Talk:Biome/Archive 4

Flower Forest
Is there any info for the levels at which flower's will grow at? Like is there a minimum and maximum height or will they grow from bedrock to build limit?


 * Flowers can exist in levels 1–255. Using bone meal on a grass block, you're only limited by where grass can exist with a free space above it. And during world generation, the biome decorator is able to put flowers at any of those same levels.


 * Ok thanks a lot. Appreciate the help :) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.145.136.83 (talk) at 16:45, 02 February 2017 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Biome Color
Hello, I couldn't find any information about the "Color / Variation Color" column in the § Biome IDs table. What does these colors correspond to in the game? Is it related to grass/foliage color? — Thomas645 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Biome colors were removed in 1.8 or 1.9, and no longer serve any purpose in PC edition. However, they are kept in the table because they exist in Pocket Edition (though also unused), and are useful for mapping programs (e.g. AMIDST uses those colors as well). Grass and foliage colors are chosen based on a colormap, and not biome colors. Jocopa3 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A few details
Under Biome Types > Neutral, "Redwood Taiga Hills" should be "Redwood Taiga Hills M".

Also, Plains M is unobtainable through both customized and superflat worlds, defaulting to Ocean - basically, they've been removed from the game.

Thanks. — 47.147.237.79 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Plains M is categorized as unused, and Redwood hills is a hills biome. The BlobsPaper.png 20:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Plains M's image
The image for the supposed 'Plains M' biome is actually a picture of the grasslands biome from beta 1.8. If you go back in the revision history to September 18 2011, you can see the same picture, and the picture itself is labeled '1.8 biomes grassland'. 122.106.169.23 06:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Need someone to add info to The Void biome
I'm trying to make a Skyblock map, so I went to the "The Void" superflat template. Unfortunately, I discovered that no mobs will ever spawn in this biome unless you use commands, spawn eggs, or mob spawners. I tried to add this information, but the page is protected. Is there anyone who can edit the page to add the info? Maybe an admin? Please? --108.230.40.67 20:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that an admin is not always required. To check the protection level, add  to the end of the URL. The BlobsPaper.png 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Gravel Flowers"
needs a comma. :) It's the feature list for Extreme Hills; a comma is missing between Gravel and Flowers. (It's got me wondering what a gravel flower might look like, but it is in fact two separate links. :) -- eekee/derdiggermunster 90.255.108.59 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comma added! – Sealbudsman talk/contr 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Existence of Plains M
Has it ever existed? Seems strange that plains have two variant biomes... --94.101.51.160 12:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it was the initial mutation for plains before they came up with the sunflowers. They probably just left the unused code. But now in 1.11 it's definitely gone, I just checked on the source code. Fusseel (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Biome Categorization does not match Biome.TempCategory Enum values in MC 1.10
I was using this article as a guide while writing a mod. The article lists 5 types: snowy, cold, medium/lush, dry/warm, neutral. However in the code I'm only finding 4 values for the TempCategory biome classification: COLD, MEDIUM, WARM, OCEAN. I'd change this myself, but I'm new to modding and I don't want to jump to gun on a huge article rewrite if I'm wrong for some reason. Orbenn (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. In the article the so called "snowy" actually is the TempCategory COLD while "cold" and "medium/lush" are both from the TempCategory MEDIUM. The separation of the two medium categories exists, because in the biomes labeled "cold" it'll snow at a certain height and in the biomes labeled "medium/lush" there will never be any snow. The terminology doesn't strictly follow the terms used in the code as you can see. Fusseel (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Compilation images
It isn't necessary to combine the images together, the separate images can simply be placed next to each other. Keeping them separate allows individual images to be changed easier, and allows for reuse on other pages. Fusseel@Superspace please upload the new images used in the compilations in their full resolution separately. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I am aware that it would be harder to update images if they are used in a compilation. However, having a massive "tower" of images like what was seen in the Hill biome was aesthetically unpleasant. I can't speak for Fusseel so I don't know his or her reasoning behind the other compilation (which in my opinion was unnecessary since the End biome only had 2 images). If someone with knowledge of table formatting could find a way to place the individual Hill image files in a more compact pattern (like in the compilation image) within the table, we'd definitely do it that way. The individual Hill images have already been uploaded and should still exist for use in other pages. Superspace (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe something like:


 * The End.png
 * End (Biome Part).png
 * End Highlands.png
 * }
 * and
 * }
 * and


 * ColdTaigaHills.png
 * Forest Hills Biome.png
 * Giant Tree Taiga Hills.png
 * Jungle Hills.png
 * Desert Hills.png
 * }
 * – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Desert Hills.png
 * }
 * – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Perfect! That's exactly what I was imagining. I'm not sure how well that formatting would mesh with the actual table though. I will experiment and see. Superspace (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the table was getting longer and longer because of the images so I made them into one compilation. I didn't think of including the separate images side by side. But I have a minor problem with this: if one of the images changes with a new aspect ratio the compilation is going to look terrible. That wasn't possible when there was only one file containing the whole compilation and to be honest I didn't think that anyone would have any problem changing a single image inside of this one file. But alright, we'll see how this goes. Fusseel (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor detail to be edited
Since Plains M has been removed like it should've a while ago, the note on how many biomes there are near the top of the page needs to be edited as well. I also thought that it could redundantly add the number of actually obtainable biomes in a normal world, which is three less than the total.

47.150.251.217 17:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The BlobsPaper.png 01:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are 62 biomes, not 63. Simply counting the entries on the page yields that number. Btw, plains M never was a thing. It either was a prank by someone or just a mistake, as the internal name of the sunflower plains is "mutated_plains". --Fusseel (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Vertical tables on mobile
The wide tables on here look pretty bad on mobile, would styling the table to be vertical be acceptable for mobile? We could probably do this for other wide tables where the headers aren't very important. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 03:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look too bad on desktop either. The biome names and sprites make very nice pseudo-headers. With some minor adjustments to the width, I definitely this change.  Superspace (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we just scrap the table entirely, and go for a more infoboxish styley. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That could work too. I actually prefer that setup, mainly because it doesn't look as cluttered with a bunch of stacked headers. How would it work with multiple images? (In the case of hills/plateaus.) Superspace (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to say although I like this last suggestion of yours it won't work out. You picked two biomes with a decently sized description, but that's not the case for most of them. There are many biomes where the description consist of only one sentence, sometime not even more than ten words. The images and tables on the right will be fine, but the left side of the page featuring the descriptions will be almost empty at some places. That's just going to look terrible. Of course one could fill that space with some more images, but that would only lead to the whole page becoming a real mess like it already is the case with generated structures. A table like now is the best way for structuring such a complex article. But using a vertical design isn't going to help. Mobile users will benefit from this change, but c'mon, you can't tell me that it "doesn't look too bad" on desktop. It's terrible! One way or the other mobile or desktop will have to be prioritized. There is no way of supporting both of them in an equally good looking way. Fusseel (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. The tables already have a loads of empty space on single line descriptions, the only real difference is it being broken up by the text being right in the centre of it, which we could probably still do if that is the issue. In fact the only increase in empty space is ~40px, half of which comes from the header having its own line. If we could find a way to pull the floating content to be inline with the header, the height of each "row" would only be ~20px higher.
 * Here's a comparison of a single line description (with the largest features text), showing only a small increase in empty space and height: http://i.imgur.com/O5lwpkS.png
 * Here's a comparison of a long description on a common smaller resolution (1366x768), showing an improvement in height, due not only to the slightly larger width for the description, but the text wrapping around the floated content: http://i.imgur.com/Xe3CR2f.png
 * Ultimately, the design looks to me much more readable on smaller screens (including desktop), while wasting a small amount of space on large screens. Seems like a net win.
 * Also in case I wasn't clear, the original vertical table design would be mobile only, desktop wouldn't change. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 12:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You really do back up your arguments very well that's for sure. ^^ I understand that the increase/decrease in size is minor, but I still prefer the table from a visual standpoint. But if it's possible to show the vertical table only on mobile im cool with that, but I wouldn't know how to do it. Fusseel (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Mobile has a separate stylesheet, so it's really simple to have mobile-only styles. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I personally like the section approach, I've never been a fan of giant tables to show that kind of information which is why I was so much in favor of scrapping it on Commands. My only concern is with the two side boxes, the text becomes quite thin (iPad size simulation) before it entirely moves below the infobox/picture. I guess it already does that only worse on the actually article's table so its still an improvement. – KnightMiner  t/c 17:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, the text can be easily set to a minimum wrapping width to fix that. Although I think I would've preferred to force the floating content to wrap first, but I don't think that's possible without JS. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 05:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New end biomes
The recent snapshot 18w06a added four new biomes to the End:  (The End - Floating Islands),   (The End - Medium island),   (The End - High island), and   (The End - Barren island). Should they be added to the list? 85.76.73.57 06:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I know it's a month after this post, but I have finally added them. However, I don't know much about where exactly they generate, so if somebody else does please add it to the article or let me know about it so that I can add it.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

In the Biome IDs table, the internal names for Deep Lukewarm Ocean and Deep Cold Ocean are the same as for their non-deep counterparts. – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 23:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't actually add that part, but I can easily fix it.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * --Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 23:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Split biomes into their own pages?
I know I have barely any editing experience on here, but I wanted to bring this up anyway. I've honestly never really liked this page; it feels really long and seems like a lot of information is overly condensed about the various biomes, giving it a rather cluttered appearance. Such a huge part of Minecraft being confined to one page just doesn't make sense to me. I'd prefer the list of biomes to not just be a list and instead give the main biomes their own pages, with variants being sections of said pages. This way, it'd be easier to get information on a specific biome without having to look through the gigantic list, and further through the split up variants of said biome. My idea of the split pages would be;


 * Forest
 * Birch Forest
 * Dark Forest
 * Jungle
 * Mountains
 * Taiga
 * Giant Tree Taiga
 * Plains
 * Badlands
 * Snowy Tundra
 * Snowy Taiga
 * Desert
 * Savanna
 * Beach
 * Mushroom Fields
 * Swamp
 * River
 * Ocean
 * Include the "Nether" biome in the Nether article
 * Include the "End" biomes in the End article
 * Include the "The Void" biome in Superflat article

Of course, we don't have to follow this scheme should it be decided to split, but that's how I thought of it. I'd be happy to help with creating the new pages should the split happen. Lord bowser (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this has been discussed before, can't remember where though. Anyway, if someone manages to find that (prob. archived) discussion, there should be more info. - Erufailon4 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I splitting the page, for two reasons. As you pointed out, the page is getting a bit long and cluttered, and there is also a lot more that I think could be said about the biomes. One thing interesting that is done on the German Minecraft Wiki, is the biome page is very similar to the one on the English Wiki - but the individual biomes page exist and go into much greater detail. If we do split the page, I personally think that we should probably combine the Biome types and Biome IDs section into one much smaller table than we have currently, containing the IDs, the biome name, a very short description, and possibly a few other columns. Also, for reference, I was able to find 2 discussions about splitting the page in the past, here and here - although both of these discussions were at least 4 1/2 years ago.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 21:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just remembered something. On September 3, 2013, a lot of user subpages of about individual biomes were created and then moved to the mainspace, and MCW:Projects/Individual Biome Pages was created for other similar tasks. Eventually, all of the tasks for that project were completed, so the project was moved to completed projects. However, years later, in January 2015,  deleted all the individual biome pages with the edit summary "Cleanup biome pages." After this, the project still remained as "done," until this project was recently revisited, which showed that it no longer was done. See MCT:Projects/Individual Biome Pages.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 21:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This page has been a bit of a mess for a long time. I can't read the German pages, but it looks like they have a handful of biome pages, with variants listed as sections on the main biome articles, which I like. I think making an article for every biome is overdoing it – too many articles, a lot of which would be very similar to other ones – but a few subpages for groups of related biomes would help organize the page, and allow for more detail about each biome. -- Orthotopetalk 22:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * split the biomes to separate pages instead of this page is a long list of biomes, Wikipedia-logo.png psl85  (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I made a mockup of what one of the split pages could look like, using the Badlands as an example, on my userpage. Please leave any constructive criticism you have here for me. Lord bowser (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT: made a mockup for Snowy Tundra too. Lord bowser (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I definitely splitting to biome pages like that. - Erufailon4 (talk · contribs) 10:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , i like it, keep it up! – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 22:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That's excellent. JSBM (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I was really on the fence until I saw your implementation. Great work! Cultist O (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * , I find this a substantial improvement over the current version of the page. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 07:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * --Pepijn (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . It looks a lot better to combine multiple variant biomes into one page than a separate page for each. – KnightMiner  t/c 22:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Frisk (Talk page) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Tables are not displayed well in mobile view.--SolidBlock (not good at English!) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems like this has gotten enough support now - do you want to go ahead and make drafts in your userspace of each individual biome, and then when you're ready, move them to the mainspace? I'd be happy to do it as well if you don't want to or don't have time. I'm also drafting in my userspace how I'd expect the biome page to look once it's split.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have seen that pages are being splitted now. By the way, I think biomes should be given their own template (e.g. template:Biomes) since they have been splitted.— Lxazl5770 zh.admin （ 论 • 功 ） 12:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I have been late to this discussion, but I don’t oppose the change. —  BabylonAS (talk | ru.Wiki Admin) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I just created a page for the Birch forest and removed it from the Forest page, because it is not a forest variant but a different biome and world generation tells that to us. GammaMicroscopii (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Mesa id mixup?
In the 1.12 biome table, Mesa (Bryce) and Mesa Plateau F M have the same registry ID (minecraft:mutated_mesa). I don't think that's intended. BrisingrAerowing (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Plains M biome still exists on Bedrock Edition
As I have been exploring some seeds, I noticed that some Plains biomes are much more hilly and has a darker green tint to them. From what I can tell, these are Plains M biomes and I even found one that is directly next to a Sunflower Plain. It's strange that the Plain is not turning into a Sunflower Plain when mutated but instead, turns into a Plains M biome. Since this biome exists and is still around in Bedrock Edition, perhaps a Bedrock exclusive entry should be made for it?

Here is an example of a Plains M next to Sunflower Plains for anyone to check out:

Seed: -1375664958

Coordinates: 880, 90, -450

(Sorry I couldn't show pictures as I would need to make an account to attach pics)

Edit: After studying this Plains M biome, it appears the grass color matches the color of a normal Forest Biome so it may have a similar temperature to a Forest Biome. In addition, I noticed that the Plains M biome has no foliage except for small patches of Dandelions. Not even Tall Grass nor Trees will spawn in a Plains M biome. The height of a Plains M biome seems to match the same height as the non-mutated Extreme Hills Biome next to it. Very interesting.

That's all the details I can figure out from observation of the Plains M biome. Hopefully you can find out more info of this biome and perhaps why it is still around in Bedrock Edition. 100.11.107.175 14:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * EDIT: It appears that I am wrong as this "Plains M" biome is actually a Roofed Forest M biome that is glitched to not generate any trees or tallgrass. I made a bug report to mojang to see if the can fix this. Whats odd is this bug has been around in 0.11.0 Pocket Edition and wasn't patched ever and is now still in Bedrock Edition. Sorry about this post 73.165.203.41 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Some Biome IDs have changed in 1.13-pre5
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/1.13-pre5#Changes –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Synthestra (talk • contribs) at 13:30, 08 August 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Pressing Show preview in the visual editor freezes the computer various minutes and then gives error (changes lost!). I tried twice. (Finally ported, without showing preview.)
Changes I made: - Updated total number of biomes: "There are 64 biomes in the overworld, one in the Nether, five in the End and 3 unused biomes, bringing the total number to 73 different biomes. - Fixed Frozen River: the page states that it generates through all cold biomes, and that it usually leads to frozen ocean, but it actually generates only through Snowy Tundra biome and has nothing to do with the nearby ocean (land biomes behave differently than ocean biomes). - Fixed Frozen Ocean: it is not necessarily generated when a cold biome meets the ocean. - Fixed Deep Frozen Ocean: the page says that a layer of ice is generated at the surface; that's only true for its shallow counterpart. - Expanded Deep Warm Ocean: specify that coral reefs and sea pickles aren't generated in this biome (check in-game if you didn't know!) and changed "Warm Deep" for "Deep Warm". - Updated Mountain Edge: specify that this biome isn't naturally generated since 1.7.2.

GammaMicroscopii (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ocean biome split
As the ocean biomes will soon be split as per the biome proposal, I have been wondering something. Do the ocean biomes warrant their own pages each, or should they all be under the same "Ocean" article? I could see the argument being made for Warm Oceans and Frozen Oceans being given their own pages, since they are quite significantly different from the standard ocean, but lukewarm and cold oceans are almost the same, and thus the worthiness of them having their own articles becomes more questionable. What should happen with the ocean page(s)? Lord Bowser (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not support separating the ocean biomes, as they would be too many different pages, all of them very similar to each other (The only diffence between normal and cold oceans is whether salmon can spawn!). So definitely not. Think about a newcomer who finds a coral reef or iceberg that they never seen before; When going to the wiki and searching for "Ocean" they would think all oceans are huge bodies of water with gravelly floors and tons of kelp, and that their PC is somehow buggy or so. Sorry for my terrible grammar, I am spanish but I wanna help. -_- GammaMicroscopii (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Reorganise description of variant biomes in the each of the individual biome pages?
Currently, the seperate pages for each of the ‘biome families’ are laid out with a small summary of the main biome at the top of the page, followed by a ‘description’ and then the variant biomes, each with their own summaries. I think it would be more clear to have an overall summary of the entire biome family at the top, and then have the ‘main biome’ put under ‘variants’ along with all the other members of the biome family. This would help prevent confusion as to whether the ‘description’ section is only about the main biome (since the main biome is currently separated from its other variants on the page) or the entire family as a whole, and would also give more equal representation for each individual variant of the family.

Eg.) the current layout for the jungle page is as follows: Variants:
 * “Jungle” (unclear; is it for the whole family, or just the main jungle biome?)
 * “Description” (unclear; is it for the whole family, or just main jungle biome?)
 * Jungle Hills
 * Modified Jungle
 * Jungle Edge
 * Modified Jungle Edge

I think it would make more sense as:

Variants:
 * “Description” (summary of whole biome family)
 * Jungle
 * Jungle Hills
 * Modified Jungle
 * Jungle Edge
 * Modified Jungle Edge

What’re your thoughts on reorganising the pages like this? I think it would categorise each variant more clearly. Aidowl (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you've identified a real problem, but I am concerned that there's not enough to be said about a biome family to really fill out a header section without being extremely redundant. In particular, I worry that to accurately describe the biome family, we might have to list "except variant 3" so often as to make the whole thing a redundant mess. I tentatively support such a solution under the assumption that these concerns can be mitigated. Cultist O (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You’re right, I can see your concerns. I’m thinking perhaps that the header section could just describe the biome family on a surface level - mobs, blocks, where the biome group usually generates in relation to other biomes (all things that would apply to all its variants) - while the individual variants will have more detailed, focussed summaries, including terrain, rarity, etc. Also, we can use ‘mostly’ and ‘in general’ for those cases where a variant is an exception to the general biome family description. Aidowl (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I might just start reorganising some of the biome pages in this way, and we’ll see how it goes. I’ll try to make it clear in the edit summaries what I’m trying to do. Aidowl (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done this to the Jungle biomes page as a trial. Depending on the feedback, I may continue to convert all the other biome pages to this format. Aidowl (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sky color differences
The sky color difference is actually a thing, though I wouldn't call it noticeable. Compare Jungle superflat sky.png and Tundra superflat sky.png -- here's an animation:

Put your arm over the bottom of the screen so that the grass isn't visible. You can barely see a difference at e.g. the top of the sky, though it is very subtle.

The color is actually based on the temperature of the biome, or rather temperature at the position (as temperature is influenced by position (with some perlin noise) and altitude). The relevant code is in   (func_76731_a</rt>)</rp> :

though a bunch of additional processing happens to it elsewhere (the value is actually used in  </rb> (</rp><rt>func_72833_a</rt>)</rp>, which takes in to account time of day, rain, thunder, etc). And, yes, all of this is a giant set of super complicated mechanics for something that has very little practical purpose -- I'm almost certain all of it dates back to notch. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me! So does that mean that it's not only jungles and warm/dry biomes that have a different sky color, but every single biome varies in sky color depending on its individual temperature?? The difference is so small I never noticed this! Aidowl (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep! And for reference, temperature data is on burger (and, I just noticed, in this article -- probably should have looked for that first before digging up the burger link) -- jungle is actually .95 while snowy tundra is 0.0; desert is 2.0.  So probably, the difference is even more visible with desert vs tundra.  I only knew about it because I saw the claim on the wiki and investigated the code a while back. --Pokechu22 (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)