Latest comment: 1 February 20191 comment1 person in discussion
If you go to Usage --> Decorations, it is a picture but with the old wool color. We are now almost in 1.14, and the llama pic still shows the 1.11 wool colors. Please update the image to match the 1.13 wool colors. Look here:
๐ Image The llama colors are outdated. Please upload a new picture of this. (Must be in 1.12 or newer)
Latest comment: 17 October 20164 comments3 people in discussion
At least as of 16w41a (pre-1.11, Exploration Update), Llamas seem to take up a 1 X 1, 2 tall Block space as a Player. The things learned for Animal Pens! And so they are about 2-4X as maneuverable in range of (random) motion, as Horse-types (which can be controlled, like Pigs). Yilante 108.215.209.20122:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they're smaller than a 1x1x2 space, like the player is. If you hit F3+D, you'll see they're a bit bigger. It would be nice if someone could get their exact dimensions...
Llamas in 16w41a are 0.9 wide and 1.87 tall. For comparison, pigs are 0.9 wide and 0.9 tall, cows are 0.9 wide and 1.4 tall, horses are 1.3964844 wide and 1.6 tall, and players are normally 0.6 wide and 1.8 tall. Anomie x (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Great for finding that! hope it gets added to the Page!! As for "maneuverable," it requires thinking-diagonally.
I just realized today - thinking of that, already myself - we hardly ever get a chance, to think about diagonal movement, even just as Player-entities /our Avatars, in-Game. If we're "round things" going through a diagonal-movement (say through the corners of a 1 X 1 space - so technically a 3 X 3 space with 2 opposite corners removed - get the line between?), but Horse-type Mob need just-shy of 2 X 2 (instead of 1 X 1), then using ( a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ), 1.412 would be ratio'ned -up to ( sq. rt. of 8 = ) ( 2 * sq. rt. [of 2] ), or 2X that.
The "2-4X," comes from where we have the greatest flexibility, in MC movement, by going-(recti)linearly, and instead of a 4 X 4 square (with again 2 opposite corners, of 1 X 1 removed) needed to not-bump zig-zag walls, a Horse-type Mob would need a 6 X 6 square, for the same passage (within walls, included in the total size square needed, to at least make a "dual right-angle," or left /right else right /left, turn, to keep-coming -out, straight). But 4 x 4 Blocks = 16 Blocks of space, while 6 X 6 Blocks = 36 Blocks (more than 2X), of space (not to mention the height, factor being 1-2X (4 Blocks again -> 5-6 Blocks, this continues to add to the 3-D, Volume calculation), as much to not hit the head /be able to Dismount, without damage).
The kind of stuff you notice - attempting to - build Nether Portals for Riding use. /Abuse.. the Skeletal Horses seem to survive this - barely - the best... (and they all need extra both-sides of Portal, space) Yilante 108.215.209.20106:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The carpet-decorated llamas all follow the same basic set up with expected color schemes. However, there are a few distinct ones, such as:
Creeper Face (Green) - Although the green is not the exact same as a creeper, this llama wears a green blanket with a black creeper face on the center (over the llama's back) Enderman Face (Purple) - This llama wears a very dark purple blanket with lighter purple specks, similar to various Ender color schemes and has enderman eyes on the center of the blanket (over the llama's back) Bandit mask (Grey) - The only llama that wears a mask. It has a black (very dark grey) mask over the eyes instead of ear scarves. Its decorations are black with red (or very dark grey with red, technically). Zorro, a famous masked figure, is sometimes depicted in black with red accents, not sure if that's related or not. Some have called these glasses, although personally I do not believe they are glasses because 1. they wrap all the way around the head and 2. they have thick, filled in areas on the sides of the head (that detail makes them look less like corrective glasses and more like wraparound sunglasses, and they are probably not sunglasses because there is a space cut out for the eyes) Bracelets (Light Grey) - The only llama that wears anything on the legs. This llama has 2 bracelets on each leg. Also, although it's carpet color is light grey, there is a strong magenta accent color used in the design. This llama also has nothing on the head. Less exciting, but technically just as distinctive as the Bandit Mask llama. All the other llamas follow a very predictable pattern of clothing with appropriate color schemes. Thus, the bandit and bracelet llamas stand out because of it. The creeper and enderman llamas do not stand out from afar, are the only ones to have patterns that are not just regular stripes, spots, etc. I was thinking that it would be good to put a little sentence under decoration mentioning these distinct looks. (Doesn't need to be detailed out.) 172.68.55.15807:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Stop typing in all caps, and stop making demands. It's rude.
My reply: the above person (65.23.255.61) is wrong, llamas aren't passive. They're neutral, which means they can be provoked into attacking. Passive means they cannot be provoked into attacking. โ Sealbudsmantalk/contr21:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I was in Peaceful, and my llama spat at my wolf. That started a big fight, and this article says that llamas are completely passive in Peaceful. Enderpixel199 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 December 20162 comments2 people in discussion
The article currently states that Llamas have a health of 22 (11 hearts), which is incorrect. I have seen as low as 16 (8 hearts), and as high as 28 (14 hearts). I don't know the proper way to add this sort of information, as there's probably a wider range than that. And, I don't know if the hearts offspring get work like horses either (because I haven't checked).
ScatmanWeegee (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the source code, and llamas do not have their own max health definition. This is inherited from "AbstractHorse", and is therefore the same as horses. I've therefore copied this from the horse page. โ DelboyDylan(talk|contribs)08:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 28 March 20173 comments2 people in discussion
Do llamas drop 1โ3 experience when killed by a player or tamed wolf like other animals do? I couldn't find any information about that on the wiki. โ Thomas645 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This page seriously needs improvement on taming. Claiming that they're tamed similarly to horses is not very helpful. Should explicitly state what foods, temperament, the actual act of taming. The fact that there's no section on feeding makes this especially confusing, as Llamas breed with Hay Bales, not golden carrots/apples like Horses. 70.176.94.19106:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 28 July 20254 comments3 people in discussion
I'm wondering whether the word "temper" used in the explanation of taming Llamas really is correct. The explanation claims the temper keeps increasing and gives a greater chance for the taming attempt to succeed, but isn't this process somehow better explained by increasing "calmness"? An animal's temper logically decreases by the act of taming, as the process specifies that the animal is calming down. I'm not arguing about whether or not the "temper" is increasing or not, I understand the logic and it is correct to say the value keeps increasing until taming is successful. However I'm talking about the word used. The way I'm reading it, in comparison, is that to be able to descend a hill, you'd need to climb up first before you reach the lowest point, so instead in this phrasing "climbing down" should be used (if that makes you understand my logic better).
The NBT key is called "Temper". We can't change that, because it's literally what it's called in the game. --Pepijn (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not really helping my question though. The text is still confusing (people), see this edit. Without literally translating the word itself but still an attempt to change its usage, what if the text were changed to this:
Taming depends on the llama's "temper". Llamas begin with a temper value of 0 out of 100. When a player is riding the llama, a random number 0โ99 is chosen. The llama becomes tame if this number is less than the temper value, otherwise the temper value is increased by 5 and the player is bucked off. The temper value can also be increased by feeding the llama.
Essentially I'm saying with this, that there is a difference between the value of the temper increasing, and the temper increasing. If the temper value is increasing, the taming is progressing. If temper is increased, the animal becomes more tempered, which is quite the opposite. Also, I can't help that the game's code is using the wrong formula for the temper attribute, it's reversed. โ Jack McKalling [ ๐ User page ๐ Talk page ๐ Contributions ] 19:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 24 August 20182 comments2 people in discussion
I've seen all four Llama colors in the mountains; not just white and grey, but cream and brown as well. There were no savannah biomes around, let alone savannah plateaus, so that makes me think that either all four colors of Llamas spawn in the mountains, or my game is bugged. I'm playing on 1.13.
Here are some screenshots:
๐ Image Some brown llamas that spawned in the mountain biome instead of the savannah biome (1.13)๐ Image Some cream llamas that spawned in the mountain biome instead of the savannah biome (1.13)
I just played 1.13.1 Java Edition and found brown and cream llamas in snowy mountains so either the biome thing is false, limited to some other edition, or was true in some previous version. I'll remove it for now because it's misleading. Kumiponi (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
In my creative world (1.14.4), I have managed to tame and breed trader llamas that had become unleashed from the trader. I haven't tested this yet in survival, but if this also works, then unleashed trader llamas are basically the same as regular llamas.
--74.69.86.207 19:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
UPDATE: tamed and bred the trader llamas in survival 1.14.4. The offspring has the same tacking as the parents.--74.69.86.20703:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 July 20191 comment1 person in discussion
We got trader llama spawn eggs in 1.14, so would it be needed to add isometric baby trader llamas? They technically exist, but they need to be from a spawn egg. 174.59.162.22421:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Breeding: Description of strength inheritance wrong?
Latest comment: 10 July 20212 comments2 people in discussion
I'm currently breeding Llamas in Java edition, starting from a pair of strength 1 trader llamas (trader got scared by pillagers and dropped the leads). Breeding from those I did get mostly strength 1 and a single strength 2 llama, as expected. Proceeding to breed from "asymmetric" pairs of strength 1 and strength 2 I did get both strength 1 and strength 2 offspring, again no surprise there. However, I have recently turned to breed from a "matched" pair of strength 2 instead, and am NOT seeing any strength-1 offspring anymore.
Is it possible that the stated lower threshold of 1 may be wrong, and that it may instead be the strength of the weaker parent?
(Of course there's also the possibility that trader llamas breed differently. Or that I'm just being super lucky.)
Running the 19w45b snapshot for 1.15 here.
to add to the strength inheritance wrong issue
I just bred a strength 3 Llama and a strength 2 Llama the resulting offspring was a strength 5 Llama this would mean that the upper bound of stronger parent +1 is incorrect as well.
The text: Llamas breed in the vicinity if they are on a lead. Although one of llamas may not respond to being fed right away; they accept a hay bale/bale(s) if needed to breed. This can result in the consumption from 1 to 3 hay bales.
I don't get if this is saying a llama wearing a lead will breed by itself, or what... I would edit this for clarity myself, but I just plain don't understand it. The consumption of 1 to 3 hay bales is unrelated to being on leads, right? I believe it always takes 1 to 3 bales.
โโJavaRogers (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
๐ Image Oppose on the basis that they are simply the same mob. The only differences are that trader llamas follow a wandering trader with a lead, and that they have a decorative pattern that is exclusive to them. Nonetheless, the two are basically the same. They look the same, they attack the same, they behave the same. BDJP007301 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
๐ Image Oppose We should split the pages. On the death screen there is a difference, and their behaviour is, even if slightly, different. It has different spawn and command spawn too. โ Preceding unsigned comment was added by Sileudies (talk โข contribs) at 15:48, 1 November 2020โ (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
๐ Image Oppose No reason to duplicate so much information when we can easily cover the few differences on one page. Wiki pages don't need to correspond one to one with entity IDs. Bunnyinafield (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Can't chests be equipped on tamed trader llamas? I'm trying to equip chests on 4 of them, but it cannot be done. Am I forgetting about something or is it really impossible? If it is impossible, then it should be written on the article.--177.72.23.3614:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Try hatching regular llama and trader llama eggs in creative mode, and try it on both. If you can't equip a trader llama with a chest, then add it to the article. Amatulic (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 March 20213 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I am the person who the other day added some edit on how killing a Wandering Trader turns the spawned Trader Llamas hostile to an almost buggy degree. I have video of it happening, though did not manage to get the killing of the Wandering Trader in. Sorry for my lack of formatting to properly link this video, but attached is several features. Additionally, a screenshot of the llama detecting me from a gap in some blocks.
Screen Recording of the Trading Llama in action.A simple screenshot of the Trading Llama still pursuing me
You should report that to Mojira if you haven't already, as it probably is a bug, is it in the latest version, is is bedrock or java? --GK1H(P/T/C)23:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Has not been tested in Bedrock, though this does still effect latest non-snapshot release of Java. However, after looking, a specific bug report with many different duplicates are all closed and marked as "Works As Intended," including most of what was shown in that video of mine being apart of the duplicated bug reports. Nevertheless, the article should probably be updated to indicate something about Trader Llamas being unusually "Hostile" (debatable, rather than normal "Neutral") due to the killing of their respective Wandering Trader, until you walk super far away from them - further testing indicated that as long as the relentless Trader Llama sees you, it doesn't stop spitting, nor does it stop chasing you. QuazzleTheQaz (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
With regards to the recent splits of various other pages, I propose reconsidering to split the page into Llama and Trader Llama.
Llamas and trader llamas differ in appearance, spawning and behavior which is IMO enough to warrant a separate page, especially because their behavior differs more then the behavior of donkeys and mules which have separate pages.
Regarding duplicated information I'd say the amount of it in the donkey and mule articles is tolerable and it'd be similar in this case.
๐ Image Oppose per the reasons in the previous proposal. They haven't changed since then and I don't feel like they are different enough now as a mob to warrant a split. If I put a carpet on a trader llama it's revealed that it's just a llama. I can understand why donkey and mule are split because they're different animals. -BrianGLHF (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
What would you say is your threshold for "different enough"? MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of fragmenting the trader llama information and peppering it in multiple places on the llama page, it could be consolidated to a trader llama section which I feel could eventually make for a more compelling argument over time to split the trader llama section into a new page. Right now I just see the issue being llama page needs some love. Also, I would like to see a sandbox proposed version of the split trader llama page ideally without copy pasting it directly from llama before changing my position on this. I hope that lends some light to my stance on this. Thank you for understanding :) -BrianGLHF (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made an extremely quick draft of how this could be done at User:Mudscape/Llama, I encourage anyone to improve the page since I have not yet had time to do more than a simple moving of trader llama specific information to its own section. My main motivation behind page granularity in general is to think "if I'm a player who knows nothing about this mob, how easy is it to learn everything about that mob and how much "unwanted" information do I get?" In the case of trader llama, as far as I can see they behave the same once they are off lead/tamed, so I think having a dedicated section to their specialties on the normal llama page is probably a good solution. Mudscape (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
History information and gallery is still a jumbled mess of llama and trader llama. It would be best to split the history and gallery sections accordingly. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I have gone through and split the history and gallery sections of the user page into llama and trader llama subsections for history and gallery information. The current revision of the user page reflects that in a single page. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the initiative. I will provide all feedback for that test page accordingly on the talk page there as to not clog up the conversation here. -17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) BrianGLHF (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
After poking around at that page in your sandbox I can say that I no longer oppose splitting the trader llama from llama. Yeah, it's more than just a llama with a hat but not by very much. :) -BrianGLHF (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Oppose: Because the 2 mobs are basically the same.
Trader Llamas spawn with the wandering trader. This is more of a feature of the wandering trader than one of the trader llama.
I will admit, that the behavior related to taming trader llamas is a bit complex, but it boils down to "you can train them when they are not following the wandering trader".
Also, players interacting with llamas probably don't care where the llamas come from. Once a trader llama has been tamed, it behaves just like any other llama.
Also also, trader llamas can be bred to produce babies that are easy to tame once they mature.
Out of your 4 reasons listed for them being similar, 3 are actually pointing out differences in the two mobs. What would you say is your threshold for "different enough"? MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone in the other discussion said there wont be enough differences and the trader llama page will be too small. It's fine if we copy some info from the llama page. Enderpixel199 (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: There is no meaningful distinction that cannot be covered by the subsections, as currently exists. Yes, they're technically a bit different, but having a separate page for trader llamas would be like having separate pages for baby and adult animals. The purpose of a wiki is to explain things and be a collection of knowledge. It is not meant to be a listing of every single coded object. We don't distinguish between north-south rails and east-west rails, or corner rails vs straight rails. We don't have separate pages for savanna villages vs other types of villages, we just have one Village page with images of the different renders. Similarly, we have one Trading page that covers all villager professions.
There is no meaningful addition of knowledge to be gained by separating the pages. The trader llama is the same as the normal llama, except that it has a unique skin and can't be given a chest (at least in my experience). Yes, they're different. But there's no benefit to separating them. 165.91.13.16103:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Support Originally the reason I agreed was because of Rogerio980Pizzaa. My reason now is because of 1.20.6, which only fixed the trader llama inventory. The fact they have different inventory Id's I think is enough to warrant separate pages. Uono (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Strongly oppose. You have confused logic. What you say is, pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". "Warrant a full page" is a of "being merged". What notability says is, if they do not have enough content, they should be merged with other similar articles. "Warrant a full page" is a of "being merged".
When you split similar pages, it will bring difficulty for maintenance because when a similar feature changes, you have to update all relating pages without any exceptions in time. There are piles of pages remain to be updated. ๐ Image Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 03:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Strong Support. I ๐ Image Oppose the split because there is no reason why I should actually ๐ Image Support the split because even though I do in fact ๐ Image Support the split, the fact that I have marked before this comment that I ๐ Image strongly support the split simply shows that I actually ๐ Image Oppose the split in order to keep all of you guessing as to whether or not I ๐ Image Oppose or ๐ Image Support the split, hence thereby forcing all of you to therefore decide whether my vote should count towards one or thr other when regardless of what is decided, I shall henceforth reveal my position in the hypothetical event where my vote would tip the balance in order to ๐ Image Support the split.Drour1234 (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Every mob with a soawn egg has its own page except for the Trader Llama. The Trader Llama even has its own page on the dungeons namespace.Drour1234 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
What does that matter? Structure blocks, command blocks, and debug sticks are also all irrelevant to survival players. It's not like survival mode is more pure than other modes or something, not appearing in survival gameplay doesn't make a feature unworthy of an independent article. - BD (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It has been suggested multiple times to finally formalize the specific merge/split criteria, it's just that nothing was yet made out of that. Rather obviously, that would imply changes to the "warrant a full page" sentence, because that vague criterion would be replaced with something more specific. โ BabylonAS15:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Since we can only work with the guidelines as they currently are, and not in a hypothetical world which they eventually change, what is your answer to my original question? Mudscape (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd be fine with splitting beds I think. I haven't looked closely but I think they at least have different structures they generate in, and they are all crafted with different types of wool. Mudscape (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Imagine a situation that the hardness value of bed is modified in a version, and we have to update 16 pages. I don't want to ask trouble for maintenance. ๐ Image Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 05:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, I am not advocating for beds to be split, but if someone has a proposal I would not immediately oppose it. I think there's a chance it could be the best action. I'm just trying to have a productive discussion, and actually seeing the trader llama section in the draft I think that's the best resolution for this round of discussions. Mudscape (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Aren't hardness values automatically generated via a module or something? So you'd just update the module and then all the pages are updated. Nonetheless I know there are other examples where you would be correct and we'd need to update multiple pages. Really though I've never been able to see this as anything other than a relatively insignificant editor-facing issue, especially since we've gone through an entire update cycle (1.21) with many split pages (like every wall stair and slab) yet no issues have arose to my knowledge. It's not like no sweeping changes happened either, if I remember correctly a lot of bedrock IDs got flattened, like all walls. - Harristic / Talk๐ Image 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There are issues during 1.21 update cycle, that the efficiency of updating is too low. It takes several days to remove all upcoming, until and relating templates. In comparison, on Chinese Wiki, we take only several hours. ๐ Image Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 12:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You're talking about templates that apply to every page relating to an update. Splits increase the amount of pages, but not to a degree where the difficulty of removing those templates increases. The actual content of the update dictates the amount of pages the most. You're talking about a general problem with the wiki, not a split problem. I'm also fairly confident you're wrong about the time it took anyway, I'm sure there were one or two strays left over, but I personally would not use said strays to dictate the entire time it took, since I know that we were immensely active the day of 1.21 removing those templates. - Harristic / Talk๐ Image 12:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Imagine a situation that llama's health is changed in a version, and we have to remove {{History line|java upcoming}} twice. If we split beds, then the number increases to 16. When a major update comes, the total number of pages climbs, which increase the time to update.
I'm also a member updating pages when 1.21 releases. On Chinese Wiki, we takes only 5 hours to update 99% pages (about 20:00 13th June). The 1% left are hard to update so I set them aside temporarily. Then I turn to EN to update next morning (about 05:38 14th June) and found that the work had finished less than 30%. ๐ Image Wilf233zhMCW๏ผ่ฎบยทๅ๏ผ 13:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Comment. I have long argued that for the split pages we need more templates akin to {{crafting usage}}. For dyed blocks, stairs, slabs, and walls in particular we don't have a {{stonecutting usage}} or {{smelting usage}} to automatically update the recipes. {{smelting usage}} would be useful for pages like stained terracotta if we split the pages. Imagine if Mojang decided the stonecutter recipe for stairs gave 4 stairs for every 3 blocks instead of 3 stairs per block. We would need to update 90 pages, 45 stair pages and 45 block pages to show the updated recipe. That would be a cumbersome waste of time to do all of them by hand to do the same thing multiple times. Automatic template would solve the problem by cutting the volume of pages to update by at least half. If the pages were merged, such as all stone and brick stairs sharing a merged page, we'd only have a fraction of the work. All the time spent on DIG the Great Split making dubious individual pages for armor, tools, stairs, slabs, and walls; could've been spent on making {{stonecutting usage}} and {{smelting usage}} (or even {{Crafting obtaining}} or {{Stonecutting obtaining}}). We could have implemented the new templates before beginning the process of DIG to save massive amounts of time. Now with all the stairs, slabs, and walls split, implementation of the new templates is going to take a lot longer since the current inefficent system got expanded to cover hundreds of articles of dubious need. Back on topic to the issue of llamas and trader llamas: The issue of llama and trader llama is extremely trival. This is literally only the single mob that is merged with another mob, wheras blocks and items have the more pressing issue of "just one more variant" being a much more serious issue than llama and trader llama. Dyed blocks are often updated in unison adding common properties at once. Trader llama, while it seems as a variant of llama, has differing history and the properties differ slightly. It is more akin to Glow Item Frame that has been split from Item Frame already as individual pages now, a unique extension of the llama. If we are seriously concerned about "Mojang changes the health points of llama and trader llama and we have to update 2 pages if split", then there is a solution to the problem. We could implement Module:Health values for mobs like with Module:Hardness values for blocks. It could automatically load the health values for llama and trader llama from such module. That way we only need to update a single module if the Llama and Trader Llama health values change. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
In those cases improved module and template documentation can help. The best way to handle these issues is either: 1) Common information goes in centralized modules, 2) The infobox of each particular split page stores all information that need to be reused, or 3) Central articles like Advancement, Smelting, or Mob would store all centralized information. These three options are the way to deal with split pages. In the case of using the infobox to store all information, then that is the only instance where split pages have more pages to update. In other cases with using a module or centralized page, then readers will need to find them. The infobox (and obtaining section) on individual pages is generally where Mudscape prefers to store such information to make sure it is easier for readers to find the information to update. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
We are talking about splitting trader llama from llama; not wool, stairs, or planks. If llama is split, it will not signficantly impact the ability to update all mobs in reasonable time. These 2 mobs are the only mobs still merged. It is not like that of planks, wool, or stairs. Besides, llama and trader llama have very differing histories. They do not share common history as with wool, stairs, beds, etc. The history of the two mobs is more different than they are similar. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe then have different articles for each variant of standing and wall sign (a total of 22 articles, 44 with hanging signs) if you're at it? Actually that's 33 (66) articles โ together with the item forms. Beds themselves are composed of two blocks, so that's a potential 48 articles (three per each color). Similarly for doors. How many people are going to look for Red Front Bed or Birch Wall Sign or Waxed Weathered Upper Copper Door? Probably not really more people than those interested in red beds specifically, and much lower than those generally interested in beds. Bed color has absolutely zero effect on its practical (not aesthetical) usage. โ BabylonAS05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hmm... Yes. Bed color does not really matter, apart from telling who sleeps where it whatever. But block states are not reason for split, oh no they aren't. That would result in hundreds, if not thousands more pages. And if signs, hanging and normal were updated, then someone is going to have to program a bot.
About the straggler update templates, yeah, those sure exist. On the seventh I updated a history section. That was overdue by 1 month minus six days. Overall, I still ๐ Image Support the split. Nerdyguy2000 (talk|edits) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Support, because of many reasons: mobs are distinct, they have different spawn eggs, different spawning and despawning conditions.
For people that are saying "these mobs are similar", I will answer: the same thing can be said for squid/glow squid; donkey/mule; cod/salmon; husk/zombie; skeleton/stray; and probably few more cases. In each of these pairs, mobs share almost all characteristics, but this doesn't change in any way the fact that these are different mobs. All mentioned pairs of mobs are split, and all mobs in general are split, the only exception being the poor trader llama. Melwin22 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I would definitely be against merging articles on donkeys and mules, as well as on cod and salmon - those correspond to different real-life species. BabylonAS18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Drowning the discussion with new supports without new arguments won't make the article more likely to be split. โ BabylonAS17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not "drowning the discussion". As far as I'm aware I'm allowed to give my opinion on something. Supporting or opposing without additional arguments is commonly done on this wiki. I'm not sure why you're suddenly targeting me. โ Misode (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
MCW:Notability indicates that one page per subject is the default, and pages should only be merged if there is not enough content to "warrant a full page". That metric is very subjective, so can you describe how much information is enough, in your eyes, to be a full page? Mudscape (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Soft support or ๐ Image Neutral, but leaning toward weak/soft support. Soft support since trader llama has some exclusive spawning and behavior mechanics in addition to dedicated IDs and spawn eggs (and it's the only one with dedicated IDs/spawn egg I'm aware of that has no dedicated page). A trader llama article can also better funciton if it functions more as an extension of the llama article instead of duplicating the entire llama article (sounds can be loaded from the Llama/Sounds subpage as with other sound supages within Category:Sound data pages). In addition, the Llama article can be cleaned up quite a bit, if trader llama info is offloaded into a dedicated Trader Llama article. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Updating my stance to now ๐ Image Support the split. Combining trader llama info and llama info into a jumbled mess and fragmentation of the trader llama info throughout the llama article across different segments of the page, is just worse. Delvin4519 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image We need to do something. The Llama article as it is today does a terrible job of providing information about trader llamas being fragmented and intermingled with regular llamas, so it is not easy to get information of either one without reading through info about the other mob. The trader llama info must all be given dedicated sections of the article in behavior, history, and gallery. Even better would be a full ๐ Image split. Delvin4519 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we reach a consensus already? So, do we want to split the page, or do we want to simply put the trader llama info in one section? Nerdyguy2000(talk|edits) 21:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I also agree that we should get to action in deciding if the page is going to be split or not we should take action soon on this. Amysteryman (talk|edits) 19:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Neutral. Originally i thought it was good that they are both in the same article, but a lot of people have brought up good points that i think it could be fine either way. I like Nerdyguy2000's suggestion that maybe a the Trader Llama could get its own section on this page.Salad (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
1 Trader Page 2 N/A 3 N/A 4 N/A -- A trader llama never spawns without the wandering trader, and vice versa. Its unique behavior depends on being led by the trader. Because their roles are connected and the llamaโs behavior is tied to being leashed to the wandering trader, it seems more appropriate to include the trader llama information on the wandering traderโs page rather than on the regular llama page or its own page. :) -BrianGLHF (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about maybe adding it to both pages, but that gets messy. I still think we could just split the page and link to it from both of the other pages. Hoppp (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Info from OP: The trader llama has a diferent ID from a regular llama, it also has a spawn egg. As far as I can tell, it is the only entity to have a spawn egg and not a page Hoppp (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Support splitting. Looking at the article as it is right now, and the previous discussion it seems pretty clear that a split would be advantageous. Yes, the two mobs are very similar, but they also have significant differences when it comes to spawning, handling, and in the case of trader llamas, despawning. I strongly believe that having articles easy to understand and not overcramped with too much content is more valuable than not having duplicate content which also in this case wouldn't be too much. When it comes to the behaviour section, the new article could just say "Trader llamas act like normal llamas, except..." However, I ๐ Image strongly oppose adding Trading Llamas to the wandering trader article, that seems like an even worse and more confusing mess. | violine1101(talk)13:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Strong support splitting into dedicated trader llama page - Per every reason I mentioned in the older discussion. Also Piglin brutes are already split, but the reasons specific to why trader llama should be split still applies from the previous discussion. Delvin4519 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
๐ Image Note I will let this run for two days, if there is not a clear majority against the split, I'm going to split it, as that was the consensus of the first post anyways (6 oppose to ~20 support) Hoppp (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
