Talk:Bogged

The trivia point about the bogged being covered in moss and mushrooms has been removed and readded several times now. I'd like to bring the conversation here instead, so: why would this be relevant trivia? One of the edit summaries in the chain says that this isn't inferrable from the bogged's model, but it very clearly has two mushrooms on its head and is otherwise covered in green moss. The changelog description was essentially just an introduction, it wasn't giving any unique info that you couldn't discover simply by looking at it. We also don't usually have trivia points for merely describing a mob or block. But maybe it could be be added to the lead section of the article instead? There are often brief descriptions there.
I'd also like say the pretty much the same about the trivia point mentioning the feelings that "bogged" is meant to evoke, although I wasn't involved in that chain. This is essentially just about the word bogged, which is a real word outside of Minecraft that inherently carries the connotations of a bog. Do we have to define the word here just because an official article did?
✿ShadowMistress✿ t+c 00:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, none of the current trivia points should be there. This is why I think this in order of the trivia points.

Trivia point 1. This is the one you mentioned first with the visual characteristics. This is because the information about what the mob is made of is not trivia, but core information. I believe it should be removed from trivia and added to the intro. The fact that it is moss and mushrooms is not necessarily obvious to everyone, so I think we should still note it.

Trivia point 2. The affectionate gurgling and loving look in their eyes is not a description of the bogged, but just some lighthearted writing for the valentines day themed article.

Trivia point 3. In the Minecraft.net article, it says, "Even the name sounds lovely, doesn’t it? Bogged. Reminds me of deep mud, and maybe some noxious gases?" For a similar reason to above, I do not think this should be mentioned. It is just writing for the article. For Dour's point about it being a Mojang employee's opinion, if we included every offhand remark in every Minecraft.net article, then we would also have to include that the writer of "Armadillo Rolls Into Testing" empathizes with the armadillo and is similarly scared of zombies and skeletons.

Trivia point 4. This is not trivia, but a fact. This is not interesting information a reader would like to know. We of course don't mention every time every mob appears in every video on other pages.

Hopefully that made sense 👁 Image
plighting_engineerd (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The point about the mushrooms is now in its description. Maybe we should leave a reference at the end of the trivia? Or would the reference go in "in other media"? Or does it not need linked becasue we already link to the snapshot changelog anyways? --Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd imagine that a reference is superfluous, given that these features are visible on the bogged's model. But, I can imagine some people wondering how we know that the growth represents moss vs, say, algae, so I don't think that it's completely without merit if somebody insisted on its inclusion and if it isn't against the style guide. (Also, I totally agree with Plighting Engineerd's assessment of the other trivia pieces. None of them seem like trivia.) ✿ShadowMistress✿ t+c 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I can imagine someone getting the foliage of bogged confused with a plant or plant-like organism. Some players might wonder if it's zombie flesh or alien slime. Also, it is good to know where our information comes from. We don't know what sculk is or even if it's an organism, because the developers have intentionally left it as ambiguous in order to make it more mysterious. The same logic would apply to the bogged. If the developers didn't directly tell us that it's moss and mushrooms, then we would not know and we wouldn't ne able to describe the bogged's appearance in words. Finally, I should note that since other substances (i.e. sculk) are not defined by the developers, we can't define their composition ourselves. We don't want to mislead players by telling them sculk is an alien lifeform from another dimension. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 04:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Mhmm, totally. On that topic, while the mushrooms are very obviously intended to be the Minecraft variety since they use a derivative texture, what do you think about changing the wording regarding the green pixeling from "covered in moss" to "with a mossy appearance" or similar so that way the more ambiguous use of "moss" as a noun by the developers doesn't get mixed up with the visually unrelated moss block or moss carpet? ✿ShadowMistress✿ t+c 05:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Moss in game is able to consume stone, so it would make sense for it to grow on a skeleton. The phrase "with a mossy appearance" does leave players the freedom to interpret it how they want to, and is less distracting. It might help, but I think you should ask some other users first. I'd suggest leaving the description as-is for now. Simanelix ^(T|C) 05:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added the reference for the mossy mention. You have explained well why the reference is necessary but I'll expand a bit. Saying that bogged are covered in moss is entirely speculative if you do not provide the reference, what they're covered in is up to interpretation. It's not even that they're obviously covered in moss but you need a reference to abide by the style guide, if the article didn't say they were covered in moss I'd wholeheartedly tell you that it's a lot more likely the material is algae or something like that, since they're specifically swamp mobs and not jungle mobs (mossy skeletons from MCD are jungle mobs).

Also I changed it back to "covered in moss" since that's directly what the article says, it could be better to use more ambiguous wording but I'd rather just say what the reference says. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
19:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I ultimately prefer quoting the source for the "moss" part. However, I don'y like "with mushrooms growing from it". The "from it" part implies that mushrooms grow all over the bogged's body, but they are clearly only visible on the bogged's head. Also, "from it" does sound weird, since we usually refer to a plant growing "on" something, i.e. "grass grows on soil".

• Maybe the point is to imply that there is a lof of mushroom inside the bogged's body, but that's true of most plants and fungi. i.e. Most plants and fungi have a lot of their body inside the surface they grow "on".
• Maybe it's because the bogged is a creature, and not a surface?
• Maybe it's because the mushrooms originate from inside the bogged's body, and their pores can't implant themselves on the bogged's body from the outside. However, I doubt that the spores would not be able to spread through the air and skin contact if they are also able to grow inside the bogged's body and even extend to the surface of the bogged's flesh.
• Maybe the idea is that mushroom is extending really far from the bogged's body, but that doesn't make sense, because the mushroom is part of the inner layer of the bogged's model / texture.
• In conclusion, I think it should say "on" instead of "from".

Furhermore, I think we should say "its head" instead of "it", since the mushrooms seem to only be on its head in the model / texture. I would say that the cited snapshot article clarifies what the organic material growing in / on the bogged, but not where the organic material grows or how it grows. I argue that the bogged's texture makes it clear that the mushrooms grow primarily on (and inside) its head.

In conclusion, I think we should replace "mushrooms growing from it" with "mushrooms growing on its head". Simanelix ^(T|C) 19:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel kinda bad about it, but I reworded the intro again. If you liked the old wording, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, since the old intro was not bad. However, I am of the rather personal opinion that the shorter new one is better. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 02:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Capopanzo. I like the information on the bogged's attack delay, but I am not sure if the wording is perfect.

When shooting their bow, bogged have a cooldown of 3.5 seconds on Easy and Normal difficulties, or 2.5 seconds on Hard difficulty, instead of the regular skeleton's 2 seconds on Easy and Normal difficulties, or 1 second on Hard difficulty.

How about this?:

When shooting their bow, bogged have a cooldown of 3.5 (Easy and Normal difficulties) or 2.5 seconds on Hard, rather than the regular skeleton's 2 (Easy and Normal) or 1 seconds (Hard).

Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not Capopanzo, but I think this may benefit from splitting into two separate sentences:

When shooting their bow, bogged have a cooldown of 3.5 seconds on Easy and Normal difficulties, or 2.5 seconds on Hard. This is considerably slower than regular skeletons or strays, with a cooldown of 2 seconds on Easy and Normal, or 1 second on Hard.

I also removed the extra mentions of "difficulty" as I felt it was redundant. Thoughts? – ZacNVR (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support yeah this is better--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Removing duplicate uses of the word "difficulty" is definitely the most important part. Also, replacing "or" with "and" makes a lot of sense to me. My only other question was: should we try to be really concise when writing paragraphs like this on the wiki? The consensus seems to be: No, clarity is more important the concision, and sometimes a longer sentence is actually simpler than a concise one. Simanelix ^(T|C) 15:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually it seems no one else supports replacing the word "or" with "and". Now that I think about it, the ", or 1 second ..." makes sense. Simanelix ^(T|C) 15:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The picture for a left-handed bogged which is shooting

a bis missing. Please add a picture for it. ow

BZ715 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "potato bogged"? All renders of the bogged are included in the gallery, included renders without the second layer, for both sheared and unsheared. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Poisonous potato update bogged does not have a version without the second layer. RandoGuy (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That goes into the Java Edition 24w14potato page. Whydeletemyaccs/talk/my edits 22:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)