Stationeers Community Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Updates Overview

2025-02-09T20:57:59Z

Tarlacac: Added question "Why use an HTML Table?"

== Why use an HTML Table? ==

Why is the table of updates using HTML instead of the Mediawiki table format? I see that it was converted in Nov 24, 2023 ([https://stationeers-wiki.com/index.php?title=Updates_Overview&oldid=18924 revision]) to HTML, but no reasoning is given in the summary. From my understanding, HTML tables cannot be made sortable through Mediawiki markup, nor can any other features that Mediawiki offers for tables be used. I propose changing this back to the Mediawiki table format and making it [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Sortable_tables sortable by column].

The Old School Runescape Wiki also uses Mediawiki and does their tables very well, in my opinion, through extensive use of [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Templates Mediawiki templates]. For example, check out the drop tables on the [https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/Ammonite_Crab#Drops Ammonite Crab page] and go to "Edit source" to see how they used templates to do it and keep all pages standardized. I think the Stationeers wiki could also benefit from more templates and standardization, too. (or making it easier to find, if it does exist!)

Since this page is already pretty stale, I'll probably start working converting the table soon unless I hear otherwise.

--[[User:Tarlacac|Tarlacac]] ([[User talk:Tarlacac|talk]]) 14:57, 9 February 2025 (CST)

Talk:Styleguide Category Updates

2025-02-09T19:54:07Z

Tarlacac: Add suggestions for datetime format to use

== Time and date ==

I would suggest using RFC 3339 or ISO 8601 for dates and time: https://ijmacd.github.io/rfc3339-iso8601/

Well I don't want to use too many punctuation marks. Are you fine with "YYYY.MM.DD - HH:MM (UTC)" as syntax? By the way: Please log in and use your signature so everyone knows who is writing. Thanks!
[[User:Smodd|Smodd]] ([[User talk:Smodd|talk]]) 12:08, 3 December 2023 (CST)

Wouldn't you be using YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM (UTC), not using any periods at all?
I think the version with space between the date and the time is probably more readable to people than the ones with a T there (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM), at least. And it is pretty useful to have the dates be unambiguous like that. Especially since the USA'ians often use MM.DD.YYYY.
<br>
[[User:Eleftherios|Eleftherios]] ([[User talk:Eleftherios|talk]]) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (CST)

I am not familiar with a standardized date format for computers that uses dots to separate year, month, and day, so I vote to stick to a widely adopted, readable standard. I propose the following three promising options, so we can move forward with the style guide and adding versions:
# "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS" (implied to be UTC): This is the original editor's suggestion to use [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3339 RFC 3339]. It allows for spaces instead of the T and Z separators required in ISO 8601, fitting with [[User:Eleftherios|Eleftherios]]'s suggestion for readability as well.
# "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS [America/Los_Angeles]": This is the cleanest time zone specification I could come up with, using [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9557 RFC 9557]. RFC 9557 is fairly recent (April 2024) and updates RFC 3339 with more readable time zone suffixes. In RFC 3339, "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS-08:00" would specify Pacific Standard Time, while RFC 9557 lets you specify based on the [https://data.iana.org/time-zones/tz-link.html IANA Time Zone database] name, like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS [America/Los_Angeles]" (canonical time zone name) or "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS [US/Pacific]" (time zone name alias).
#* It is worth noting that the IANA time zone database can change, since it is at the whim of governments changing their time standards and rules. IANA does not appear to keep an updated list of time zone names to reference themselves, but from a quick search I was able to find that the .NET API project, Noda Time, maintains a [https://nodatime.org/TimeZones version archive] of the IANA time zone database going back to 2013, which is probably a sufficiently detailed reference.
# "DD MONTH_WORD YYYY - HH:MM:SS UTC": Conforms with SteamDB, since that is likely where patch/build info will be pulled from anyway. An example is "9 February 2025 - 14:21:21 UTC".

My vote goes for format #1, RFC 3339 (technically conforms to RFC 9557, too). It is a nonambiguous, human-readable datetime standard widely used on the Internet and in computing that is fairly neutral to the formatting preferences of any region of the world (as far as I know). Leading with year, then month, then day also helps with sorting, lexigraphically sorting by year, month, then day. I would discourage allowing time zones other than UTC to minimize the chance of conversion errors, given that SteamDB already uses UTC.

--[[User:Tarlacac|Tarlacac]] ([[User talk:Tarlacac|talk]]) 13:54, 9 February 2025 (CST)

Talk:Main Page

2025-02-09T17:45:33Z

Tarlacac: Started discussion about contributor guide and community guidelines

== Merge Volatiles Pages ==
--[[User:Bloby|Bloby]]: Currently there are two pages referring to the same gas: [[Hydrogen]] and [[Volatiles]]. They should probably be merged. Note that these are distinct from the item [[Ice_(Volatiles)]]. The merged page should probably be "Volatiles", because although the gas is referred to as H<sub>2</sub> in game, it is never called hydrogen, and its reaction with oxygen is clearly not that of hydrogen. Because of the name, I didn't realize the reaction didn't produce water vapor until I tested it. I suspect the inconsistency here is that the developers changed their mind about volatiles at some point and haven't fully switched over yet.

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 06:24, 22 October 2019 (CDT) I agree that the content should be merged into a single page. I would suggest that both the Hydrogen and Volatiles links on the Main Page remain with the Hydrogen page converted to a page-redirect to the merged Volatiles page. ("<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Volatiles]]</nowiki>" as page's sole content) This is because, as you noted, the game in its current "early access" state is itself confused about the naming. New players may come looking for info on Hydrogen, not realizing that it and Volatiles are one-in-the-same. As you also noted, labelling Volatiles as H<sub>2</sub> is equally misleading. I'm hoping that, sometime in the future, Hydrogen proper is (re?)introduced and Volatiles becomes Methane CH<sub>4</sub> or some other hydrocarbon.

: I believe this has some relation to the way the game separates items and gasses. Originally, the name of the gas was Hydrogen, but the name of the ice/ore was Volatiles. Now there is no mention of Hydrogen in the game, it's only Volatiles (even though it is labeled H<sub>2</sub> by some parts of the game). I will go ahead and merge the pages. --[[User:Sunspots|Sunspots]] ([[User talk:Sunspots|talk]]) 17:02, 26 October 2019 (CDT)

== Kit and Item Nomenclature ==

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 20:24, 18 October 2019 (CDT) As the wiki stands currently, kit and item papes '''with actual content''' do not share a consistent, predictable naming scheme. The names of wiki pages often do not match the name of the item in-game. (See [[Gas Tank Storage]] vs. [[Kit (Canister Storage) Canister Storage|Canister Storage]]) I would like some input on what a good nomenclature for entities of the game would be, it being mindful that in the future new entities will most likely be added, and that one day the wiki might expand to cover mods that add their own unique entities.

In an earlier attempt to alleviate the problem of inconsistently named pages, I reorganized the [[Main Page]] to harmonize its links with the in-game names of items, then created page-redirects to bounce each link to the appropriate (often incorrectly named) content page. This is only a band-aid over an open wound. To heal, content must be moved from their incorrectly named pages to replace the correctly named redirect pages.

The schema I used for the Main Page links is "«ItemName»" for items not created from kits. and "Kit («KitName») «ItemName»" for those that are, with the sole exception of "«Kit () «ItemName»" used when kit and variant names were similar enough to seem redundant to include both. Similarly, any new pages I created used the same naming schema minus the "«Kit () «ItemName»" contraction. I also adopted the "Guide («ItemName»)" or "Guide («SubjectName»)" for community-authored (opposed to user-authored) guides. (See [[Guide (Airlock)]] and [[Guide (Farming)]])

I devised the above naming schema for the Main Page links with two goals in mind:
# Make it clear, especially for new players, what items are available. ''(I've been banging my head against a wall trying to accomplish something only to find out later that there is an item that does that very thing)''
# Make it clear which items are derived from kits and what those kits and items are titled. ''(While watching an online video, I saw a nob mounted above a desk, but I can't find either in any of the fabricators)''
<br>
For the Main Page reorganization, I made an assumption that I am now concerned is incorrect, that assumption being it might be possible for two different kits to produce two different variants that share the same name.
* If the '''assumption is true''', then keeping future updates or mod's in mind, it is necessary to prevent page-name collisions by prepending the kit's name. (Example: the current pipe-based "[[Kit (Gas Mixer) Gas Mixer]]" vs. a future mod-provided "Kit (Advance Atmospherics) Gas Mixer", an Electrolyzer/Filtration sized device that will take several input gases and mix them to order consistently regardless of input temperatures or pressures)
* If the '''assumption is false''', then every item must have a unique name and therefore will reside on a matching uniquely named wiki page, no kit-name prepending required.

It seems to me now that the game has been constructed such that every item must have a unique name. I will try to confirm this with someone in authority on Stationeers' Discord. If confirmed, I will accept responsibility for the mistake and make the necessary corrections to the Main Page and the redirects it depends upon. Thus, pages like "[[Kit (Atmospherics) Air Conditioner]]" will become simply "[[Air Conditioner]]".

--[[User:Bloby|Bloby]]: This all seems reasonable. From my experience digging through the game files, I think that items need to have unique internal names, e.g. "StructureCompositeCladdingAngledCornerLong". However, these are mapped to names the user sees through the localization system. So the previous cladding is "Composite Cladding (Long Angled Corner)" in English, and "Revêtement Composite (Long coin incliné)" in French. So it might be possible that the user sees two items mapped to the same name. It seems like the developer is avoiding this, though.

== Kit Pages ==

For items that are produced as a kit, there are links both for the kit and the resulting item. In many cases, only one of these links points towards an existing page. I propose that we merge pages for items that are produced by the same kit, as is currently done in [[Kit (Lights)]], and use page redirects for the sub items, as in [[Kit (Lights) LED]].
Edit: I've done this for the manufacturing and atmospherics sections. If no one objects or reverts those, I'll continue to the other sections later.

Secondarily, on this main page, I think we should only mention "Kit" if there is more than one item related to that kit. E.g., "Kit () Fabricator" could be simplified to "Fabricator", but lights would keep their kit notation: "Kit (Lights) Diode Slide" and "Kit (Lights) LED".

Are there any objections to this?

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (CDT) :: I was the one who separated them out, with kits that currently only produce one item denoted as "Kit() ItemName" and kits that already produce multiple items denoted as "Kit (KitName) ItemName". I think the kits and the resulting items they produce deserve separate pages. All kits share the same set of properties (stackable, stack-siZe, cost of fabrication) that are separate for the items they produce (construction steps, power requirements, data properties). The two states, kit vs. item, are distinct. I value consistency and hope to produce a template for kits that will provide a predictable format for their shared information. Similarly, I'm studying the collection of items to see if a template can be made to cover them as well. See: [[Special:MyLanguage/Kit (Door)|Kit (Door)]] vs. [[Special:MyLanguage/Kit (Door) Composite Door|Composite Door]] and [[Special:MyLanguage/Kit (Blast Door) Blast Door|Blast Door]]. I've been a bit busy but I do intend to get that done. Can I ask for a bit of time, patience and maybe some help?

--[[User:Bloby|Bloby]] (Edited): I see what you mean about the different properties, and agree that it needs to be clear that the kits and their constructs are different. That said, I'm not sure that the best way to achieve that is to have separate pages for them: this would result in more than 100 new pages often containing only a few sentences of information. Your point that we should be consistent across items is well taken, and so maybe the best way to deal with this is to give each item one page. The infobox for the kit (the actual item) could be put at the top of the page, with the constructs as subsections (and separate infoboxes) below. Otherwise you're putting the constructs (not an item) on even footing with the kit (an item). The [[Atmospherics]] page is a good example of this. The exact templating scheme could be adjusted to reflect this; for example, it might be worth having differently styled boxes for items vs constructs. Does this sound reasonable?

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 19:29, 16 October 2019 (CDT) The [[Atmospherics]] page is a good example of what I would like to avoid. It is a huge conglomeration of different sets of information. New users, the people most likely to come to the wiki, must weed through a long page to find the information specific to the item of their interested. It would be far more helpful (and less intimidating) if they were greeted with a shorter page concentrated with the information on one specific kit or item. I don't see a problem with kits and items being on the same level and having their own pages. Both are entities in the game. A kit can be manipulated in the game just as much as any item. Any distinction seems meaningless. Webpages are free and there is no shortage of them. Why must "conserving" pages be a goal? It is my opinion that the [[Atmospherics]] page would be better served as four separate pages: [[Kit (Atmospherics)|Kit (Atmospherics)]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Air Conditioner|Air Conditioner]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Electrolyzer|Electrolyzer]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Filtration|Filtration]]. While I will advocate my point of view, I realize I am in no position to make dictates. I am eager to hear your points and counterpoints. I '''will''' listen.

As an example of my vision, please examine what I've done with [[Guide (Airlock)|Guide (Airlock)]] and all its associated pages, including [[Guide (Airlock) Atmosphere to Atmosphere]], [[Guide (Airlock) Atmosphere to Vacuum]], [[Kit (Airlock)]], [[Kit (Airlock) Airlock]], [[Circuitboard (Airlock)]] and [[Circuitboard (Advanced Airlock)]]. I tried to breakdown a complicated system into discrete parts of different functions and link them all together with contextual links and a comprehensive "See Also" section. You can examine the histories of the pages to see how the work progressed.

I have some time on my hands. Give me the day to try my hand on that monolithic [[Atmospherics]] page. You can then judge if the resulting collection of pages is or is not a better experience, especially for newer players.

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 05:56, 17 October 2019 (CDT) Okay, The original [[Atmospherics]] page remains, but I have created new pages for [[Kit (Atmospherics)|Kit (Atmospherics)]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Air Conditioner|Air Conditioner]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Electrolyzer|Electrolyzer]] | [[Kit (Atmospherics) Filtration|Filtration]], all linked from the main page. I will finish the [[Guide (Air Conditioner)]], [[Guide (Electrolyzer)]], and [[Guide (Filtration)]] later.

--[[User:Bloby|Bloby]]: Okay, I see better what you're wanting to do with the atmospherics. At this point I think they're probably both fine, so we may as well go with your preference for splitting the page. I see a couple of related issues that we might want to consider as well. The biggest two issues are:
# Single construct kits. Are we going to split up pages like [[Autolathe]] as well then? It seems like this would be most consistent, but less obviously necessary.
# Minor variants:
#* Stairs actually have three constructs: no railing, right side railing, and left side railing. Aside from their collision meshes, there are no mechanical differences. I don't really think these deserve four total pages, even assuming that kits like Atmospherics are split up.
#* Cladding has 13 constructs of varying shapes. Some of them have a 2x1x1 shape, and therefore take two Kit(Cladding) to construct. Again, I think they should be on one page.
#* Floor grating is basically the same story as stairs, with four variants.
#* Lights use different shapes, but their power consumption varies. I'm not really sure about this one.
Anyway, let me know what you think. I appreciate and share your desire to talk it through.

--[[User:Ipottinger|Ipottinger]] ([[User talk:Ipottinger|talk]]) 17:53, 18 October 2019 (CDT) '''I agree with you on all points above.'''
# Single construct kits:
#* We should split up pages like [[Kit (Autolathe)]] as well. It will be most consistent, It will be what anyone who has browsed the wiki for a length of time will come to expect and it will set a clear president for future kits and items added to the game. Plus, there is no guarantee that future updates (or mods) won't add addition variants to these kits.
# Minor variants:
#* Kits that produce multiple variants that are only trivially different from one another do '''not''' require individual pages for those varients. A simple table of characteristics should be enough to guide a player to the appropriate variant.
#* I agree that [[Kit (Lights)]] is a difficult one. Though [[Kit (Lights) Wall Light|Wall Light]], [[Kit (Lights) Wall Light (Long)|Wall Light (Long)]], [[Kit (Lights) Wall Light (Long Angled)|Wall Light (Long Angled)]] and [[Kit (Lights) Wall Light (Long Wide)|Wall Light (Long Wide)]] are all essentially the same, albeit in size and shape, they are substantially distinct in form and function from [[Kit (Lights) Diode Slide|Diode Slide]] and [[Kit (Lights) Wall Light (Battery)|Wall Light (Battery)]]. Even [[Kit (Lights) LED|LED]] colorization is different enough from other Lights variant to cause confusion for a new player. Therefore, I think it would be wise to give Lights variants three separate pages. One for the common lights, another for the battery variant, and a third for LED.

--[[User:Bloby|Bloby]]: Okay excellent, then that's taken care of.

:I strongly disagree with these excessively long names! In every case where an individual item or structure is warranted it's own article, the article name should be identical to the English translation of the name. In the case of multiple things with the same name, any clarification should be following the name, not in some obscure naming scheme. I don't care so much about names of guides. We don't need atomic articles for every single item or structure in the game. Note that there are two major types of "things" in the game - items and structures (also reagents, gasses, dynamic objects, etc). An item that is a kit is generally used to place a structure. I don't like the idea of having an article for the kit item alone, and forcing the user to jump through hoops to find the actual information about the structure.
:p.s. please follow general wiki convention of signing the end of your message --[[User:Sunspots|Sunspots]] ([[User talk:Sunspots|talk]]) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (CDT)

== IC Scripts ==

(The following comment was removed from the Main_Page HTML and placed here for greater visibility)<br/>
Due to all the IC Scripts on the workshop have there own guides on how to use them, I will not link them here for now due to how many there is, could do a top 10 of them and place them here.

== Discord Link ==

Hey guys, can you create a permanent discord link? The current one expired. [[User:PostRobcore|PostRobcore]] ([[User talk:PostRobcore|talk]]) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (CST)

== Ideas/ suggestions for a standardized Logic Setup. ==

Hello guys!

I have made a system for distribute Logic Setups. This way we can have a "Standard" system for each and every Logic Setup added to the Wiki. It is nothing fancy or sensational. It just takes every Logic Unit in to a format it is uniform.

I made this in Evernote, as I use this a lot for many things.

My way might not be what everyone want.
But might be a way to get every new guide or tutorial in sync with what is needed for every level the players are at in their experience with the game.

Another thing, is there a forum we talk about this Wiki for Stationeers?
Or is it just this talk thing we share ideas for the site?

Here is an example:
(Tried to edit to Wiki setup, but I'm on phone. And new to using the Wiki. So this look much better in my notes than in here. At least for now.)

==== Material List ====
===== Logic Memory =====
*3x Logic Memory Unit
===== Logic I/O=====
*1x Logic Reader Unit
===== Logic Processor =====
*2x Logic Math Unit
===== Logic Processor =====
*1x Logic Min/Max Unit
===== Logic I/O =====
*Batch Writer Unit
===== Sensor =====
*1x Solar Sensor
===== Power Control/Storage =====
*1x Area Power Control (APC)
===== Solar Panels =====
*3x Solar Panels
===== Miscellaneous =====
*"x" Amount of Standard Cable
*"x" Amount of Heavy Cable

==== Settings ====
===== Logic Memory 1 of 3 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Memory 15
*Memory Set: 15

===== Logic Memory 2 of 3 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Memory 1.5
*Memory Set: 1.5

===== Logic Memory 3 of 3 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Memory 100
*Memory Set: 100

===== Logic Reader 1 of 1 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Logic Reader 1
*In: Daylight Sensor
*Var: Solar Angle

===== Math Unit 1 of 2 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Math Unit 1
*Input 1: Result > Logic Reader 1
*Input 2: Memory 15
*Out (Operation Selector): Subtract

===== Math Unit 2 of 2 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Math Unit 2
*Input 1: Result > Math Unit 1
*Input 2: Memory 1.5
*Out (Operation Selector): Divide

===== Min/Max Unit 1 of 1 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Min-Max 1
*Input 1: Result > Math Unit 2
*Input 2: Memory 100
*OPR (Less/Greater Selector): Less

===== Batch Writer 1 of 1 (Settings): =====
*Label Name: Batch Writer 1
*Input 1: Result > Min-Max 1
*Out Var: Vertical
*Out Type: Solar Panels

== How to layout stationpedia excerpts ==

Currently, most articles with stationpedia quotes put the quote after the '''description''' section. An alternative to this is to put it in the top section. I personally think we should migrate all articles to this variant because I think it makes the structure look better.

An example is [[Special:PermanentLink/20950|Corn Soup]] compared to [[Special:PermanentLink/21564|Autolathe]].

[[User:Emilgardis|Emilgardis]] ([[User talk:Emilgardis|talk]]) 07:58, 10 July 2024 (CDT)

== Pages for Contributor Guide and Community Guidelines ==

--[[User:Tarlacac|Tarlacac]] ([[User talk:Tarlacac|talk]]) 11:45, 9 February 2025 (CST): I have been loving Stationeers and this wiki has been an invaluable resource, so I want to help contribute! However, there does not seem to be a Contributor's Guide page (that I could find at least). This would be useful to have front-and-center for new users for a number of reasons, like to help newcomers orient themselves and navigate the wiki properly, use the editor to its full extent, set up and use Talk pages in a more uniform way, make more useful, efficient contributions to pages, and standardize formatting and unit usage. It would also be useful to have basic community guidelines easily accessible to lay ground rules for things like "All users are expected to be kind and respectful in edits and interactions with other users", "Hate speech will not be tolerated", and "No spam". I am happy to contribute to the discussion around how to design the pages and their contents, but the actual pages should probably be created by a moderator and write-protected from normal users (if that is possible).

Talk:Station Battery

2025-02-09T17:17:07Z

Tarlacac: Added headers to separate topics and responded to a comment to clarify units language and usage for future readers (and the author if they see it)

== Energy Loss Criteria ==

As for v0.2.3967, every battery is subject to normal drain or conditional "cold" drain.<br>
"Cold" drain occurs if pressure bellow armstrong limit(6.3KPa)(full drain) or below 0C(drain depends on temperature).<br>
Normal drain amount - 10, "cold" drain amount - 50. If atmosphere is "indoor" then drained energy transfered to atmosphere.<br>
Sealed vacuum take full "cold" drain amount, but open vacuum disable all drains(praise the Moon).<br>
Battery cells act little different they skip pressure part, so only temperature matter. And no energy transfer occurs.<br>

== Confusing Energy Units ==

Edits made by Jimmyberg actually made energy requirement less clear. Because of word wrapping, I incorrectly read it as 600kJ, instead of 3.6MJ. I propose to use SI units instead of large number with spaces.

* To be clear, the joule ''is'' the SI units for energy. Joules (J) vs kilojoules (kJ) vs megajoules (MJ) is just a difference in the order of magnitude. Regardless, I agree with you; we should use the appropriate order of magnitude to avoid large numbers with many zeroes, as long as it still preserves all significant figures. Large number separators should probably be commas or dots, not spaces. Maybe there is already a convention somewhere in the wiki that I don't know about where the community has decided on this. --[[User:Tarlacac|Tarlacac]] ([[User talk:Tarlacac|talk]]) 11:17, 9 February 2025 (CST)

User:Tarlacac

2025-02-09T16:56:00Z

Tarlacac: Added preferred contact method

<h4 class="subheader">Bio</h4>

I'm a scientist and software engineer enjoying Stationeers! I made this account to help update pages when I can.

<h4 class="subheader">Contact</h4>

Please use [[User talk:Tarlacac|my User talk page]]. If I am still active, I will respond as soon as I can!

<h4 class="subheader">Languages</h4>

* English (native speaker)

User talk:Tarlacac

2025-02-09T16:52:33Z

Tarlacac: Created basic talk page

Note: Please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to insert your signature and maybe a heading for your discussion topic.

User:Tarlacac

2025-02-09T16:40:39Z

Tarlacac: Created my page

<h4 class="subheader">Bio</h4>

I'm a scientist and software engineer enjoying Stationeers! I made this account to help update pages when I can.

<h4 class="subheader">Languages</h4>

* English (native speaker)

Stationeers Wiki:General disclaimer

2025-02-09T16:30:40Z

Tarlacac: Fixed spelling of "Staioneers-Wiki" to "Stationeers-Wiki"

Stationeers-Wiki is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Stationeers-Wiki; much of the time you will. However, Stationeers-Wiki cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have disclaimers.

No formal peer review
Our active community of editors uses tools such as the Special:Recentchanges and Special:Newpages feeds to monitor new and changing content. However, Stationeers-Wiki is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them.

None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators or anyone else connected with Stationeers-Wiki in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages.

No contract; limited license
Please make sure that you understand that the information provided here is being provided freely, and that no kind of agreement or contract is created between you and the owners or users of this site, the owners of the servers upon which it is housed, the individual Stationeers-Wiki contributors, any project administrators, sysops or anyone else who is in any way connected with this project or sister projects subject to your claims against them directly. You are being granted a limited license to copy anything from this site; it does not create or imply any contractual or extra contractual liability on the part of Stationeers-Wiki or any of its agents, members, organizers or other users.

There is no agreement or understanding between you and Stationeers-Wiki regarding your use or modification of this information neither is anyone at Stationeers-Wiki responsible should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may post on Stationeers-Wiki or any of its associated projects.

Trademarks
Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Stationeers-Wiki encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Stationeers-Wiki articles under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licensing schemes. Unless otherwise stated Stationeers-Wiki and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed by nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Stationeers-Wiki cannot grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.

Personality rights
Stationeers-Wiki contains material which may portray an identifiable person who is alive or deceased recently. The use of images of living or recently deceased individuals is, in some jurisdictions, restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights, independent from their copyright status. Before using these types of content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's personality rights.

Jurisdiction and legality of content
Publication of information found in Stationeers-Wiki may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. The Stationeers-Wiki database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. Laws in your country or jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. Stationeers-Wiki does not encourage the violation of any laws, and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce or republish the information contained herein.

Not professional advice
If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.