Template talk:Entities

I know we just switched blocks to a single-face view, but would we want to have iso's for mobs? --JonTheMon 09:03, 7 December 2010 (CST)

What's wrong with having the giant in the mobs page? It's technically still in the code AFAIK, I've seen in there. I'll double check, but I bet there's still a EntityZombieSimple and RenderZombieSimple in the source. That's the name for the giant in the source code. I'll be looking into the next few days. --Thevdude 03:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's just a big zombie. You may as well put every possible size a slime can be as a separate mob if you're going to have giants. – ultradude25 ( T at 03:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just the skin of a zombie. It does more damage, doesn't come from zombies, and doesn't burn in the sun. It doesn't have a large zombie hitbox, it's the same box shaped hitbox as a slime. If the different sized slimes weren't slimes, but a different mob with the slime skin, I'd understand. But to change the skin of the giant to a different one is just a question of changing ONE LINE of code and making the skin. I understand that it's basically just a giant zombie, but codingwise it's a bit different. --Thevdude 05:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spiders
I don't think spiders need to be listed twice. By default they are aggressive (even during the day) but sunlight causes a change in them (similar to zombies and skeles). You wouldn't put "Flaming Zombie (sunlight)" on there, so why should you put spider under neutral? --JonTheMon 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because flaming zombies act exactly the same, spiders have a completely different behaviour. – ultradude25 ( T at 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And their eyes don't glow in sunlight, but they do in darkness. --Dark Auk
 * I'd say we list the twice. Even wolves are. (Actually, thrice after my last edit...) The behavior is just too different. | TheKax |   Talk   08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Unused and Removed Mobs
The template is a bit crowded, and these mobs aren't even in the game. I'm not saying to remove the articles, but just move them to their own template or something. Heck, the removed mobs' creator isn't even part of Mojang anymore and will probably never return to the game. All we have of the living Pigmen are the skin and nothing else. Giants were just a test ran by Notch. What does everyone else think? --Dark Auk March 18

Maybe move the pigman into the planned section and delete the removed from the template. --Rasun37 March 18

Misaligned Wolf Icon
The icons for the wolf is misaligned in the CSS, they currently points to the 2 empty spaces next to Zombie Pigman and not the two BELOW him. --KaizenNeko 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because someone went and moved them and didn't update the template. >.> – ultradude25 ( T at 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Possible Mobs" Category
I was reading about the Dragon, and from what I see, there's not much on if it's actually being planned, other than a hint. I don't think we should delete it though, but what if we added a new category to the Mod Template (possible the other templates too) named something along the lines of "Possible Mobs". Other content that hasn't been specifically said to be planned would go here, rather than the normal "Planned" section.--DemonSlayerThe3rd 19:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Human, Giant
Why the Human is listed under Removed mobs, even it is an unused mob? The same for Giant, which just disappeared from the list. – IllidanS4 20:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Humans were removed. Giants would just point to the mob page. --Kizzycocoa 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why I can spawn them in server mod? Image – IllidanS4 08:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, the human "mob" is simply the base AI code without behavioural modifications, all mobs are derived from the human AI. – ultradude25 ( T at 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wolf (Hostile)
Since there's already Wolf(Tamed) and Wolf(Wild), shouldn't there be Wolf(hostile)?
 * No, they're neutral which means they won't attack you unless you attack them. --JonTheMon 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah. please note that is the same with Zombie Pigmen. we just have tamed as it's different to pigmen,as wolves can be tamed. --Kizzycocoa 18:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was stupid enough to put this on the template.

But, as with Zombie Pigmen, they don't have a provoked face.

"Enderman" icon doesn't show in viewbar
Title. Cronos Dage 02:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Template
I already merged this template into Template:Entities and moved all pages (mobs at least) using Template:Mobs to use Template:Entities Cool12309(T 00:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To bad. Not good, so I'm changing it back.From Moi, Ajc_1254 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reasons! Not mindless edits! If you want to be non-civilised fools, go to the forums. They welcome people like that there >:( --HexZyle 04:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in charge of the entities project and I though of this idea, if you want more info go to the project page, in short: Entities are not notable - while most minecraft players will be able to tell you that this is a block and this is an item, not all of them will be able to tell a fishing rod bubber and a zombie are both entities. to counter that I want all entities to be compiled together.--Yurisho 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep the mobs' template and add both templates (mobs and entities) to mobs pages. In the entities' template only one link to the mob page would be sufficient. – Scaler (t) 06:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this separates mobs from other entities, witch is something, as I all ready said, I am against, also, this means that you will put the entities template only on the main mobs page, because you only put a nevbox template where it links to, so people who look at a single mob page, and not the general page, will not be able to tell it is an entity like all other entities.--Yurisho 07:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)