Gotta agree with you there. Unfortunately, the infobox I use seems to only keep fields that have been editted. Basically, if I don't use a field the first time I make that infobox, I can't ever use that field and have to completely rebuild the infobox. However, there's another infobox that does allow me to edit it later and has the same fields. Do you know what infobox it is?
But what's the difference between Passive, Peaceful, and Fleeing?
They all mean the same - they don't cause harm even when attacked. The only minor variation is Fleeing, which could mean that the animal doesn't just stay motionless when getting attacked, but Passive is inclusive of that attitude. Passive is all-inclusive. Having only 3 will simplify things immensely.
The way I described it in Guide: Attitudes is that Peaceful creatures have no use and are purely cosmetic, Fleeing creatures flee, and Passive creatures have a use to the player (DNA or drops). I can see how this can be confusing and if you like I can revert everything back to the old system.
I don't think a real-life animal that's passive is defined as such because it has something useful to gain from killing it. It's defined as such because it's passive.
Adding unrelated definitions to an already specific word can certainly make things confusing. It's causing users to rethink or relearn the word and then approach the information in the tables and guides with that new definition in mind.
I figured I'd leave the Attitudes in because there's now a plant that shoots needles at the player if they get close (Aggressive), and the Acid Mushroom doesn't like to be touched (Defensive). If the terms become more any more specific (Poisonous, Ranged), it will generate more work for the template and the editors with regard to other potential indentifications (Explosive, Melee, etc). Those three terms should keep things simple. Let me know if you disagree.
Me, as well as many other people have noticed that there is a strange area very near the tail end of the Aurora. It's basically just a long, flat stretch of sand that is absolutely COVERED in scrap metal and salt. I don't have any screeenshots of it at the moment, but I'll get some and show them to you if you want.
Anyways, I was thinking that maybe there should be a page for this area, perhaps it could be a new biome?
Well, the Inactive Lava Biome has no life at all, and it's listed as a biome.
Even if it doesn't qualify as a biome, I think having a page on it would be helpful, especially for players who are looking for scrap and salt (which can be suprisingly hard to find). Besides, this wiki is trying to gather as much info about Subnautica as possible, right? It would be strange to have an area this large and significant be completely unrecorded anywhere.
Somebody having rights does not harm anyone, even if "inactive". Let's make a policy of 90 days "inactivity" required for a de-rank. I've been on longer vacations than just 10 days so let's not get hasty with rash actions here. In case of any earlier de-rank I want to be contacted before doing it unless it's an emergency. As I stated multiple times already I am not inactive - just limited by time a bit so I can't contribute content currently. If there is anything you need help with just ask and I'll see if I can help with it. Be it graphics, community tools (I can provide teamspeak etc.) etc.
Further I'll contact the dev team and have them sign up so I can grant at least one of them beaurocrat. I believe that is a decent foundation. Rights are not necessary to do 90% of the tasks on a Wiki and shouldn't be abused. That includes beaurocrat.
As beaurocrat is not removable as simply as other ranks I hope this was an honest mistake. I would not have expected this sort of outcome and frankly I do not want to have arguments on here about stuff like this. Also I'd be even less happier having to contact the Wikia support to sort things out. Everyone will have a fair chance of contributing and if it means being on long vacations etc. - that's completely fine.
As for the rights I'll re-instate them once more and would be happy if you'd accept Rahlzel. You, along with all of the contributors, did a really great job of making this even better. This Wiki is viewed thousands of times each day and hopefully helping a lot of people. Let's keep this spirit :)
I completely agree. I'd personally not take anybodies rights away unless vandalism or something similar happens. I'm a big fan of keeping the working spirit positive - that allows for maximum creativity :)
I posted a picture of the Reaper stuck on the aurora, why'd you remove it? im sorry i couldnt get a straight side-by-side but i thought it was cool how it was beached and how it wasn't blurry like the underwater shot.
why is it I either get a wikia with no admins and anons making new pages for every question they have, wikias with stonewall admins who reply like machines to absolutely everything, or wikias where community adding is not allowed.
I have become a bit tired with the wikia bot pretending to be me. Looking at its contributions you can see it thanks everyone who does an edit but it does so in my name. In most cases with actual users I don't mind but it also thanks anonymous spammers and people posting comments. Is there anyway that you could have it stop pretending to be me? Or even give an indication that it is actually a computer program?