Forum:Replacing Renewability with Farmability

I'd like to propose to replace the notion of renewable resources with "farmable resources".

The reason for this is that I believe whether an item/block is "renewable" or not is not really interesting; what is interesting is whether it is farmable. Renewability is often theoretical (as can be seen in a previous discussion about items from vaults at Forum:Renewability and vault). But, most players probably care more about whether an item can be actually farmed. I think the current classification system for renewability also isn't exactly useful, distinguishing items based on some technicality of how to "renew" the resource (whether crafting/smelting is involved), which isn't relevant in practice (anymore) due to smelting and crafting being automateable.

Currently, we have the following categories for renewable resources:

• Renewable: can be obtained in unlimited quantities in Survival
  • Base renewable: The resource itself is renewable
  • Compound renewable: The resource needs to be crafted from renewable resources
  • Hybrid renewable: Both base and compound renewable.
  • Renewable only in block form: technical case where only the block form of an item/block is renewable
• Not renewable, except Vault: renewable only by (ab)using the player limit on vaults
• Not renewable: cannot be obtained in unlimited quantities in Survival

I propose the following classification instead:

• Farmable: It is possible to build a farm to produce more of this item/block
  • Manually farmable: Farms for this item need to be actively tended to by (a small number of) players, or it is a fully manual process
  • Semi-automatically farmable: Farms for this item need (small number of) players to work, but just to take simple repeated actions ("AFK-able")
  • Automatically farmable: Farms that work completely independently of players
• Not farmable: It is not possible to build a farm to produce more of this item/block

Here's a few examples:

If a tutorial for a specific farm exists, the infobox entry for farmability could maybe also link to that tutorial, e.g.: "Chorus Flower: Farmable: Yes, semi-automatically (Tutorial)"

Let me know what you think! | violine1101 ^(talk) 15:38, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. Renewable is more confusing because most people use the word to refer to energy, not knowing the actual meaning. The term farmable is easier for players to understand because of its popularity in videos, provided the term itself does not turn the article into a tutorial. 👁 Image
Quake the Wind Fan 👁 Image
15:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per Quake Liyz7928 (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support. Renewable is such a heavily ingrained term in the Minecraft community that ditching it feels weird, so I can't feel super enthusiastic about this, but I can't point out any real flaw with the idea, it's good. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
18:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually wondering if "renewable" is a general Minecraft term or a term that's been coined by the wiki. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support introducing farmability as a new classification for resources.

The information about a block or item being renewable should still be mentioned somewhere though. I think at least renewable resource should be kept. -- 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 23:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support per BigEarsQuake 2. 👁 Image
Bepis19 👁 Image
23:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Smidgen of an oppose. It makes generally more sense, but on a technical level it is still useful to know what items are theoretically infinitely obtainable. Merging "not renewable without vault" and "not renewable" seems like a misstep.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  23:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Question; would it be possible for renewability and farmability to coexist? That would address what people have said above. Regardless, I 👁 Image
 Support this 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
23:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this as well. I suppose "farmability" could be considered a subset of "renewability" maybe. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I thinks so too! Farmability would be great alongside renewablility Maxxxx Dirt Eater Alt (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support and a question. How much would this affect? Would there be blocks/items that are renewable but not farmable (ignoring vault-renewable)? 👁 Image
Miner(👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 09:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd imagine most items that are renewable are also farmable. Things where it gets complicated are blocks; e.g. I'm not sure if Farmland is farmable or not, and even its designation as "renewable" seems quite technical. | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment. I think before implementing a separation between autofarmable and manually farmable, we need to investigate it first. There are many differences between editions when it comes to automating and weird limitations, so I think we should first just add "Farmable" and when it's confirmed it can be either manual or automatic. Just to prevent misinformation. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
23:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I think if there's a difference between editions, it should work as currently where there's different renewabilities/farmabilities per edition. But a general "Farmable" might work? Either way I think the categories would need some refining still | violine1101 ^(talk) 23:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support Wyzaje (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I support but to professionals renewablitiy sounds better and some renewable items aren't farmable. Also, the mojang offical product Minecraft Blockpedia:Updated Edition (updated by a few years, only lists blocks up to 1.18) lists them at renewable. StevenK (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

As the creator of current renewability system (the "base-compound-hybrid" classification), I don't want to provide my obviously biased opinion on replacing the system with a new one. I do however see the point you're making and I agree that "farmability" is probably a more useful classification for most players. Melwin22 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong Oppose As you yourself said, they are different concepts; it makes no sense to substitute one for the other.

I'm not against the notion of farmable items, but most people who want to know about it want to know more about how to farm them, and that has to be part of a Tutorial. I'm in favor of creating a tutorial page list about it and putting in renewable page a box for that page, right at the beginning. I don't see why you remove the renewable item content or why you put something related to tutorials in the item infobox when that's not allowed on the page.

Besides, classifying things like that is very complicated. Basically, it depends on the existence or not of farms, but knowing if a farm exists is not trivial at all. What can be done is to give a list of farms, classify the items that way, but make it clear that new farms can be added to the list and change the classification. Aloi4 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support -- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 12:12, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per @Amethyst hhh ~2026-IceologerEndermanCow16519 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's a combined taxonomy of "renewable resources" that includes the notion of "farmability", which I propose instead, given the feedback above:

• Non-renewable: There's no way to create this resource infinitely often in Survival (e.g. Dragon Egg, Sponge)
• Vault-renewable: Only renewable by using vaults (e.g. Diamonds, Heavy Core)
• Renewable: It's possible to create this resource infinitely often in Survival (except vaults)
  • Renewable, but not farmable: I think all blocks that don't have an item (e.g. Bedrock, Farmland, Large Fern/Tall Grass/Tall Seagrass) would fall under this category, but can't really think of an item that does
  • Farmable: It's possible to create infinitely many of these (note: excludes blocks, since the world is finite)
    • Manually farmable: Requires player(s) to actively play the game (e.g. Small Dripleaf, diamond tools)
    • Semi-automatically farmable: Requires player(s) for generating more resources, but only at most using simple macros ("AfK-able farms", e.g. Cocoa Beans, Logs)
    • Automatically farmable: Besides presence of a player nearby (to load chunks), no player interaction required to generate more resources (e.g. Moss Block, Sticks)

Also a minor thought: technically, mobs could also be classified to be renewable/farmable: Elder Guardians are non-renewable, the ender dragon is manually farmable, sheep are semi-automatically farmable, chickens are automatically farmable due to eggs, and zombies are automatically farmable due to monster spawners. | violine1101 ^(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC) (Last edited on 00:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC))

I 👁 Image
 support this proposal as well 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
00:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support — 👁 Image
Delycache ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 15:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment I think it's a better approach, but I believe that simply leaving "renewable as a block" works in place of "renewable but not farmable". Someone might say it's farmable only as a block as well, for example.

Furthermore, I think the concept of farmable is a bit broad and we can include, in a way, farms that mine automatically or semi-automatically, making an item not renewable but somewhat farmable. This will not include items obtained only from chest loot.

I believe farmable could work better as a sub-classification of obtainable. Aloi4 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)