Template talk:Entity

So, what does this do that Template:Item can't? --JonTheMon 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, it adds a field that says "created entity ID". It's for stuff like minecarts & boats. Riking 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So where on the page is the id for the inventory item? That is actually more useful than the in-game entity ID. --JonTheMon 03:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, wrong issue. If an item has an in-game entity, how is that useful to players? And if it's generic enough (minecarts, flowers, etc) why not propose adding it to the generic Item template? --JonTheMon 03:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Physical Dimensions
Can we add an option for height, width and depth of the entity? A lot of pages (such as those for cow, pig and chicken) start with distractingly-accurate dimensions of entities that would be better off moved to the side-bar. Pareidolon 02:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but we should make sure to specify what the values mean. There are two different measurements: the size of the visible model (which doesn't matter to gameplay, and is I believe what the "distractingly-accurate" numbers mostly are), and the size of the collision box (which determines what size of opening the entity can pass through, and is listed in the Entity table except for mobs). —kpreid 14:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Experience
Since experience orbs are considered drops, why do we need a separate parameter for exp and drops? YetAnotherGuy 12:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Drops are items; experience orbs, strictly speaking, are not items. Besides which, it just makes more sense in general to handle experience orbs separately from drops. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 13:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Captions
The caption alt text seems to be working fine. Didn't need to test it out after all. Nice job Dinoguy. M0rphzone(talk) 02:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * =D 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 10:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop types
This template distinguishes between drops, rare drops, and XP. However, the Drops page distinguishes between 5 types of drops (including XP). I think that for consistency, this template should use these same drop types. We could add new parameters for common and uncommon drops and equipped items, and add a maintenance category to anything that still uses the generic drops parameter. We might also want to adjust the infobox to display drop rates more accurately, giving a drop chance instead of 0–1 for uncommon drops, and perhaps including an abbreviation for the way Fortune affects common drops. We could label the 3 behaviors “A”, “B”, and “C”, and add short notes to Drops like “This behavior is abbreviated as A on this wiki”. I might also create Drop to help with this formatting. Objections? Thoughts? —F‌enhl 05:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Common and uncommon drops should certainly be separated. But I think trying to fit the "looting type" in is a bit too much unless you can think up some good abbreviations for them. The information should be in the article text instead. –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 05:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We could use “0–2&” (as in “…and extra”) for the first type with the additional drop range, and “0–1+” (as in “…or more”) for the second type with the extended drop range. But yeah, I agree that it doesn't have to be in the infobox if it's somewhere else in the article and in the drop's obtaining section. —F‌enhl 05:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 0–1+ would make it seem more like it can sometimes drop more, rather than having anything to do with looting. We'd have to add a title to it to prevent confusion. I'd rather have it written in full in the article.
 * I started drop, by the way. –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 06:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made the necessary changes to the template, including the Category:Infobox uses generic drops field. However, it seems like this field is also used for explicitly stating that an entity drops nothing (e.g. bats). Maybe we should modify the template to display “Drops — None” without adding the category if none of the drops-related parameters are used, similar to how Block defaults to “itself”.


 * Changed to not add the category if it's set to none. Re the equipment drops: As far as I understand, the chance of them dropping the equipment is the same for everything, it's the chance that they will have that equipment in the first place which is different. So instead we'd want an equipment chance field, not an equipment drop field, correct? –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 06:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes but keep in mind that equipment drops can refer to equipment the mob spawned with, or equipment added by players. These are currently both documented in the drops field. We could move “natural” equipment to a different field, but keep player-added equipment in equipdrops and add a standard line there like “natural equipment (8.5%)”. —F‌enhl 07:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can any mobs be given equipment that they can't naturally spawn with? If so, we could have an "equippable items" field and a field for natural equipment (and their chances), otherwise we could just have the natural equipment field. –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 07:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Zombies and skeletons, if they can pick up items at all, can pick up any kind of item (up to a certain limit). Zombie pigmen on the other hand will only pick up swords and armor (and only if they think they are better than their current equipment). So if I'm not forgetting a mob it's the other way around: equipment that a type of mob can spawn with is a subset of what that mob type may pick up. —F‌enhl 07:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright then, "usable items" or "equippable items" and "natural equipment" or "spawns with" should work for that too. –Matt ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)