Talk:Renewable resource

Pocket edition
According to Nether Reactor, the reactor also drops Nether quartz, which would make that and various things made from it (Quartz blocks/slabs/stairs; daylight sensors; diorite, granite, andesite, and polished versions; and redstone comparators) renewable there. But since I don't have that edition, I don't know whether the reactor actually does drop quartz nor which of those items are craftable in the pocket edition, so I'll leave the update to someone else. Anomie x (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I left most of the table unwritten, as I also do not own the edition. I was hoping someone who did would fill in the blanks.
 * As for specifics of quartz, based on the change logs for the edition I would say it belongs on the list. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 17:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

arguments
Although you can mine the gold blocks, this requires an iron picaxe or diamond picaxe. In Pocket edition, these picaxes are not renewable. This is because villager trading has not been added, so you can't simply ask for the pickaxe. Iron is not renewable because villages do not have golems, and zombies do not drop iron ingots. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.165.49.48 (talk) at 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * Can't you coax creepers into blowing up the blocks? It's not a high drop rate, but it will happen. Darkid  ( Talk  |  Contribs ) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems gold is theoretically renewable in the pocket edition (either using creepers or killing enough pigmen and getting the gold ingot drop), although it is very hard to actually perform, so that should be mentioned in the table. We can add other tables below the main one stating different methods of renewability and if it is not renewable as well. Also, if an item is not renewable in PE, it should be noted as such below the table. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 23:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I could test this once 0.11.0 is released (you can't make nether reactors in creative, but I will be able move items from creative to survival, then switch). Alternatively, another PE player can test this if they have the resources. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * 0.11.0 Came out. However, you will have to do this. 1. Place 2 wood logs and 2 chests in creative and a bunch of leaves and a furnace and a crafting table and coal blocks and stone and iron blocks and diamond blocks and gold blocks (for nether reactor) and gravel 2.change the world to survival. 3. Go in the world. You inventory will be empty but the blocks placed will allow you to make what you need for the nether reactor. 4. Optionally craft diamond armor and a diamond sword so the creeper blowing up the reactor won't kill you. Break the gravel . If you get gravel place it and break it again. If you get flint , use it to make flint and steel. This is optional because this will make you able to blow up the creeper when you want to. But you don't have to. Then build the nether reactor. 5. Wait for nighttime. Turn the difficulty on. Look for a creeper. Get it to come right next to the reactor. 6. This is the hard part. Activate the nether reactor. Get the creeper to blow up the gold blocks before they become obsidian. If you have flint and steel , use it on the creeper to blow it up. If the gold blocks drop gold blocks , success! Then go kill the zombie pigmen to get more gold. Anomonous user98.182.58.147 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am currently trying to test if gold is renewable. I haven't succeed yet, however. 71.212.10.80 14:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge "Rare drops" with the rest of the drops
Currently, Renewable resource is the only place that lists some non-rare drop resources simply because they both are drops, but really it would make more sense to merge all drops under a "Mob drops" section.

The only problem we end up with the the split of coal/charcoal, which already make sense especially since the trading/fishing occasional duplication.

– KnightMiner  (t·c) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonrenewable catalysts
How do we want to cover resources that require a nonrenewable resource to reproduce, but do not consume the nonrenewable resource? For example, all types of farming use nonrenewable grass, dirt, farmland, sand, or soul sand to grow. Would these go the the currently hidden "renewable, but requires nonrenewable resources"? Previously that section only contained dyeing sheep with nonrenewable dyes. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 00:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking over the list, such a change may put the article into chaos, since wood requires nonrenewable dirt, and everything that is not a mob drop requires wood in some way, such as creation of tools, although trading throws that off, assuming you trade only renewable resources directly from mob drops. Even stone gets messed up, since you have to state "either use tools made using renewable wood that requires dirt, renewable sticks from fishing, or get tools from villagers, or skip all of those and use creepers."
 * I really cannot find much of a solution without simply removing that header, and stating non-renewable requirements within the cells. – KnightMiner  (t·c) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That has been discussed quite a few times actually, but basically we had decided that if nothing non-renewable is consumed, then for all intents and purposes it is considered renewable. The renewable but requires non renewable was much more useful at one time, as it contained enchanting, and a bunch of other stuff which at the time fit that description. Cultist O (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Then there's the argument that the time you spend on obtaining something isn't renewable either ;) I'd agree with removing the section. Anomie x (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's good to leave it hidden though, as in cases where the initial resource is consumed, it is a valid distinction, and the game changes enough that we may see something like that again. (The section has been hidden/removed and resurrected many times already.) It really doesn't cost anything to have it sit there invisible. Cultist O (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The main reason I am asking for an official definition is the Pocket/Console editions, which both currently use the section (also for future use though, a consistent definition is nice). As such, is the nether reactor's consumption of iron and diamonds to construct the core within this category, or is it considered not since the core is not consumed – KnightMiner  (t·c) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with any edition other than pc, but if non renewable diamonds (or whatever) are used up (not recoverable), but after that one time use you get infinite something else, then that something else goes in "renewable but requires non renewable". This was the way enchanting used to be (single use of non-renewable diamonds, infinite enchantments) So in summary the criteria are in my opponion: "If a finite amount of a non renewable resource can be used a finite number of times, to produce an infinite amount of a resource, then it belongs in that table, so long as the non-renewable resource is not recoverable, and the renewable resource is not renewable in some other way." Cultist O (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like a bit of a silly distinction, though. Why look at "the diamonds are used up" rather than "the nether reactor core isn't used up"? Or "the lapis is used up" rather than "the blue sheep can be re-sheared forever"? Anomie x (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're not, you're looking at both. One table has all things where nothing non-renewable is used up, the other has everything where a finite thing is used up for infinite things, and anything that doesn't fit either of those doesn't go on the page. (Though I still support that table/page's existence) Cultist O (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All plants (except cocoa and mushrooms) are like this. However, they do not apply to renewable, but requires one use of non-renewable resourses because a well-functioning farm require multiple uses of non-renewable resourses. ~From Contrapple Grid Empty Map.png 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For the most part. The consensus here seemed to be though that unless a non-renewable item is lost in some form, but after that the item is renewable, that category is not used (for example, diamonds and iron to craft the nether reactor core, or lapis to dye the sheep). So for example while most farming requires dirt, after the farming the dirt can be picked up and used for something else, so the item is considered fully renewable. – KnightMiner  t/c 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You do realize that you can get lapis from villager trading so that makes lapis renewable right? Boorider7 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The references to lapis lazuli not being renewable are from the pocket and console editions, of which neither have villagers that trade lapis. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Technical Blocks and other unobtainable resources
Someone recently added fire to the renewable-but-requires-non section of Pocket Edition's section. In the past, blocks such as these, (I specifically remember a discussion of ice by the old mechanics) were not considered renewable, because they were not collectible, but as it has been some time, I wanted to open it up for a discussion before I reverted the edit. Cultist O (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, what are we using to qualify them as renewable? Blocks like water, monster eggs, fire, and mushroom stems cannot be obtained in the inventory, but can all be created unlimitedly.
 * Personally, I would go with a new section for blocks that can be created unlimitedly, but cannot be obtained as items, something like "Renewable, but not as an item" – KnightMiner  t/c 20:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I worry that that would add a lot of essentially duplicate entries. Would water and crop blocks have to be added? What about signs? At the ridiculous extreme, what about Block 36? I've always avoided technical blocks (in which I include fluid and fire blocks), because they aren't what players really think of as being things. I would be comfortable with the inclusion of the specifics you listed (likely not including water) but how do we define what fits and what doesn't? I would suggest that if these items are added, that some sort of non-attainability note is added in each place, rather than an entirely new section. Cultist O (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that would be an issue unless crops are only held in the table and we just list products... I guess until a decent definition can be though of, we should require the resources to be obtained as items. – KnightMiner  t/c 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if a resorce can't be obtained as an item, it is still possible to use the resorce. There is a similar discussion for experience orbs.71.212.10.80 21:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you opposing? My comment suggested adding a section for them, and you opposed that saying they need to be on the article (otherwise you have the wrong indentation) – KnightMiner  t/c 00:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read the discussion of ice I linked to above, we discussed how xp orbs are collectible, even if not as inventory items, but tech blocks were not seen that way. You will also notice that back then I was on the other side of this issue, until convinced otherwise. Cultist O (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Fishing
Fishing has been added for the latest version of MCPE. What items can be caught in this way? 108.216.29.126 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Argument
This may be petty, but I have a policy of never reverting an edit twice without discussing it first. The following sentence is currently used as part of the method for golden swords and armour:

"A sword is a rare drop by a player-killed zombie pigmen."

The pluralization is inconsistent here, as we essentially have "a [adjective] pigmen" I had solved this by removing the "a" but it was reverted. It could also be solved by replacing "zombie pigmen" with "zombie pigman" or by rearranging the sentence completely to something like:

"A sword is a rare drop from zombie pigmen killed by a player." or "by players."

I still prefer my original solution.

Cultist O (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with using proper grammar here. The current sentence definatelly has incorrect pluralization. – KnightMiner  t/c 01:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)