Talk:Non-renewable resource

My first page, I hope it isn't too terrible. CrCl3 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfectly fine. This page has many information and especially that it's your first article. skylord_wars (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1.3 changes: -Packed ice is now renewable

-New Non renewable resources: +Heart of the sea ++Conduit +Coral (5) +Coral Block (5) +Dead Coral Block (5) +Coral fans (5) +Dead Coral fans (5)

Podzol can now be made from dirt.

Anything else? --CrCl3 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this page allowed to exist now?

Latest comment: 26 July 20187 comments4 people in discussion

This page has been rejected, or created and deleted on multiple occasions. Some discussions can be seen here, here, and here. (Also the deleted versions, if mods can access those discussions).

Additionally, I have been maintaining a page proposal on my user page for 6 years. (you have to click the "user page" tab) I would argue it has a more complete list, and better groupings, so (if we are accepting the page now) I would like to discuss the best way to merge the two. Cultist O (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While your page suggestion is more complete (since this one hasn't been fully updated to 1.13, and because I thought items not available in survival at all should be considered separately), it also doesn't list any information in relation about where the resources in question can be collected or how common they are, both of which are important, since they largely decide if the resources not being renewable actually matters in normal gampelay or not.

The original argument for this page's deletion seems to be that simply listing non-renewable resources and their crafting relationships would not be enough information to merit a page separate from the category, but this page contains more info than that.

The rarity classification is currently too subjective, but I think something like that is exactly what would be needed to justify this page existing. I wonder if it would be possible to quantify the ocurrence of the resources by using some tool to count the dirt/diamonds/enchanted golden apples available in a large area and then calculate the average in a chunk. (separately for each dimension, and both the direct ocurrence of the resource and the maximum amount if all raw materials are converted?)

I didn't realize this page was so controversial, I understand if it is deleted, but I think there is just as much, if not more, meaningful things to be said about non-renewables as renewables.

--CrCl3 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it's probably not clear, I should say I am actually pro this page, and not trying to admonish you in any way. I am just more pro-consistency, and I don't want to go through all the work of integrating my work into the page, (or for you to put any more in) if it will just disappear. If the admins give the page the go-ahead I will actually be very happy.

Also, I agree your page has things mine lacks and I didn't mean to suggest a wholesale overwrite. I meant that the best of both should be integrated, and hopefully I can save you some of the work I've already handled. (As an aside, make sure to take a look at the "notes" at the bottom of my version, as I think they add useful (or at least interesting) information. Cultist O (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally

Support keeping the page. I would find it helpful if I were a reader, and it certainly isn't hurting anything to have it. Looking at the 2015 discussion, it definitely did not seem to have a consensus that a non-renewable resource shouldn't be created. Of course, the original proposal supported creating the page, one of the comments simply said that they're already listed, another (Cultist's) said how it has been proposed repeatedly before, and the final comment outright supported it. As for the 2011 and 2012 discussions, they were very long ago - and a lot has changed since then, and none of the opposing comments were so convincing that they make me think that there's a really good reason not to create the page, that still applies today. I do think it's a good idea to figure out a way to merge the two.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 12:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support keeping the page. I find it useful, and I find the linked three discussions highly inconclusive. While I would really like to see per-chunk/world volumes of these resources, I'm not sure it isn't too much work. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 12:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at how one could obtain those figures, it seems like MCEdit (Or one of it's variants) could work, but none of them have yet updated to 1.13.

--CrCl3 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay, sounds like Madminecrafter12 says we get to keep the page! Sorry for the drama, I just wanted to be sure nothing was being slipped past that wasn't meant to be. Cultist O (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Changes to Page Structure

Latest comment: 27 July 201810 comments2 people in discussion

Seeing as we are keeping the page, I'd like to bring over some of the advantages of my old version. There are a few things I thought I should ask before I unilaterally make big changes though:

For reversible things like dirt & coarse dirt, I think we should choose one (dirt) and consider the others a product, mentioning the natural generation of each in the How column. Otherwise why don't we have a row for each of grass, mycelium and podzol, each of which can be found naturally and turned into the others? An alternative would be to put all 5 in both the Resource and Products columns.

In a similar vein, can we remove the Diamond, Sandstone, Netherbrick, Terracotta TNT (etc) rows, and simply move their additional "how" information to Diamond Ore, Netherrack, Clay, Sand (etc)'s respective rows?

I'm adding my "Not Obtainable in Survival" table and my 4 notes for now. I think the page seems incomplete without listing every non-renewable block. If someone has a better idea for implementation (of either) I'd be excited to see it, or if you think it's wrong, feel free to take it out, (but please let me know why).

Cultist O (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rule I tried to follow when making my version was that resources which can be obtained in some other way than by crafting from a single other non-renewable resource get their own row (Or are included with others similar items, like Terracotta.). Diamonds can be found in chests, sandstone spawns in a layer, crafing concrete consumes both sand and gravel.

This system works better if we want to keep and/or improve the rarity classifications, since, for example, there is more sandstone available by mining than form than by crafting from sand, and clay is far more limited than terracotta. In the current version your idea would work, but if they ever add a method to convert a rare non-renewable resource to a common one, or we ever want update the page with more precise numbers, every independently obtainable resource will need their own row. Different ores, etc would also have to eventually be separated out.

I do see the argument for only the "root" resources from which others can be derived having their own rows, it would certainly make for a shorter and clearer list, though in some cases it would require one to arbitarily decide which one of interconvertible resources is the "root" resource.

In it's current form the page doesn't really follow any sensible rule, TNT is included but, for example, nether brick fences aren't, even though they both spawn as a part of structures. I didn't really think things fully through before writing the tables.

I definitely think some consistent rule should be followed, does the renewable resources page follow some rule that could be applied? --CrCl3 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also:, I think the unobtainable item list would fit the best bellow the rare item list.. --CrCl3 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You managed to reply before I finished adding it, but that is exactly where I put it. I think you're right that it is too arbitrary to decide which resource is the base in some cases. Perhaps interconvertable resources do need to be listed together in both the resource and product columns of the same row? So for example all 5 (dirt, coarse dirt, grass, podzol and mycelium) would be both resources and products of each-other. As for the non-interconvertible ones, I think giving every single thing that generates its own row is untenable, as you pointed out, netherbrick fences, stairs, slabs?, but also every sandstone variant and stairs, etc. I think the best solution is to take the base resource and mention all the ways its products can be found naturally. Cultist O (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems like a good solution, if precise numbers about the rarities are later obtained the page can be reorganized as necessary. I like the way you separated unobtainable resources which can be encountered in normal survival from those that can't, but I'm pretty sure most (If not all) of the "Technical Blocks" can be encountered in survival. --CrCl3 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough about the technical blocks. I've done the interconvertible stuff, but not the other part. I probably won't be able to get to it for quite some time, as I'm heading out. Also we should think about the best way to implement the bedrock and legacy console exceptions as listed at the bottom of the renewable resources page. I've been struggling to come up with a way that makes it clear there're exceptions, without listing renewable resources in a way that looks like we're still listing non-renewables. One side note, If netherrack and most ores ate "common", I would argue that quartz ore should be considered common as well. Cultist O (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by the edit comment about coarse dirt not being a product of gravel, you only need to have 2 pieces of dirt to start with to convert any amount of gravel into coarse dirt or dirt (Use a non-diamond hoe on coarse dirt to turn it into dirt, then re-craft with gravel to make more coarse dirt) similarly to how you need a block of grass to convert any amount of dirt into grass, just not reversible. If they made gravel renewable, dirt would also be renewable. Gravel is the base/root resource for the whole dirt family of blocks.

Regarding the Nether Quarz issue: I have been rethinking my original rarity classifications, and while I still think we should have something like them, I agree they aren't very consistent.

I think the first one should only contain things like dirt/sand/netherrack/andesite/soul sand, which either have entire biomes made from them, or occur in huge and common deposits everywhere.

I also think the last category (before unobtainables) should contain the ones the third category has now.

But I'm uncertain about what should be between them, maybe should be 4 categories, one for the various base terrain blocks, second for things like most ores, clay, and maybe cobwebs. Third for the two rarest ores, (or at least emerald ore.) and common loot from common structures, and fourth for the highly limited things. If three categories is better then maybe have everything which is neither a very common terrain block or rare treasure in the second category. The categories should probably also be renamed, at least there is no need to have "Non renewable," in front of each one. --CrCl3 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made some of the changes to the rarity categories I suggested, feel free to revert or edit further if necessary. --CrCl3 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re gravel -> dirt, I was just mistaken about how it worked. For some reason I thought you got exactly as much coarse dirt as its dirt cost. I'm happy with the categorisations in general; It'll just take a while to nail down consistent rules, unless/until something better comes along. Cultist O (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the issue with how to mark down the exceptions with the other editions: maybe we should only list the things which are non-renewable in them (but not in java.) in the separate lists, and just add notes to the main list for the resources renewable in other versions. The people who want a clear list of the renewable exceptions can look at the renewable resources page, maybe link it. --CrCl3 (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Non-renewable resource

Contents

Is this page allowed to exist now?

Proposed Changes to Page Structure

Prismarine in peacefull.

Technicality to Petrified Slabs

Misleading information in 'Non-renewable in peaceful difficulty' section