Talk:Seaweed

this thing would be so much cooler without the propeller or with a much longer trailing distance before it gets used. it moves slower than you which is cool, but that means its always flying to catch up, much more interesting if he has to walk so you can outrun him and wait to catch up, it'd be like how the parrot perches and swoops instead of always following.
 * Perhaps you should make it a suggestion on the official forums? :-) NoseOfCthulhu (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Appearance Rate
How often does this appear? Is it guaranteed to appear at least once in every world, or will I need to scour several jungles, screen-by-screen, to have any hopes of finding it? 68.0.125.61 05:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been playing on console for years, and this pet is unique to 1.2 which was released to console mid-April 2014. I've plowed through many jungles with a Drax just for this pet with no luck. I haven't been able to find a "drop" rate on either of the wikis and have a hard time believing my RNG luck is this poor. I'mma go out on a limb and say the drop rate sucks and probably has a rate akin to Eater's Bone (3.33%).   71.201.207.57 19:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Each Jungle Shrine has a 1/50 chance of containing a Seaweed, with no guarantee that a world needs to contain any.  Equazcion ( talk ) 19:30, 14 Dec 2014 (UTC)

MLP Reference
Continuing from Talk:Pet Turtle. There has been edit warring going on over whether or not to add the possible reference. Personally I believe it's similar enough to warrant being included as speculation in trivia, not to mention the other confirmed references (Party Girl, Wizard). If you disagree then please leave your comments here before reverting it so others do not see it as vandalism. 10.0.0.67 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems less like there's been edit warring and more like a handful of users are being insistent. This isn't how debates and discussion are carried out, either. Decisions aren't made by making a claim and challenging others to find evidence against it or accept it as truth; when you make an assertion, it's on the claimant to support their own argument. "You can't prove that it's not" is only evidence for removal of overt comments to that effect, and if I'm being entirely honest, the suggestion that sufficient proof that it's not a reference should result in a claim that "we thought it was but it's not" really makes me question the motives of the people involved.
 * There is currently strong evidence that it is a turtle, and resembles a generic turtle in every way. Drawn connections and personal interpretation aren't enough to back a point; references are either plainly obvious (as in the case of something like the Hero's Clothes) or cited by a dev (as in the case of the Party Girl). Otherwise we'd have people claiming that World of Warcraft invented bowls of soup. As for even soft evidence, there is nearly none. Glancing at the MLP Wikia entry for Tank, and gleaning even as little information as we can from a sprite the size of a postage stamp, no correlation can be drawn. Tank's spots are three-toned and rounded on a smooth shell, while the Pet Turtle has shading indicative of a segmented shell like a turtle would be expected to have. Tank's limbs are long and cartoonish, while the Pet Turtle's are short and stubby; similarly, Tank's neck is long and craned, while the Pet barely peeks out from beneath its shell. Also note the absence of a tail on the Pet Turtle. The similarities are stated to be "exact" but it is never elaborated how; given like fifteen minutes I was able to determine that the similarities are only superficial, and then only to those not paying attention. Visually speaking, there are enough differences to rule it out, though that's not hard proof for or against. The only real proof would be to ask a developer, and the claim would generally have to be cited with a link to a publicly available source (twitter, forums, etc. Screenshots of IMs are dubious at best).
 * I'd also like to add, regarding the conversation linked above, that throwing around the term "vandalism" so freely may be a poor decision. Vandals are people who intentionally act maliciously in order to disrupt the wiki, not just people who disagree with your viewpoint or change the page from a state you find agreeable. The administration staff takes any report sent to us relatively seriously, and people are denied the right to edit if they demonstrate this malicious intent- not just in changing pages, but in their interactions with others, and attempting to frame one side as "villains" or badger them into compliance is malicious. Moreover, this is a debate between two sides, so one side trying to call vandalism for something that they too have been doing means that both sides suffer the consequences. If any of that sounded vaguely ominous or threatening, everyone involved (though I doubt any of the original posters are still active) should consider how badly it would undermine any argument or point of mine were I to abuse my power to win an argument, and contemplate what it in turn means when they start calling for disciplinary action against people in lieu of actually participating in the debate. Let's keep it clean, people. Gearzein (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)