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 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)

0.12.1 gold is renewable. You might be thinking nether, but that is renewable but requires non renewable resources because how are you gonna get the diamond pickaxe to mine it? Simple. Get pigs struck by lightning and they turn into zombie pigmen. Kill the pigmen and get a gold nugget. Repeat by breeding pigs and you get renewable gold. Boorider7 (talk) 20:11, 9 September 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 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)
 * You do realize that shears are not renewable in pocket edition because iron is not renewable in pocket edition yet. Boorider7 (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * But swords are. You can breed sheep in a way to preserve the color, then kill adults to get wool (as it says in the text if you would read it). – KnightMiner  t/c 13:38, 15 August 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)

Pocket changes
... Everything changes for pocket. Nether, weather , iron golems , snow golems , but still no trading and you will need a non renewable diamond pickaxe to mine obsidian in the portal. Zombie pigmen with gold nuggets, wither skeletons with coal. Silk touch, magma cubes , who will clean up , what to do? 0.12.1 pocket edition change pocket listBoorider7 (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Nonrenewable Resource Page
I think there should be a wiki page for nonrenewable resources. The reason why I am stating this instead of making it is A: I need to go to sleep at the time I'm typing this, and B: I don't know how to create tables or input pictures. If you make one, or tell me how I can, then I will be happy. Fyreboy5 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All the non-renewable resources are listed at Category:Non-renewable resources. I don't know whether there's really a demand for a page listing them. Anomie x (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been done and repealed repeatedly, see my user page (click the user wiki tab) for the sample page I've been maintaining, and see this and this for previous discussions about this issue. Cultist O (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Such a page would show what raw materials are nonrenewable, and what items these can make. Examples would be Jukebox in Diamond, and Block of Quartz in Nether Quartz. I could very well make a draft to save, and a page that can be deleted, but can be useful. It would be like Renewable Resource, but about Nonrenewable Resource instead. Or maybe a part of the Renewable Resource page can hold the nonrenewable table. Fyreboy5 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read Cultist O's comment? He says he has a draft already, but it never really was made. Thus do we really need another draft? We also get what the idea is.
 * As for my opinion, there really is not much to say about non-renewable resources. Renewable resources have renewability methods, but non-renewable resources don't have non-renewable methods, as we cannot list a just single reason it is not renewable, it is non-renewable due to a lack of renewablity, so my major concern is that it would basically be a category page, in which case we should just use the category (as that is what categories are designed for). Other than that, there is the minor issue of the overlap for the planned renewable and non-renewable sections. – KnightMiner  t/c 14:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming
Can someone remove the "Upcoming" section of the page and add the bone block, magma block, and nether wart block to the bone, magma cream, and nether wart "renewable products"? I would do it but do not have the permission to delete sections. This is rather important, as the distinction between current features and those to come is necessary. TinyGenius (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Anomie x (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank You TinyGenius (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Exploration Map
Should We add the exploration map to villager trading? It seems like a bit of a special case, but I'm personally leaning toward adding it. Cultist O (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious about something
Currently obsidian isn't renewable in pocket edition because diamond pickaxes aren't renewable. If mending gets added before villager trading gets added, would a mending diamond pick make obsidian renewable but requires non renewable resources in pocket? Also, there is the wither. The wither can break obsidian. Is the wither enough to make obsidian renewable but requires non renewable resources in pocket? Boorider7 (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if Pocket Edition has mending, though I can check. When it is added, then yes, obsidian will be renewable.
 * As for the wither, it is barely usable for mining, so perhaps it should be removed. The BlobsPaper.png 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But... it can be done. It works.. can be used to make obsidian renewable. Well... it still requires the non-renewable soul sand though... Boorider7 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add a Partially Renewable section. This would be resources that are only renewable through unreliable methods. The BlobsPaper.png 20:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unobtainable items
It appears that some blocks can be recreated indefinitely in survival, but cannot be obtained. The most obvious example is frosted ice. Personally, I would consider these renewable, but input from other users is required. The BlobsPaper.png 01:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That has been discussed at least twice before. Originally involving a discussion of ice and more recently if you scroll up. The main issue is that it opens up a huge bag of worms regarding blocks that a player doesn't really think of as their own thing. "Would water and crop blocks have to be added? What about signs? At the ridiculous extreme, what about Block 36?" Unless a solid definition can be found, where we wouldn't end up with a ton of duplicate and nonsensical entries, I oppose the addition of such blocks.


 * Should this discussion be moved and continued under the aforementioned heading? I am unfamiliar the talk page etiquette in this area.


 * P.S. I don't say any of this as a way to shut down discussion, (I welcome any logical and consistent way to add these sorts of things) but I do think you should read the existing arguments for and against. Cultist O (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is another discussion that says that this page describes renewable resources rather than renewable items. The BlobsPaper.png 15:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was my argument in the ice discussion, however you should read that discussion, because good reasons were provided for why XP is collectable, while ice is was not. Cultist O (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A better example is fire. While it is unobtainable, it can be fairly useful as a block. The BlobsPaper.png 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is fire a better example? Ice is extraordinarily useful. The argument isn't that these blocks are not useful, and in fact I originally argued they should be here. The problem is where to draw the line. Would water blocks and lava blocks have to be added? What about crop block versions of every plant? What about signs? What about powered redstone lamps? At the ridiculous extreme, what about Block 36? I am all for adding things like packed ice and even silverfish blocks, maybe portals and fire, but certainly not most other technical blocks, like water and lava, powered lamp, sign facing left, melon stem, or block 36. If you can find a logical line to draw, and explain how it can be defined consistently, I imagine I and others are likely to support it. Cultist O (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Crops would not be included because they are the block form of seeds. Block states such as powered redstone lamps would also not be included. However, water, fire and nether portal blocks are its own blocks, so they should be included. The BlobsPaper.png 01:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to draw the line somewhere, you first have to define what a resource is. In-case the definition changes in the future, the current definition of a renewable resource is: "a resource that can be recreated indefinitely in survival without exploiting glitches or using commands." That definition relies heavily on how you define a resource; it also makes no distinction as to whether the player can actually obtain the block in their inventory or not, so long as it's a resource that the player can recreate. If you define a resource as a block/item, then crop blocks, fire, ice, etc. are all renewable resources as they can be recreated indefinitely; however, if you define a resource as a block/item the player can obtain in their inventory, then technical blocks wouldn't fall under the category as being a renewable resource. In my opinion, if the technical block has a block or item form that the player can obtain or use to create it, and that obtainable form can be recreated, then the technical block shouldn't be included as a resource, but a product of that block/item. However, technical blocks that don't have an obtainable block/item form or aren't the product of a block/item that can be recreated, then it should be included. Jocopa3 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "technical blocks that ... aren't the product of a block/item that can be recreated ... should be included" if they aren't such a product they aren't renewable, so why should they be included? (Clearly I've misinterpreted what you meant here.) "technical blocks that don't have an obtainable block/item form ... should be included" This would include things like block 36, which would be ridiculous, and would also open a lot up to interpretation. Is farmland its own block? Or just a dirt variant. What about Water Block? What about silverfish eggs? How many variants of silverfish eggs? The inventory system simplifies so much. If it's a unique, attainable inventory thing, it's a unique resource. Additionally, if we start listing things that the player doesn't collect. (By the definition of collect reached in the ice discussion) Do we have to start including every respawning/breedable mob? After all you can gather them, and giving them an item to hold even keeps some hostiles from despawning. What about ghast fireballs? I agree that this restrictive definition of "resource" leaves something to be desired, I just don't think it's as simple to elegantly replace. I would also support an amendment to the page description which added an adjective like "collectable" before resource, but even that isn't quite right. Cultist O (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Fire would fall under the category of a technical block that's not the product of a renewable block/item, but can be recreated. Flint and Steel isn't a renewable resource, but fire is because it can be created by lightning, ghast fireballs, etc. Farmland would be a renewable product of dirt and hoes because you can't recreate farmland on its own without those resources. Block 34 and 36 are the renewable products of pistons because you can't recreate them on their own without using pistons. Ghast fireballs are entities, so it depends on whether entities are considered to be a resource or not. Same goes for breedable mobs; though mobs are already used as the basis for why many resources are considered renewable in the first place. Again, resource should be clearly defined somewhere as that would help draw the line. Jocopa3 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying. The consensus was that only things that can be collected into the player (inventory and xp) are resources. Before things like Frosted Ice can be included, a better definition would have to be found. I don't think any definition that includes things like block 36 would be a good definition. "Farmland would be a renewable product of dirt and hoes because you can't recreate farmland on its own without those resources" Wouldn't this make farmland NON renewable? Remembering that dirt is not renewable? You cannot make an infinite amount of farmland, unless given an infinite amount of dirt. Cultist O (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In Console Edition, dirt is renewable, so it would be included. The BlobsPaper.png 19:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In Template:Blocks/content, some technical blocks are included. I think we should include all of these blocks except crops. No other technical blocks would be included. The BlobsPaper.png 19:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So to be clear, you think the definition should be renewable things they decided to list in Template:Blocks/content or Template:Items/content that aren't crop blocks? And as a result we should have each of flowing water, still water and water bucket? Also both kinds of repeater, rs torch, rs lamp, furnace (powered/lit and not), and all 4 additional components of pistons? The block form of signs, sugar cane etc? Would this make air or flowing lava renewable? Do cocoa blocks count as a crop or should they be added separately to cocoa beans? With this definition, how do we justify listing every kind of slab, door, wool, etc, but not all 32 (or whatever) kinds of sign? Cultist O (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I guess not, the navbox just helps narrow it down. A better boundary would be blocks that are neither special forms of blocks nor block forms of items. For example, frosted ice is quite different from water. The BlobsPaper.png 14:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That's closer to something *I* could agree with, but we still have the issue of how to define whether or not something is a special/block form. I for example think of farmland as a special form of dirt, but others clearly don't. Similarly I would be inclined to include all components of a piston (including block 32) as part of the piston, (and flowing and still water as parts of a water bucket) Cultist O (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition of farmland in Console Renewable
MCSyncAC recently added farmland to the renewable section of the Console Edition section. Being that the accepted policy is not to add blocks which are not attainable as items, (see here, here and a more current discussion here) I removed it. LordofEditing put it back saying "Farmland means the items gathered from it". Rather than have an edit war I thought we should discuss it here.

I do not understand what is meant by "items gathered from it". Does this mean dirt? (Already listed) or crops? (Not uniquely renewable on console) Either way this doesn't seem like the way to list them. I am not very familiar with console edition, so if I am missing something obvious, like farmland being obtainable on console, please let me know, otherwise can I get some consensus that this should be removed? (Also the unbucketted lava?)

Note: This should not turn into a discussion of whether renewable-but-unobtainable blocks should be included, that discussion already exists, feel free to add your thoughts there. Cultist O (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Having waited almost a month for an explanation, I've gone ahead and re-reverted the change. Cultist O (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe he means crops? Farmland isn't gathered from anything...


 * Also, items you can craft or produce from resources are usually listed in the "Renewable products" column, so I thought to put in farmland alongside dirt and coarse dirt. It might fit better in the "Grass blocks and mycelium" listing. MCSyncAC (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Better Together Update
With the Better Together Update, we should add a separate section for the Java Edition. The "Not renewable" sections still apply because there may be items that are renewable in two out of three versions (e.g., beds not renewable in Console Edition). To do this, we should look for items that appear in both Console and Pocket Editions, and say that the Java Edition is an exception to these items. The BlobsPaper.png 01:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it, the upcoming Bedrock version might eliminate the option to reset the Nether and End dimensions (as it can generate infinite worlds)...so maybe instead the renewables listed for Console and Pocket editions should be under "non/pre-Bedrock"?--MCSyncAC (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It also turns out that in Pocket Edition, the only differences from the Java Edition are stained glass and enchanted golden apples, both of which will be changed in 1.2. This means that renewability in Pocket Edition will be exactly the same as Java Edition. Assuming Console Edition will have the same renewability as Pocket Edition, we will only need one table. If any later updates raise differences, we can use only in the description. The BlobsPaper.png 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Resetting dimensions in Console Edition
In Console Edition, there is a reset nether option and a reset end option. Currently, we consider this a renewable method, but I would question this because it is done in the menu rather than the actual world. The BlobsPaper.png 16:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this constitutes renewable. Though, yes, it is external, it doesn't use mods or cheats (technically) to do so. --Scibra crandami (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Peaceful
Some resources are not renewable in Peaceful. There should be a section that lists these resources. The BlobsPaper.png 14:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Statistics
Many resources that are considered "renewable" involve a "chance" for a drop. One could argue that these resources are not renewable. One would have to be VERY "unlucky" for the resources to not renew, but it is a statistical probability. For example, Wheat Crops have a chance to drop 0 seeds, and breaking grass has a chance not to drop seeds as well. Bonemeal (renewable) can grow new grass, but that grass could also not drop a seed. Obviously, in practice, these resources are renewable. However, there is a chance that one could not renew these resources. Another example would be Wood. Leaves can decay without dropping a sapling, so there's also a chance that, after destroying all leaves in the world, they would still not have dropped a sapling. Hyujgtyh (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is technically true, yes, but the actual probability is so vanishingly small that you wouldn't be likely to see it even in very contrived circumstances (e.g. every Planck volume in the observable universe running a separate copy of Minecraft in which a world is generated and completely exploited each Planck time, until the heat death of the universe). So this is definitely of interest to a certain subset of people, but for the average player it's going to be completely inconsequential. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 21:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Dinoguy is actually overstating the chances. Assuming all jungle leaves (which are less likely to drop saplings), the odds of not getting any saplings are on the order of 1 in 10100 after about 9,000 leaf blocks decay. In a 10,000 by 10,000 block area, I've counted about 19 million leaf blocks. The usable Minecraft world is about 64 million blocks square. The odds of destroying every leaf block in the world and not getting a single sapling is somewhere on the order of 1 in 108,000,000,000,000. -- Orthotopetalk 22:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying I've overstated the chances is giving me far too much credit: the volume of the observable universe is approximately 10185 Planck volumes, and the time to the heat death of the universe is approximately 10151 Planck times (assuming your chosen metric for "heat death of the universe" is the time it takes for a galaxy-mass black hole to decay completely via Hawking radiation, about 10100 years). Multiplying these figures gets you only 10336 possible Minecraft worlds exploited; you would need a further 107,999,999,999,664 universes churning out Minecraft worlds before you had a reasonable chance of seeing even a single instance where you didn't get a single sapling drop from leaf decay. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of chance theory and all these huge numbers, we could also just consider in short that some resources are only "renewable by random chance". To choose sort of the middle ground in this discussion here, and to be more precise in the "renewability" of certain items, without having to be exact. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Book.png Book and Quill.png Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 11:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Dirt
Why is dirt considered renewable? It generates in vast, but limited quantities. There isn't a way to obtain dirt other than breaking and collecting generated terrain that I know of. If dirt is considered renewable, then should other blocks generated in vast, but limited quantities not also be considered renewable? --Hyujgtyh (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's only renewable by exploiting the 'reset Nether' option in legacy Console edition. This makes gravel renewable, which can be crafted into coarse dirt and dirt. -- Orthotopetalk 22:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Lower Tables Broken?
On November 27th someone added the upcoming renewables from 1.14. Apparently this caused a problem "Template include size is too large", which prevented this table and all subsequent tables from displaying. I've removed the larger lists of products from the upcoming table for the moment, so the tables are at least displaying for now, but what's the long term solution?

If we've simply run out of space on the page, does anyone have any ideas how to condense the larger lists? Something along the lines of "any glass" might help, as there are an awful lot of entries just from things like that. I'm not convinced splitting the page is really ideal…

In the meantime, it'd also be nice to find some way to acknowledge that bamboo, new flowers and new dyes do have products that aren't presently shown, but I'm not sure how best to go about that. Cultist O (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the NewPP report for the page currently (which explains why you ran out of space):


 * The critical value here is, which is the size of the page after all the templates are expanded.
 * The simplest solution here is to find whatever template we're including 100+ times on the page, and try to optimize it by removing redundant checks, merging calls, etc.
 * Darkid ( Talk  |  Contribs ) 16:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The issue is actually most likely caused by the sprite cache, as it adds quite a bit of extra HTML to every sprite. Its normally not an issue, but on pages with a large amount of sprites like this one it becomes an issue. Not sure the best solution honestly, maybe set the nourl flag on the sprites so they do not use the cached sheet on this page? – KnightMiner  t/c 01:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Fixed for now, post-expand is down to 1.8 of 2.1 MB. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 01:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Totems of Undying
This page says that 1.14, totems of undying will be renewable because the player can kill evokers in raids. However, evokers only spawn in wave 10 of a raid, which requires that the player entering the village with at least Bad Omen 5. Since Bad Omen 5 cannot be achieved without, this would not make totems renewable. The BlobsPaper.png 21:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The player can keep accumulating levels of bad omen up to level 5, which causes evokers to spawn at wave 10 in raids. -- HaydenBobMutthew ( talk, contribs ) 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-item renewable resources.
I wonder if it would be useful to include a section about things which could reasonably be considered resources, but are only obtainable in a non-item form.

Things like XP (currently found in the item list), fire, silverfish blocks, mobs, maybe potion effects and enchantments, etc.

Some people have been adding these recently, but I don't really think they fit in the main item list.

I'm not sure if another table would be necessary or if a simple section of text would be enough.

--CrCl3 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, a list of what amounts to every repeatable phenomenon will get rapidly unwieldy. See previous discussions on this topic (particularly re: silverfish and fire): Is ice renewable?, Technical Blocks and other unobtainable resources and Unobtainable items (Not to shut down discussion, but to inform it). (Keep in mind, it used to be impossible to get ice in survival.) Since those conversations, the Non-renewable resource page has also been created, which lists such blocks, along with a note as to why they blur the line. Cultist O (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Renewability via Trading
The section on trading does not distinguish villagers from wandering traders. However, it is more difficult to obtain resources from a wandering trader. To show this, I will demonstrate how many of an item you can obtain per day, for items that are only renewable by wandering traders. Note that the details in this argument refer to Bedrock Edition.

On the first day after a wandering trader despawns, there is a 2.5% chance of another wandering trader spawning, then 5% on the second day, and 7.5% on subsequent days. Once a wandering trader spawns, it remains for 2-3 days before the next cycle. This comes to an average of roughly 17 days between spawns.

In addition, each block or item has a certain chance to be offered and a maximum number that the player can purchase (even if they have lots of emeralds). The table below shows how quickly the player can obtain each item.

These numbers are not exact, but they give an idea. I think trading with wandering traders should be considered a separate method. The BlobsPaper.png 21:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of having wandering trader as a separate section, but I think the sections need some reworking in general:


 * I think the "rare drop" section should be merged to the existing ones like the fishing section was, it doesn't really make much sense anymore in my opinion, it used to be that the rare drops section was for Renewable-in-theory-only stuff like diamond armor, but now it only has 3 things *and* none of them really are more difficult to get renewably than some things on the main list, like endstone, wither roses or turtle eggs.


 * If it isn't removed, some things on the main list should be moved to it, like wither roses, and maybe ominous banners.


 * A decision is needed about where things obtainable by both trading and villager gifts (java exclusive) belong, in my opinion they should be on the trading table where most of them are, but currently some of them are on the main list. CrCl3 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there are lots of renewable methods. While some are less reliable than others the "least reliable" methods are debatable. The tables state the renewable methods anyway, so readers can decide whether they like the renewable methods. I think we can have just one table of renewable resources. The BlobsPaper.png 15:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to having all the methods one one table, though I also see the argument for having villages and wandering trader as separate sections, they are relatively clearly defined and both categories have a decent number of items in them. "Rare drops" on the other hand is an ambiguous category with only 3 types of items in it.CrCl3 (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Note on renewability of fungi in 20w06a
There is a way to get the various fungi blocks renewably in the first snapshot, But it's seems pretty clearly like a glitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNSMkDVGt0Q Mojang apparently has said that they will be renewable, so this shouldn't become an issue. CrCl3 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not intended, and an exploit; they should not be listed as renewable. Mojang said theybprobably will become renewable, but without abusing bugs, they aren't, and should be listed as such. FVbico (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If glitches were allowed, then almost everything would be renewable through duplication. The BlobsPaper.png 01:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, I just felt like it should be mentioned here in case somebody tries to add it. CrCl3 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Making the page easier to maintain
This page has reached the maximum expansion size, likely due to the number of grid images included. Does anyone have any ideas of how we could work around this? Looking at the HTML for the grid images, it looks like its already pretty well optimized, so I think this page just has too much content.

One option would be to use LoadPage and split some of the tables off to subpages. I think if we want a real benefit from this, it would be worth splitting the main table into a few more categories (the distinction between trading and regular is pretty arbitrary). I like the idea of including a table for mob drops, and possibly one for resources that can be grown like wood and wheat. Should leave us with four smaller tables.

If anyone has another idea, I would be interested in hearing it. If not I will look into the LoadPage solution more.

– KnightMiner  t/c 21:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I managed to rework one of the table templates so the page has a much smaller template include size. Might not need load pages, but it still is a bit cumbersome to maintain and to use. As a result, I have the following proposals:
 * Instead of listing all renewable products for an item, only list direct products. So for cactus for example, we would list green dye, but not everything that can be dyed green. Include all direct methods, so crafting, smelting, etc.
 * Split the renewable table into the following categories:
 * Mob drops: Dropped from mobs
 * Trading: traded from villagers
 * Crops: grown from a plant, such as seeds or saplings
 * Unique: anything that is exclusively renewable through a non-standard method, like cobblestone generators
 * Crafting: A large table for all items renewable through crafting, but not through other means. Replaces the previous recursive renewable products lists.
 * This should both make the page a lot easier to use and a lot easier to maintain, as we don't have to go into such great depth for every item added. Non-renewable resources should remain unchanged, as unlike here we cannot assume every non-renewable item has non-renewable products. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * . I made my position clear on discord as well and I'm quite honestly too lazy to restate everything, but yes, I agree this reorganization would be much better. I also think, for effect-based items, we should just say something like (or present it as normal using the EffectLink template) "Blaze rods make Strength, Slowness, and Fire Resistance renewable." Somewhere on the page, we could say "An effect being renewable has the cascading effect of making the potions, splash potions, lingering potions, and tipped arrows of this effect renewable."
 * I also wonder if it would be worth it for Brewing to have its own section like Crafting or Crops? -PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I like how the page is currently structured. I think a better idea would be to just remove all the duplicate items. For example currently a tipped arrow of poison appears in the list of items that are renewable because ice is renewable, that's a bit strange. I think the items on the right should only appear for their main ingredient on the left. Deciding that is pretty arbitrary, especially when there are multiple separate ways to make something, but I think the most important part is just having them all there.
 * Also, some items could maybe be grouped, like all tipped arrows together. Fabian42 (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what this new system would do; only show direct products while still making sure all the information is there. For example, bamboo would say that sticks are renewable, and sticks would say that (some) tools are renewable. The information that bamboo can be used to make renewable tools is still there, but you don't have all these only somewhat related items. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we can get the items to cycle through their renewable variants (tipped arrows, potions, tools of renewable materials), and also only show direct products (tools only showing in sticks and the renewable material sections). We can use the crafting recipe variant method that shows when materials are interchangeable.  I'm surprised this came up so recently as a topic, but I feel like it's for the same reason: tipped arrows being a huge culprit of renewability spam; the one started to get me annoyed was Fungi, since it seems obscurely related, since you'd be better off using overworld trees (but I can see it being viable if you find yourself stuck in the Nether with spare feathers... --Scibra crandami (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hatsuki kiri@undefined If we are going to use loadpage here and make the page effective to both use and maintain, we need to split the giant table into smaller tables. Just moving out the giant table to a subpage does not solve anything, it just delays the problem. You seem to be willing to try and make this page better, would you be willing to separate out the table as well? I have some suggested splits earlier in this topic. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Since when is gravel renewable?
The renewable block podzol has a comment, "Using renewable gravel...". I see no information about gravel being renewable. Sure, there's a lot of it, but as far as I know it can't be created. Should that statement be removed? 134.204.220.36 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since bartering. FVbico (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um... according to this article, the items obtained via bartering don't include gravel. Perhaps it needs an update. (Strike that; the section was hidden by default and I hadn't noticed.)
 * Renewable via bartering, however, doesn't seem practical to me. It's random chance; you can't determine the outcome of bartering like you can with trading, crafting, etc. Bartering doesn't give you any option of what you want to barter for; the piglin offers you no menu of items to choose from. ~ Amatulic (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Practicality of renewability doesn't change the fact that it is renewable. FVbico (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you build a gold farm and an AFK bartering farm, this method becomes more practical. Being subjective or dependent on the player, we cannot document practicality. The BlobsPaper.png 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This page is vandalized
When I scroll down, I found out this page is broken. ZiadElwan61 (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments with . And the bottom templates are broken, not vandalized. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 05:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Templates are not actually broken, we just hit one of MediaWiki's internal limits. See for our earlier discussion on how to fix. KnightMiner (t/c) 05:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed a transclusion to a link to /Renewable; the page should work now.  Nixinova   T   C   07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Lava Bucket
Currently, Lava Buckets are on this list. Should we keep it on the list despite not being renewable as of the latest snapshot? If yes, then we could add Glow Ink Sacs. If no, then we should just remove lava bucket from the list. Blockofnetherite Talk Contributions 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Anything in the upcoming section should reflect the latest development versions, so if its no longer renewable you should update it. We don't currently have a history section on this page (as I am not sure that would be super feasible), thus the information of formerly renewable only really fits on the lava bucket article. KnightMiner (t/c) 04:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Farmable instead of renewable as Category
The term "renewable" is not what the wiki user is looking for, instead it is "farmable", meaning the posibility to create an environment where you can receive renewable large amounts in a short time period. Trading with a wandering trader does not fulfill this requirement since it is waiting 20 minutes to trade a very small amount with no possibility to raise the amount of traders to trade to. – Unsigned comment added by 77.191.15.142 (talk) at 03:32, April 14, 2021‎ (UTC). Sign comments with


 * I'm sure that's what some users are looking for, however some are certainly looking for renewable, that is to say, what resources they can expect a technically unlimited supply of from a fixed starting point. Another major consideration is that "Farmable" by your definition (or any other reasonable definition) is much more subjective than renewable is. For anything you decide to pull from the page, you'll have people that don't consider it as difficult to gather in "large" quantities as something else on the page. The issue you describe is why we have the methods of renewability listed next to each resource.


 * I would perhaps support making the renewability method more obvious, such as by adding symbols for each major category, (which could include distinct symbols for wandering vs regular trades.) Actually, I don't want to hijack your discussion, so I'm making a separate discussion for that idea below Cultist O (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Icons to improve the "Renewable sources" column
In a (justified) effort to describe every possible method to obtain each resource, I feel we've ended up with a sort-of fog of text in that column. I propose a lightweight solution that could make it much easier for users to find the information they are looking for at a glance:

Before each "Renewable source" entry (like a bullet point) we could include a small icon to represent the general type of renewability. We'd have roughly 8-12 icons for the different methods. Something like:


 * Normal mob-drops (could optionally be split into hostile / passive)
 * Rare drops
 * Plant-growth (would include "plants" like mushrooms etc)
 * Fishing
 * Villager trading
 * Villager gifts
 * Piglin bartering
 * Wandering trader
 * Crafting from another entry (would include enchanting, stone-cutting, smelting etc)
 * Other (Like ice / obsidian / cobblestone generators and whatnot)

To illustrate, the row for "arrow" would then look something like:

It would take a bit of effort to implement all at once, but I would be willing to do that (once we'd agreed on icons) and it would be easy to add to future entries. I can't think of any way it would detract from the usefulness/readability of the page.

Cultist O (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These icons might make the page load slower. Compare with an old revision:
 * CPU time usage	2.573 seconds
 * Real time usage	2.772 seconds
 * Preprocessor visited node count	13,038/1,000,000
 * Post-expand include size	1,392,601/2,097,152 bytes
 * Template argument size	2,533/2,097,152 bytes
 * Expensive parser function count	1/100
 * Lua time usage	1.077/7.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage	5.87 MB/50 MB
 * New revision:
 * CPU time usage	2.737 seconds
 * Real time usage	2.857 seconds
 * Preprocessor visited node count	15,319/1,000,000
 * Post-expand include size	1,527,512/2,097,152 bytes
 * Template argument size	3,171/2,097,152 bytes
 * Expensive parser function count	5/100
 * Lua time usage	1.236/7.000 seconds
 * Lua memory usage	10.23 MB/50 MB
 * The page already loads slowly enough, so adding more icons would exacerbate the problem. Fadyblok240 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)