70 12:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There Are Other "Ghost" Textures

Don't know about you, but in my 1.4 terrain.png I found, in addition to Crying Obsidian, a version of moss stone with orange moss instead of green, a gold block with a square in the middle, and something that looked like a much lighter version of smooth stone.

You're using a texture pack probably. Crying obsidian is 100% not in there any more, it's replaced by side grass. –ultradude25 ^(T|C) at 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I wasn't using one. Huh. Ok then. Pteriforever 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

texture file help

as you all can imagine i want a file that contains this block's (bleeding obsidian) texture, has anyone already extracted this and is willing to give me a copy? please post a link so others can get it too. Kirakenso 01:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: [2] -Alphap^T~C 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

suggestion

Has anyone else heard about the Ather idea? You know, the dimension that is like a sky version of the Nether? It is on the Forums. Anyway, i thought that maybe crying obsidian could be used to make a portal to the Ather, like normal obsidian is used to go to the Nether. Kekilrocks123 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sky Dimension? --Gemberkoekje 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A. Make a headline for you'r topics, you made me make one for you.

B. this is not the suggestion forum, you can find that here:http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum/1-suggestions. --Yurisho 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just giving a reason why it might not need to be taken away. Geez. Kekilrocks123 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeb said him self that the tile will never be used on his talk page, but this page should be moved to a 'removed features' article --Rocĸetor ^talk 11:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's spelt "Aether", not "Ather". I'm not sure what block would be used, but Crying Obsidian will never be added to the game, so we just have to wait to find out.--ZFXD 08:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Other Ghost Textures

I've found a purple variation of the arrow, a broken Iron Spade icon, many strange icons in the lower half of the Font file, as well as an item icon for cake in terrain.png.

the broken spade is used in the stats page and the cake icon is indeed unused. the strange font's are not special, you can find this at any font... the purple arrow is indeed interesting--Yurisho 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)...

Purple arrows are from skeletons in survival test Toadbert

==Re-Added?==

Unless my terrain.png is messed for some reason (highly unlikely as the rest of the textures are perfectly normal and up-to-date) it seems that they have re-added the texture for crying obsidian... EDIT: sorry, turns out my terrain.png IS messed up. Nevermind. {{SUBST:User:Spark01/sig}}

Preposition for Deletion

I suggest this article be removed, or perhaps create a category or article for removed/unused content. It seems a little bit too much to have an article for each individual removed/unused item in the game when there's only a few of them.

--Ancientpower 17:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

How it could be crafted

Ingredients	Input » Output
Lapis Lazuli + Obsidian

Zigzagar 21:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this be in the Trivia

On my computer if you change the language to Pirate it calles obsidian "ye sad one". Should this be mention in the trivia? 68.100.79.16 00:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Block Buster

The language translations aren't made by Mojang, so as a rule, we don't document them in articles. -- Orthotope ^talk 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)