Template talk:Navbox 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|C) 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)

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|C) 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)

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

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|C) at 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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|C) at 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

Title. Cronos Dage 02:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I already merged this template into Template:Entities and moved all pages (mobs at least) using Template:Mobs to use Template:Entities Cool12309^(T|C) 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)

I don't like the idea that removed and planned mobs are in the mobs section, I think we should have one section for removed, and one section for planned, and that's it, because this is a template about entities and mobs are no different then the rest of the entities, and thus should not be separated from the rest of the template.--Yurisho 05:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Should Sand, Gravel, and TNT be added? I already added every other one, as they are always entities. Cool12309^(T|C) 20:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The current face for the silverfish isn't that good, I found one that should work 👁 Image
Those70sfans 23:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I, personally, prefer the current one as it is higher resolution and include more of the silverfish, making it more obvious which mob the image is referring to. The one you posted simply looks like a collection of six pixels to me. Verhalthur ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It just seems like it was stripped from the texture picture to me Those70sfans 02:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

👁 Image
 I prefer the current Yes, you'rs IS the face of the silverfish, but it's to hard to understand, the current texture also contain the first set of "spikes" coming out of the silverfish, and give it a more silverfish-like look. What I do agree, is that it is hard to make a 2D icon to the silverfish.--Yurisho 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the same than for wolves: there is not only the texture of the face but also the one of the muzzle. – Scaler (t) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the proposed one. I really hate how the current one is off center. -Rmzy 02:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Cave Spider is all wrong.Can Someone (at least temporarily) change it to the cave spider face? –The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajc 1254 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:09, 19 September 2011. Please sign your posts with ~~~~

What's wrong with it? Did you clear your cache (CTRL+F5 on the page)? – Scaler (t) 21:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

On Reddit Notch referred to Snow Golems as Utility Mobs.[1] --Ecksearoh 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the "allied" category? --Trollrilla 03:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When Minecon comes I bet we'll add a "Utility" section. For now it's "Planned". TorchicBlaziken 01:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When placed, painting are an entity. Probably could use a link under Misc. imo --Wizjany 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Blaze fireball image needs to be changed to fire image, but it seems to display only question mark when I try to do so. Somebody might help with this? Xeoxer 13:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

simple answer, it doesn't need to change to fire image.--Yurisho 16:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

but ingame i think they shoot just fire texture and not the same as ghast fireball Xeoxer 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, shot the same as a ghast, just smaller.--Yurisho 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked the shot/fired arrow icon better when it was the same icon as the arrow icon. The new one, which is just an opaque white square with a flat, horizontal arrow in it. Can i change it back? ((almost forgot about the signature.)) Soandso2 18:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the arrow entity image, the previous was an arrow item image. this is automatically better.--Yurisho 19:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

…Are you seriously unable to tell that the new icon (which I did, thank you very much) is the _shot_ arrow? Really? Also, Purple arrow was kind necessary, as it was never an item anyway. Shellface 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i just recently saw in the texture files S: Soandso2 21:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Could it be useful to translate the template into other languages (in my case Italian)? Am I allowed to do it? I don't know if it would work as well as the original one. I wanted to translate the name of the entities leaving the link to the english page and saving it as "Template:Entities/it".--Buberrimo 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In a wiki any one cab contribute in any way shape or form you want:If you think the template won't work in you'r native language just change it so it will in you'r language's version. If we don't have an Italian wiki of it's own and all the Italian stuff is still with a "/it" at the end then I don't see a problem with you'r idea, although I would suggest putting the links to the /it versions of the page, even if they currently don't exist.--Yurisho 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the one used is the one used in the file the picture does not look good when not translated into 3D. Could someone find/make a picture that doesn't looks more like the item in game and just generally more visually appealing? I know we should use official images but exceptions can be made, and should in this case. --Moxxy 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

With the addition of cats, I'm not sure I agree with the use of the neutral mob category. It seems misleading to have a category that includes both Endermen and Wolves. How do people feel about putting Cats and Wolves into the utility category, and putting Zombie Pigmen and Endermen into the hostile category? Or maybe putting Cats into Passive? I feel cats and wolves should be in the same category regardless of how we handle this. --Theothersteve7 15:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm mildly annoyed that the template has gotten changed twice without any discussion. But I find a new "Tamable" category pretty agreeable. I'd like to see a couple categories merged, ideally, but it's good enough. --Theothersteve7 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason why I'm removing it is because it is not its own entity. It is exactly the same as a Wither Skeleton and a Spider. The reason Zombie Villagers is in their is because although it is still technically a zombie it has different properties. The reason Skeleton Jockey is on their even though it's just two entities is because it is a unique instance among entities that people look for. The instance of a skeleton riding a spider is covered in the spider jockey and the differences between the Wither Skeleton and a skeleton is covered on the wither skeleton page. It's not even supposed to exist as it's just a quirk in the code that wasn't fix. When someone asked Dinnerbone if he would fix them he said he wouldn't because they aren't even supposed to be spawned. --Moxxy 19:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As of the 1.6.2 pre-release, Baby Zombie Pigman can be spawned from spawn eggs and naturally. Whoever is in charge of this page can remove baby zombie pigman from the unused section.--68.198.107.93 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please add chicken jockeys? MooshroomDragon (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting for confirmation that they will actually spawn naturally, and aren't just Dinnerbone messing around with the /summon command. -- Orthotope^talk 04:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I added Zombie Pigman and Zombie Villager Chicken Jockeys. I hope this is okay. Also, should baby zombies, baby zombie villagers, baby zombie pigmen, and hostile zombie pigmen from the pocket edition be added too? MooshroomDragon (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also added the 2.0 mobs, pandas, and whales. I hope this makes it better. If it shouldn't be here, please don't block me. MooshroomDragon (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone should update the "Hostile Underwater Mob" to instead have "Guardian". Also, the icon for the Guardian should be added.

Brantmeierz (talk)

Could an Operator add Killer Bunny as variety of Rabbit?

I Added it's pic to EntityCSS.png, and to the Module, with the id 'killer-rabbit'. MamiZaCraft (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Added. The actual Entities template is protected because you don't actually need to edit it. To add something simply go to Template:(Blocks/Items/Entities)/content . - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah i know that, i just made a stupid mistake. MamiZaCraft (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the category is only exempt from pages that are not the namespace Main, but on both {{Items}} and {{Blocks}}, it has {{#pos: {{PAGENAME}} | / }} to remove language translations. Since translations should have their own category, can that code get added to the category conditions here as well? --KnightMiner ^(t|c) 18:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As I can't edit the page, aren't the skeleton horses supposed to be in the "Upcoming" category now?? --190.179.99.47 01:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no. They existed before 1.9 as an unused feature, the only difference is they spawn naturally (thus, they are upcoming for the tamable category, but not upcoming as a mob). –KnightMiner ^t/_c 03:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So first of all, add the polar bear to the neutral area. And finally make Stray be variant of Skeleton and Husk of Zombie. Thanks! --MinecraftAwesomeJDF (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know why the Wither Skeleton is not set as a variant of the skeleton, unlike the stray. Is there any reason for that? FVbico (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Skeleton#Merge_wither_skeleton. It's about merging the wither skeleton page into the skeleton page, but the same reasons apply. The stray has its own ID, but it is too similar to the normal skeleton in vanilla survival to warrant its own page (We don't like duplicating information). The wither skeleton also has its own ID but on top of that it also behaves very different from a normal skeleton in vanilla survival (enough the warrant a different page).

There are of course arguments against this, but the overall consensus was to treat a Wither skeleton as separate from the skeleton and stray. Merging and splitting is always an interesting subject and there are a lot of gray areas. --Pepijn (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It actually does not behave different, drop weapons, have a skeleton pick it up (or wither skeleton a bow) and they will behave as the other... aside from that 4 differences: size, fire resistant, fire arrows and inflicts wither FVbico (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not about their AI in the code (and thus not about how similar entities are too each other in the code), this is about how the entity behaves in a survival world (which is what a lot of information on a page is about). Merge arguments are mostly based on the "A page must have enough unique information to exist" rule. In the case of wither skeletons, they have enough unique SURVIVAL vanilla behavior. While strays don't. --Pepijn (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Utility mobs recently removed from mobs category in mob page. Should it keep in this template or removed?. ImakerB (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As this template currently is, there are 109 mobs (including removed, unimplemented and earth exclusive) and 63 others. We may possibly need to reorganize it into a navbox of two sub-navboxes (like the "Java Edition Versions" template) titled "Mobs" and "Others".

The template is broken and claims everything (except players) are "mobs". 73.220.135.34 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. FVbico (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the strider jockey be added to the "compound mobs" section? Although it does not have its own page, neither does the ravager rider, the link brings you to the ravager page. Could the strider jockey be added, with redirection to the strider page or something? (I also don't see strider jockeys mentioned much anywhere on this wiki) 76.24.42.79 23:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done added to compound section. ImakerB (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

On the Mob page, most subsections were merged into passive, neutral, hostile, and boss. Here, the categories defensive, tameable, utility, and trustable are still here for some reason. To make it consistent with the mob page, defensive should be merged with neutral, and the others should have their mobs distributed to passive and neutral depending on the mob's behavior. 72.219.72.215 17:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, "tameable", "rideable", "summonable", and "trustable" don't need to be unique categories and should perhaps be just notes. "Defensive" can exist as a compromise, but I argue it should be put into neutral since it's still "harming the player following provocation".Pescavelho (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, If the Mob page has merged categories before, I don't see why wouldn't the template do the same. Also, the pufferfish should be moved to the passive category, as hostile mobs always attack the player, while the pufferfish only react to the player getting close and swims away from the player after it gets attacked, similar to other passive mobs. Stwennin (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose that this navbox is split into two, one for mobs and one for all other entities (non-mob entities). Having these two things in one navbox simply isn't very useful, as I find it incredibly unlikely that a reader on the sniffer page would ever want to then visit the item frame (but as an entity) page. It's much more realistic to say that a reader on a mob page is going to switch over to another mob page if they are going to use the page's navbox. Smaller navboxes are also much easier to navigate for readers, therefore having two smaller navboxes with clear subjects would be a lot better than one large one with a much broader subject in my opinion. - Harristic | Talk 👁 DungeonsEntitySprite penguin-onesie.png: Sprite image for penguin-onesie in Minecraft
02:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Where do we put players? Players don't fit with mobs, and it's also really, really weird to group players with xp orbs, primed tnt entities, and falling blocks. If there isn't a certainty where to put players, it'll just be an endless battle of editors moving players back and forth between Template:Mobs and Template:Non-Mob Entities. Delvin4519 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - Smaller navboxes are more useful to readers and this is a clear cut line to draw. Mudscape (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done with the use of subsections. - I've used subsections with arguments to hide various subsections, just like with Template:Blocks, so there's no need to split the template into two different ones, now with the subsections in place. Delvin4519 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: What if we change the mobs section to living entities, and then add the players and armor stands, in my opinion it seems more correct to group them with mobs insteand of boats and paintings. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The term and grouping "Living entity" only applies to Java Edition as far as I know, and is only useful for technical users. The term barely works on Entity format, but for this template, "Mobs" makes much more sense. — Misode (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose, "mob" is a much more recognizable term that is used even outside of Minecraft.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 12:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Pet

Add a China Exclusives area too. RandomResearcher (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Zombie Horse listed as a boss? 86.13.247.51 18:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not. It's listed as unused. - 👁 Image
NmbrblcksFan (talk/edits) 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Zombie Nautilus is neutral in java and hostile in bedrock. What are we going to do when mounts of mayhem comes out and we have to move it out of the upcoming section? CrockCraftMC (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously it’s going to settle into one or the other, the discrepancy is probably just because they haven’t decided. Having it in both categories would take up an absurd amount of space. Realshow19 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral regardless, its hostile until tamed. Rogerio980Pizzaa (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

True. Well, guess that's setteled. CrockCraftMC (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The Illager icon looks different the other other icons in that section and it annoys me

It should be 4 mob faces.

I get why it isn't, since all of them have the same face, but the same face 4 times would at least be consistent. 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 21:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

What I think it should look like: HERE 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 22:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support It's more consistent, and (in my opinion) looks better. D62 22:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how to change it, as it currently uses the same file as evoker 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 23:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Upload it with name EntitySprite illager.png. If it doesn't work, try to remove the redirect. MinecraftBedrockPlayer7 (talk) (contribs) 👁 Image
23:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

It won't let me upload a file with that name 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 23:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Then post it on the admin noticeboard; it probably requires admin rights to overwrite, but I'm not sure. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done, it doesn't actually require admin rights, it's just a warning and you can press upload again to overwrite ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait so that doesn't overwrite the file that is being redirected too? Oh, good to know. 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 00:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No. Wiki redirects aren't HTTP 3xx's, but rather a regular 2xx then leads to the target ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

w h a t 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 01:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Which part do you not understand, the HTTP codes or the wiki redirects? You can Google what the codes represent, and on MediaWiki wikis, basically redirects are just regular pages that automatically lead to the redirect target, but if you add ?redirect=no (or &redirect=no if there's already an parameter) you can directly view and edit the redirect. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I had never seen those HTTP codes before 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 01:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

If all the pets mob are their own thing how come not all the potato mobs are their own thing? 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 02:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The potato mobs aren't actually separate mobs, they just change their texture when in the Potato dimension. The pets have their own separate entities. 👁 Image
NmF (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

o-o 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 21:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Both list it as Pink Wither but in loves and hugs it was called the friendly wither not the pink wither 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 01:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Both the Pink Wither from Java Edition 2.0 and the Friendly Wither from 15w14a were identical mobs, but the Pink Wither was introduced first, so the Wiki ultimately used the former name. – RedX (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

but they functional diffrently, and again, have diffrent names, at least the navbox should have it be called friendly wither for the love and hugs, also, really the only thing that is very alike anbout the two is the texture (as its the same) 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 03:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking back at it, I agree adding the "Friendly Wither" distinction to the navbox, but the remaining differences between the two mobs are already stated in a single article, and even then it's a "short" article that isn't able to be split. RedX (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I get why the article isn't spilt but at least the names should be fixed in the navbox 👁 Image
BrandonEpicGamer (TALK) 21:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://minecraft.wiki/w/Template_talk:Navbox_entities?oldid=3446153"