Wikitroid:Requests for Comment

This page is for discussion regarding policies, rules, procedure, guidelines, and the like. All users are welcome and asked to comment, including anonymous users. However, only registered users should create a new topic. Archived sections are surrounded by a thick blue border and should not be edited. If you wish to reopen an archived debate, please ask an active administrator to do so.

Descriptive Names
As the U-# system has expanded, users have begun using short descriptive passages found within manuals, developer interviews, and strategy guides in addition to proper names for articles. However, treating these descriptors identically to proper names has proven largely unsuccessful and somewhat confusing. Therefore, I have drawn up a rough outline of a definition of descriptive names and some specific rules for their use:

A descriptive name is defined as: any 'a'rticle name consisting entirely of simple English words (uncapitalized) and other subject names, and arraigned in accordance with conventional grammar rules.
 * 1) As it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly where the "name" portion of a descriptive name ends, to prevent the names from becoming too cumbersome they should be of the least length necessary for them to make grammatical sense, to provide an indication of the identity of the subject, and to delineate it from other, similar subjects. For instance, the "massive" in "massive tentacle" would normally be removed, as it does not convey much information regarding the identity of the subject in question. However, it is required to separate the massive tentacle from the much smaller Leviathan tentacle. This applies to removing words from the middle of names as well as those at the very beginning or the very end.
 * 2) Descriptive names must be treated within text as conventional nouns, not proper nouns. In particular, they should be given definite articles such as "the", "a", etc.
 * 3) If the descriptor does not meet the same standards of professional voice that are applied to article text, it cannot be used as a name. The only incident I have seen of a name that would be rejected under this provision is a "communal" ULF that was described as "white squiggly things".
 * 4) The ordering, conjugation, and other such aspects of descriptive names can be altered to match conventional English language and professional voice, provided that the basic meaning of the descriptor remains the same.
 * 5) Descriptive names are to be identified as such by placing a "descriptive name" template at the head of the article. Seeing debate on the inclusion of templates, I have decided to restore that section to its default state (no templates) until such time as a conclusion is acchieved).
 * Question: Should the policy outlined above be implemented as it applies to descriptive names?
 * Possible Positions: Agree- if you agree with implementing the policy as it stands. Neutral- Undecided or unsure. Disagree- You are opposed to implementing the policy as it stands. Suggestions on improving the policy are always welcome from adherents of any position.
 * Default (No consensus): There will not be an official policy towards descriptive names.

Comment: Difficult to tell what the Agree/Disagree positions are. I'd like to see descriptive names kept, maybe with template disclaimers. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 23:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment': The names would of course be kept (in fact, I am hoping that the rules outlined here would allow a wider latitude in terms of the subjects that could be named using them), and although I had not considered a template necessary I would certainly not be at all opposed to one.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai ' , and I approve this message." 23:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree: Apparently you have a vendetta for size types in names. "If [those] names [aren't] used then we can't use [them]. You ought to know that rule by now..." And can we just, like, find a name for something and make it have no template at all? If developers would just name the goddamn things then we wouldn't be having this conundrum. Fan names don't solve the problem of confusing readers at all, you say? They will know what an Omega Fusion Suit or SR227 is. Other wikis, such as Zeldapedia, do not have Unknown Name systems. They instead have a huge thing at the top of the article saying UNOFFICIAL NAME and the people of that sight choose a fitting name for the page. If they find an official name, great, they use it. I wouldn't name ULF 12 Semisentient organic structure but I would name ULF 13 Parasitic fungus, and I did. -- Р o й б o й X (Talk • Contribs • UN) 23:59, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suppose I do have a "vandetta" for isolated size types in that they are rarely, if ever, necessary to delineate the subject of the article. A "large" Leviathan-class ship is only "large" if there is a "small" Leviathan-class ship, and when there is not it serves only to add an extra word to the article and any links we intend to create. I've little issue with articles such as "big Metroid" and "massive Tentacle", as those need some form of modifier to delineate them from normally-sized versions (which are in fact completely different things). Although I would be happy to participate in a descriptive name system, I feel that we should codify what these names will be before we replace the U-# system with them entirely. If this RfC passes, I will immediately write one to replace the U-# system.


 * You will have to debate the template issue with ChozoBoy, as I am entirely neutral in that regard.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message."  00:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Agree: I think we need some guidlines for these names. Some of them can get a bit ridiculous. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 12:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: One possible solution to the template issue is to forgo the template and simply put the bolded name in quotation marks. That may or may not work, but I would like it to be considered. (It also makes me think of a quote, possibly from Dean Stockewll: "You know you have a good compromise when both parties walk away feeling screwed".....) '' "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message." '' 13:13, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: We could even do both if we wanted to. My history instructor from last semester used to say, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 13:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." This site is truly filled with a bunch of assholes.

Comment: I agree mostly with what the anon just said. Chozoboy, that was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Don't act so condescending and arrogant. Complete Supremacy 19:04, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: We are not here to harass ChozoBoy for quoting his history instructor. Please cofine your comments to the topic at hand. CB also makes a valid point that we must be certain to make Wikitroid as understandable and user-friendly as possible, especially given that not all of our readers will be of first-rate intelligence. If RoyBoyX does not object (or objects and is overruled??), I will include the quotation mark provision in the policy. '' "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message." '' 19:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, I am now going to be a very tyrannical monarch at the moment... namely because, one, I am very pissed off for off-wiki reasons, and two, the constant bickering is getting old and thus adding to my pissy mood. To start off, the next goddamn time I see someone say one derogatory, offensive, insulting, or even slightly biased comment, I am blocking you for some random period of time, mirroring the punishment for vandals. I'll tell you if I see it. Secondly, ChozoBoy shut the fuck up with your college shit; no one give a damn about you being a fucking senior in college, and majoring in animation. Go to hell, in short (and no I'm not jealous of you, little boy, I'm a junior in cognitive neuroscience and a teacher of English and foreign languages, so piss off). And as a matter of fact, I do see you as a completely retarded imbecile, so kindly go die, so I can not miss you. And third, exactly what AS said, if a fucking RfC is going on about Article Names, then keep the bloody conversation(s) relevant to Article names. In fact me being the tyrannical monarch I am at this current moment I may decide to strike any comment that is empirically deemed irrelevant or otherwise redundant to the actual purpose of the RfC. Hell I may decide to abuse my power and start blocking [people for use of arrogant attitude(s). You never know, I'm just a tyrannical bitch like that at the moment. In short everyone, shut the fuck up and be "nice". In return, I won't block you, and I may stop bashing you for being retarded idiotic morons, and instead take pity on you. And just for everyone's own good, I strongly suggest that no one says something to me regarding this comment, and just take it into your minds and use it. In other words, read it, and do it. Because people saying something to me is just going to piss me off that much more. Which you will regret. -- ا ل ق ر ا ص ن ة ه ن ت ر {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 20:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As for the real matter on hand, I think that descriptors are important when they help distinguish between certain articles, but I don't like the fact that we need a "the" and "a" on every article. It takes up space and newer users when creating links might link to articles that don't exist. Then we have to reprimand said user and fix the problem. While it doesn't take up a lot of time, it isn't efficient. I quite like the ULFs because they're easy to link to and the most professional name that we can give to them. Complete Supremacy 21:52, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: [pointedly ignoring the Piratehunter/Complete Supremacy "debate" and focusing on, for whatever reason, the topic at hand.] I did not mean to suggest that "the" or "a" be added to article titles- that is, as you have said, cumbersome and unnecessary. I was referring to use of descriptors within the articles. That way, users are able to see more clearly that they are not proper names of any sort: for instance, an article with the opening sentance "Big Metroid is an anomaly within the Metroid life cycle..." would recieve a "the". '' "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message." '' 23:47, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I actually do agree with the point made regarding Big Metroid. The problem I would like to point out however, is that it is named via direct accordance with the Super Metroid Player's Guide. And although I loath the admission of Player Guide details as actual infallible/canon data, it is from the enemy list in the book. -- ا ل ق ر ا ص ن ة ه ن ت ر {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 01:09, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Is there any reason this is still open? It's over a year old. Since I brought it up the other week, I think we should prefer "descriptive names" to ULF-style abbreviations, when we have them available. Articles with descriptive names should include the "Unverified Name" template, which requests a more official name, if one can be found. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 01:15, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Fansites and Cosplayers
We need a standard. We either say "delete all fansites" or "keep all notable fansites". Thus, I propose a vote here on this specific issue. Personally, I'm leaning towards the former, since I don't see why fansites are needed for a gameplay oriented site like this. Mr. Anon 21:49, November 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * We also need to think of what to do with cosplayer articles. Do we keep them, or do we delete them? -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * Should articles about fansites and cosplayers be deleted, or should they be kept? Also, which fansites qualify as notable?
 * Possible Positions: Delete, Keep, and Neutral. If keep, please specify which articles.
 * Default if no consensus: The fansite/cosplayers articles will remain as is.

Fansites vote/discussion
This really needs to be a seperate RfC. At the moment they contain unique information not easily found in outsde sources, so they would be grouped with the vast majority of "good" articles under the current notability doctrine. Anything else would need to be a seperate rule. '' "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message." '' 00:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, but I don't think he knows the formatting. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:12, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Um Anon, by that logic you'd have to delete the Smash Back Room and other such pages on SmashWiki. I'd say stick to MG's original idea of individual debates. -- R o y b o y X (Complaints Box • Resume) 01:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * SmashWiki standards =/= Wikitroid standards. Smash is a fighting game, so competitive matters are important, but the same cannot be said about Metroid. Mr. Anon 18:06, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is actually a competitive aspect to Metroid, but not in the normal sense. Metroid is one of the most popular series for speedrunning. Sequence breaks (heck, the term itself has it's roots in the Metroid community), and the like make up some of the appeal The source of most sequence breaks is Metroid2002 (runs are found on Speed Demos Archive, but most Metroid sequence breaking discussion goes on M2K2).
 * Also, Metroid Database conducts interviews with developers of the Metroid series and is another major site, so they deserve an article too. I'm not sure about any others... Besides, why not reach out to other sites. If we plug them, they could plug us back. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:15, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- R o y b o y X (Complaints Box • Resume) 21:23, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I'd just like to bump this up and bring it back to your attention, ppl. My opinion on the matter is that yes, we should keep our article on MDb and maybe even M2K2, but Metroid Metal I am not so sure. The RfC should also concern our four cosplayer articles. My stance on them is that all of the ones who have articles here have only made one or more appearances in Nintendo Power in the Community section, which from time to time will contain fan creations for another game series, like, say, they might cosplay as Fox or Jade or Alex Roivas. As for Jenni Kallberg, she actually appeared in an ad for MPT, so she is like the only valid cosplayer page. Make sense? Also, we need to figure out what the questions will be and we can now start voting/debating/flaming/warring/the usual business. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 14:33, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm going to make a shrewd business-like decision, and say to delete Metroid Metal, but to add metroid recon because they have a link to us. With the exception of m2k2 and mdb which are guaranteed articles, I'd say only create articles for those who link to us, or we have arranged to link to us. Cosplayers are a completely different RfC. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 00:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why cosplayers are different, can't we have them both debated on here? And this isn't Nintendo vs. Sega. We're a wiki, so we're different from other Metroid fansites. We aren't even technically a fansite; we're a wiki, which is a non-social encyclopedia in some cases (like a theoretical Great Lakes Wiki). -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, just keep Metroid Metal. My comment may have come off weird. Also, "A wiki (i/ˈwɪki/ wik-ee) is a website whose users can add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor." Well, we're a website. And it is not official, but fan-made, so we are a fansite. We don't have to seal ourselves off from the internet. If we were to decide cosplayers in this RfC, we should change the title and the description. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:30, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Same reasons as cosplayers. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message."  20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep See my messages above. Just keep all. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles but Metroid Metal MDb and M2K2 are more notable than Metroid Metal. MDb is known to numerous game developers and such as they have been interviewed, and Metroid 2002 has impacted the gaming community with all their sequence breaks. Shinesparkers would also fit into the same context as MDb; Darren Kerwin has even asked me numerous times to write an article on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Metroid Metal is merely a fan project with no official developer acknowledgement. It is merely a brainchild of the massive OCRemix, the individual composers of which I don't think have articles on other respective wikis. You know, like the composer of that brilliant Animal Crossing theme remix (listen for yourself), who does not have an article on Animal Crossing Wikia or NIWA's Nookipedia. -- R O Y -B O Y X 19:46, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * And just a note, but AS' vote does not officially say "Keep", so for the purposes of this discussion I'm disregarding it. -- R O Y -B O Y X 19:47, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't say that we can't create new articles. I think, actually shinesparkers probably does deserve an article. I don't know if we should really make a distinction between those that do and those that don't. If we have the right. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 20:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should maybe just rely on individual debates. -- R O Y -B O Y X 21:05, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

KEEP- i dont like metal but it isnt for me its for everyone. 23:12, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - As a fansite ourselves, there really should be no questioning in regards to whether or not we should have pages for other fansites. I do like the idea of "You link us, we link you," but I also like the "individual debates" idea as well. We are still informing our readers on Metroid topics, are we not? Plus, each site is different from another, whether it is different display of info, a full display of galleries, or developer interviews; if we provide just a quick overview of the site, and then link to that site, we would be providing more knowledge to our visitors. However, in order to prevent ourselves from being flooded with excess fansites, we should be able to control exactly what we present through individual debates. That way, we can still broaden our scope without bursting ourselves. -- The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Delete All Metroid, unlike Smash, is a gameplay-oriented series. It is not as competitive in the sense that there are various strategies and game physics you can exploit to win matches (unless you wouldn’t be against creating articles for every single technique, which could become cumbersome). The idea of a “shrewd business-like decision” would make sense, but only in a situation where it does not involve a mainspace article(s) (for example, a list of affiliates on the bottom of the main page). I believe all fansite articles should be deleted. Just because the staff of a fansite knows and has talked to developers and key people involved with Metroid does not give them official status. They would only be official if, say, Nintendo bought the site to use as a resource for fans. Metroid Metal is an article that should be deleted on the spot. I don’t think relaxing restrictions for fanon would not work well in a Metroid wiki’s case. Why doesn’t Wikitroid have an article about itself, then? It did get acknowledged in a magazine. We don’t only cover in-universe subjects, but the out of universe subjects are either the games or the developers of the games. Having articles on fansites would be like having articles on fan games, which, if I’m assuming correctly, once existed here but no longer do as they were voted to be deleted. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:03, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I retract that one really weird post I made above. Well, we do have a page about ourselves at Wikitroid:About. Are you sure you meant "gameplay-oriented" series, because that completely contradicts what you said afterwards. Isn't Smash very gameplay oriented? I'm guessing you mean single player. Anyways, fansites are different from fan games and fanfiction in a major way. Fansites are other resources on canon information on the series, merch, etc. Having articles about them doesn't detract from other articles. Fan games and the like aren't really resources on anything official, and detract from existing articles by confusing what is fan-made and what is official. Also, we DID NOT delete the fan-game articles created long prior to the no fanfiction policy. We kept the articles until Metroid Fanon was created, where they were moved. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 18:59, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I was referring to the fact that the Metroid community is not as large in terms of competitive play. Very few Metroid games (two, if I remember correctly) feature any multiplayer elements, and only one features online play. A website can have scans of magazines and screenshots, fan hacks and applications, fan created stuff, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. There can be plenty of Metroid resources; how will we choose which ones to keep? Metroid Database does have "official", if very weak recognition, but Metroid 2002 and Metroid Metal have no official recognition of any kind (apart from possible brief mentions in Nintendo Power). While they feature techniques and strategies and fan-composed remixes of songs, they don't feature any resources and are ludicrous ideas for articles on a fanon-less wiki. A Metroid Metal article is comparable to a Smash website dedicated solely to fan picks for characters and other elements. --Mr. Anon (talk) 19:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Comment Three, but the third is metroid prime pinball, so yeah. I guess based off of significance? We know it when we see it? MDB contains interviews with devs, and contains translations of metroid manga, something this site does cover. Metroid2002 is a resource on speed running and sequence breaking (fun fact, the term sequence break came from this community). Speed running in the metroid series is quite popular, with games like Metroid Zero Mission having multiple endings based off of time. Maybe an article for shinesparkers too? Metroid Metal might be grandfathered or deleted. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Cosplayers vote/discussion

 * Neutral: At the moment, I am neutral towards it. Part of me says that if we should keep fansites, we should keep cosplayers. But another part of me isn't sure. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (3)/Keep (1) - As I've said above, only Jenni Kallberg would theoretically qualify as a good article, because she was in a German ad for Trilogy. Yuki, Zadra and Junge have only made appearances in the Community section of Nintendo Power, which often contains other fan content from other series. One might dress as Takamaru, another might make a papercraft of Gruntilda, and another might show off his Ezio made of NES cartridges. Therefore it's never really Troid exclusive. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Um why would you treat metroids speedrunning community better then our cosplaying community? Theres a lot of us dedicated to making high-quality samus suits and i think its a shame that you wouldn't even give credit even to the people that got published. I think it shows that NINTENDO POWER cares about metroid a lot if they keep featuring it in that section. Cosplayerchick 19:22, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as fansties. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message."  20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to Cosplayerchick: How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted? Plus, we wouldn't be treating cosplayers any differently from speedrunning. Unlike cosplays, which can be done for Cybersix or Zelda or Hatsune Miku, speedrunning has had a major impact on Metroid and video games, especially considering that our community is where the term sequence breaking originated, and because Metroid is most famous for it. Basically, cosplaying doesn't count. In response to AS, "easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations" sounds to me like you'd want to turn our articles into something like this. It's no longer the case, but Zeldapedia has way better structure. As for fansites... what I've said before. -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 20:56, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted?" Roy, that don't make that kind of accusation, please. Assume good faith. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:06, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you do that when I used to defend Epidermis and the like? -- r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:21, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: In fact, no accusations of such were made. Check the archives. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 21:29, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Anywho, I did say I'd like to keep one cosplayer page, Jenni Kallberg. She actually appeared in an ad for MPT. --<font face="Georgia" style="font-size:11px;"> r o y b o y X (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:49, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep At least Jenni Kalberg, still not sure on the rest. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

KEEP- these are nice articles with pictures that we should keepBlaze of Fire 23:14, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Cosplayers should also receive recognition; however, as is the case with fansites, we do not want to overload ourselves with articles, so we should allow ourselves to decide exactly what we should keep. Like fansites, they are not part of the official media and artists, but they are still a large part in the Metroid community. I do believe acknowledgement is the least we could provide. -- The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Jenni Kallberg, delete the rest Deleting articles on cosplayers does not cause the wiki to sneer at them for their hard work. Nintendo Power cares about video games that appear on Nintendo consoles. They would care for obscure Nintendo games no one has ever heard of so long as they were on a Nintendo system, so it doesn’t mean they are the only people who care about Metroid if they cover the games in their magazine. Nintendo Power’s community section does not make the articles notable, so I’m of the opinion that Jenni Kallberg is the only valid cosplayer article, since she has actually modeled for Metroid merchandise, as Allison Carroll has modeled for Tomb Raider, and Michele Merkin for Perfect Dark. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:03, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, Nintendo Power is finally shutting down, does that change anything for anybody? I'm personally sticking with my original vote. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:06, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The neutral one or the keep at least Jenni Kallberg one? --Mr. Anon (talk) 19:18, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep at least Jenni Kallberg, not sure on rest. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 19:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Updating to new Wikia navigation
This RFC was unofficially closed at 15:07, October 5, 2012 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} with the Expanded Navigation being implemented because Wikia announced it would be activated on all wikia. Please do not modify it.

I propose upgrading Wikitroid to the new Wikia navigation, which would change the top dropdown menus to a new and more pronounced layout. The option is located in Special:WikiaLabs. Shotrocket6 00:04, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Oppose Okay, now that we sort of know the main idea with where this is going, I'll have to say, in a nutshell, no. I want you all to take a look at some of the features in Wikia Labs. They might make for a more engaging experience, but most of these are unprofessional and easily abused. The first of this are Polls. Polls that can be placed on mainspace articles. Do you think that would be good? The next is a top ten list. All you users who say you want to be professional will never agree to this. In fact, I was once speaking to the head admins of the Inception Wiki, and I was informed by Matias Arana that the Helper Kacieh enabled top ten lists on the wiki and would not remove them when asked, which ties into the controversy surrounding Wikia's staff, the skin, and the company as a whole. You'll find that they were only really opposing the article comments, but look around and you'll find top ten lists that they had no say over. Next is Achievements. They are easily abused in what has been dubbed "achievement whoring", you can ask my colleague HavocReaper48 about his experiences with the system on Donkey Kong Wikia. Then there's the aforementioned article comments, which are also often spammed and are a poor replacement for talk pages. Finally, the ones you can rate and see the presence of on wikis across Wikia are the new chat function, which is another poor replacement for IRC, and the focus of this whole RfC, which is the expanded Wikia navigation. Don't see this message as from an anti-Wikian's point of view, but see this as my own point of view. One of the users here has suspected that I'm only changing my stance on things for fear of being blocked again. --<font face="Lucida Handwriting" style="font-size:11px;"> R o y b o y X  (Complaints Box • Resume) 00:37, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * But you didn't explain your opposition to the navigation upgrade. Shotrocket6 02:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we don't really need it. It's late, so I can't exactly come up with a super well rounded out response, but right now all I have is that it's a feature of Wikia Labs, which I oppose in general for reasons I stated above. It could possibly affect users of Monobook or those who code their own skin. --<font face="Lucida Handwriting" style="font-size:11px;"> R o y b o y X (Complaints Box • Resume) 02:26, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know a lot of users from other wikis that use monobook, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't effect it. I think it does make it easier to navigate the site as it's a user-friendly scheme that can be completely changed and it just looks nice. It's much easier to use as everything is categorized (you can have 2 sub-categories, as opposed to one with the current setup). Shotrocket6 07:39, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like an example, you can look at Call of Duty Wiki or Crysis Wiki. Shotrocket6 20:56, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't have any problem with the dropdown menus. Actually, I've run into more annoyance with this proposed "upgraded" layout then the dropdowns. Plus, it's from WikiaLabs. Nothing ever goes right from them...Vommack 23:19, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment What trouble, exactly, have you run into? Each tab and sub-tab can be customized and linked to whatever need be, just like the current setup, and it looks much nicer. Also, there are a number of things from WikiaLabs that work great, albeit with some inevitable glitches. Shotrocket6 10:38, January 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: I'm sorry; you lost me at "Wikia." <font color=#010080>D <font color=#190080>o <font color=#310080>c <font color=#490080>t <font color=#620080>o <font color=#790080>r <font color=#800079>P <font color=#800062>a <font color=#800049>i <font color=#800031>n <font color=#800019>9 <font color=#800001>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 04:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * You happen to be using Wikia right now, actually. Shotrocket6 07:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

AGREE- it should be updated 23:16, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see why everyone is automatically so biased against Wikia's upgrades, especially one like Expanded Navigation that is virtually flawless. Shotrocket6 07:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Now for a fair look into this. The expanded navigation itself seems pretty nice. The contribute button is completely worthless. You can't change the community section of it either which is rather annoying. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 13:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not cross out other people's posts. Don't alter them at all for that matter. You, as a bureaucrat, should know better than that. You are a bureaucrat for pete's sakes. Bureaucrat's are in charge in closing these RfCs, no? If you think my reason is shit, ignore it when you're in the process of deciding whether this passes or fails. That's the type of stuff you should do as a bureau, on RfCs, and on RfAs if that proposal passes. Now, if you want an actual reason from me, I think RoyboyX summed it up pretty well. When does Wikia come up with something that helps? <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 15:52, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment When it has customization levels greater than that of Monaco? Though really, the contribute button and the community section is really a big turn-off. If only it didn't have to come with those. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 16:08, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment And if you have no reason of your own, please simply say "per whoever". The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 16:15, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * At least Monaco wasn't as huge of a drain on my computer. When ever I access Wikia and am not logged in, my computer starts lagging, and I have a new computer too. But that's beside the point. What's even the point of this navigation system. Most users just use the search box. And don't fucking tell me what to say. I can say whatever the hell I want. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 16:35, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * You are being sarcastic when the RfC creator legitimately thought this would help. If I was sarcastic below (which I probably was regarding the lack of admins), I apologize. I don't seem to be running into any issues when on sites that actually use the expanded navigation. What browser are you using? Anyways, one, Metroid has a lot of things you probably can't remember the names for. Two, it could be helpful for categories and the like. Three, we are out of space in the current navigation system. The main disadvantages are potential glitchiness (which IDK, I've never actually encountered any issues), the contribute button, and the uneditable community section. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 17:13, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think my reasons are bad, look at the one below. I am using FF 9.0.1, but that's beside the point. Wikia's skin just runs a lot slower than Monobook. It just does. I honestly don't care what you do, since I don't use the idiotic Wikia/Oasis skin. Wikia's ideas, such as this navigation system, tend to over-complicate things and confuse readers, but if consensus says it goes, it goes. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Confusion? If anything, this will make it easier for readers to find the page they're looking for. Shotrocket6 11:51, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly think users will just use the search bar. When I was a Wiki visitor before I was an editor, and also when I visit Wikis with no intention of editing, I always use the search bar, and never the navigation on the side. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 14:46, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, you might not know the names of some things. Ideally, you should be able to navigate a website without using the search bar once. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 20:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, you already can, but the search bar is faster and easier. If someone does not know the name of something, it is actually easier to search for it by using part of the name or the name of the game it's in. How do you now that this magical navigation system will help them? <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 23:33, January 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it won't? Shotrocket6 01:04, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't, but I believe the navigation system we have is sufficient. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 02:30, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way it can hurt us. In fact, it will likely increase readership. Shotrocket6 12:07, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * IDk how repulsive Wikia features can increase readership, but as I said before, it doesn't really matter to me.  D <font color=#DC0000> o <font color=#A50000> c <font color=#6E0000> t <font color=#370000> o rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 15:14, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't possibly fathom why you are immediately opposed to a great idea solely because it is of Wikia. This isn't some massive change that will cause a load of problems for the wiki. Shotrocket6 03:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - So many haters. Those of you opposing are basing all your information on your despisement of Wikia, and not the potentiality/efficiency of the product. That's your big mistake. I mean honestly, you're assuming that nothing good ever comes out of Wikia (hey you even said it). Take into consideration, though, that these guys are trying their best to make interface easier. Sure, some work and some don't. Obviously, many people hated the skin change, but there really wasn't much of a problem with it. You could even switch back to the original style if you hated it enough, so there's no excuse there. DP99, you mentioned something about slow performance? You might want to check into that and maybe get a new browser. Chrome's pretty good, but as long as you don't use Internet Explorer you should be good. But MG also mentioned something good about the new navigation: it will greatly help move around our huge database. After all, I haven't memorized 3000+ names yet, plus templates. It could very well be beneficial to us, so we might as well try it out. No harm in a test run, am I right?  The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 03:40, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * But Ex, people told Wikia to keep Monaco as an option and they didn't even do that. I just tested out the expanded navigation on COD Wiki and it was buggy as crap for me. And do not tell me to get a different browser, I will use whatever equipment I so desire. --<font face="Agency FB" style="font-size:18px;"> R o y b o y X (talk) 16:10, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I experienced absolutely no problems with the design, and the bar worked perfectly. The problem is your computer or browser. If you so choose not to do anything about your current equipment, that is solely your choice and the results that pertain to it are yours, so either upgrade or deal with it. I had to for a while and with a lot worse conditions. Try using a system where it takes 15 to 30 seconds to just load a page, have no access to video/audio files, and can't even have enough speed to load a simple page on the wiki. You have no room to complain. As for Wikia not keeping Monaco as an option, well that's just too bad. You do not own Wikia so therefore you don't get to pick and choose what happens. All you have to do is use what they give you the best way you can. The world isn't going to end if you don't have the skin, anyway. And you could at least be grateful they gave you access to Monobook. They could have decided to leave that out.  The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 21:56, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep in mind it's important to remember what we're discussing here. I don't think it appropriate to be arguing over whether Wikia's support is good. We're here to compare the pros and cons of Wikia's expanded navigation, and nothing else. Now, as Ex and I have explained, this feature will allow us to provide a lot of extra useful links to readers so that the site becomes more easily navigatable. It seems to me that the current dropdown menus are actually very hard to notice and don't provide much by way of help when trying to find something. Expanded navigation allows for up to 5 base categories and a [virtually] unlimited number of sub-categories (as many as can fit in the layout -- longer words mean less sub-categories). Within these sub-categories are the dropdown menus themselves, which can carry, again, an unlimited amount of links. All of these menus are customizable and match well with the color scheme of the wiki. In my experience, I have had no problems with the layout of the navigation, nor have I heard anything from users about them having problems. With such a complex structure of articles in this mainspace I think it almost unwise to not upgrade to this more visually and functionally appealing setup. Joe Copp 05:14, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting
I've noticed that adminisrators have been enforcing a nonexistent "3 revert rule". I disagree with this, and instead propose a "1 revert rule, similar to SmashWiki's policy on the matter. Mr. Anon 03:15, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should Wikitroid adopt a "Three revert rule" or a "One revert rule"?

Possible positions: Three Revert Rule, in which after three reverts, a user may be banned for edit warring, or One Revert Rule, which prohibits any reverts of reverts, and mandates talk page discussion rather than edit warring.

Default: Wikitroid will adopt a 3 Revert rule based on Wikipedia's policy.

Discussion
3RR zzzzz. What if there are more than 3 bad edits? 1RV, while not perfect, is a better policy to implement to prevent edit warring. <font color=#010080>D <font color=#190080>o <font color=#310080>c <font color=#490080>t <font color=#620080>o <font color=#790080>r <font color=#800079>P <font color=#800062>a <font color=#800049>i <font color=#800031>n <font color=#800019>9 <font color=#800001>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 04:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm just going to make this clear to people who may be confused. 1 revert rule does not mean that you will be banned if you revert a revert just once by accident. Users will be warned several times before they get blocked for violating this rule. Mr. Anon 04:57, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Question: Shouldn't it be up to an administrator what counts as edit warring and what doesn't? I can imagine a scenario where two users disagree on something, yet after several edits find something they can both agree on; however, if a strict rule regarding a number of reverts were in place, they would have to be punished for an already resolved situation. Shotrocket6 10:50, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That wasn't the imperfection I was referring to (and that may not be what you're referring to), but that is a good point to add. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 05:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not replying to you. Rather, I was clearing up a possible misconception that might arise, since the userbase of this wiki is familiar with the 3 revert rule, where users can be blocked after only one violation. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Shotrocket, if there is a dispute regarding an article, it should immediately be brought to the talk page. Edit warring refers to any time two users revert each other several times without bringing it to a talk page. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do know what an edit war is, but thank you. I was referring to the fact that if an edit war does take place and it is not discussed by the users involved on the articles talk page, but rather via edit summaries or on their talk pages, it may not be appropriate to block them when the situation has already been resolved. Shotrocket6 07:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what kind of situation you are refering to. If the dispute is settled on the users' talk pages, that's fine. It would be prefered not to have the dispute settled in edit comments. If the edit summary of the second revert (User A reverting User B after User B has reverted User A) seems to settle it, and the issue is minor enough, the users won't necessarily be warned. But for major disputes, especially ones that involve three or more users, should always be brought up on the article's talk page and should not be settled through edit summaries. Mr. Anon 01:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * On that I agree. Shotrocket6 12:09, February 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've edited Wikis for a long time now and have seen many times where user(s) will not compromise and will keep making their edit despite being reverted. It happened today on SmashWiki. 1RV is a good rule of thumb that we could link to as a warning when users edit war. <font color=#0000FF>D <font color=#1800FF>o <font color=#2F00FF>c <font color=#4600FF>t <font color=#5D00FF>o <font color=#7400FF>r <font color=#8B00FF>P <font color=#9700FF>a <font color=#AE00FF>i <font color=#C500FF>n <font color=#E600FF>9 <font color=#FF00FF>9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 17:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutral. I honestly don't see enough edit wars on wikitroid in the first place to really see if it would affect it or not. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 20:55, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - You guys go with whatever you think best. Edit wars will undoubtedly go on until someone stops it, which may be 10 or more reverts. Only admins can lock the pages to stop and prevent the wars, and they may not get there in time. Plus, if someone really believes they are right as much as the other person, they will do their best to get their information up on that page. No matter which limit you use, it will surely be exceeded anyway. Also, as already stated, we just don't get that many wars around here. There's really no need to concern ourselves with this subject. The penalty is probably more important, and that's already been established.  The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 03:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Sign your comments
There are a lot of issues with signatures, and this is one of the issues where Wikipedia policies are used to stop them. I am proposing a policy of our own.


 * Question: Should Wikitroid enforce its own regulations on signatures?
 * Possible Postitions: Agree (if you would like to implement Wikitroid's own signature policy), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that Wikitroid should have its own signature policy and instead continue to use the Wikipedia one).
 * Default (no consensus): Wikitroid will continue to enforce the Wikipedia signature policy.

--<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 02:19, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment - Hrm, does it HAVE to be 500 characters? What if I have, like, 501? -- The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - As nominator. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 02:19, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree: Though I don't think signature regulations should be too strict.  D <font color=#DC0000> o <font color=#A50000> c <font color=#6E0000> t <font color=#370000> o rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 03:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree': At first I was skeptical, because there are some aspects of SmashWiki's signature policy that I don't fully agree with, but I realized that this version was less strict. I do believe that GIFs should be allowed in signatures, but for now this is a significant improvement. Mr. Anon 04:31, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm fine with suggestions for changes to the policy, that was just something to get it started. --<font face="Bauhaus 93" style="font-size:19px;"> R O Y -B O Y X 21:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't approve yet. I personally disagree with the GIFs. Don't want to slow down load times too much. I personally don't like any images in signatures, but I'll deal. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 17:40, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree: Well, they already aren't allowed. What do you know? The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 17:50, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree Unfortunately, I found a problem with a character limit: 1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujmki89olp0. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 02:17, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree I don't think we need our whole own sig policy. The one we cribbed from Wikipedia seems to work fine as is.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and you should really read my book."  21:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentI'm all for whatever let's us use talk bubbles (see below). Every wiki is allowed to use them, so maybe we should stick to the one we have now? 01:08, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment THANKS FOR REMOVING MY AND ADMIRAL'S VOTES. >_< The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 01:20, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Bob for Mascot
This RfC was closed at 23:39, April 20, 2012 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} with the final resolution of making Bob the official Wikitroid mascot. Please do not modify it. It is time! Time for Bob to receive the recognition he truly deserves as the honorary mascot of Wikitroid. None of this will probably mean anything, but he deserves the honor nonetheless! Bob falls from the ceiling like no other!
 * Question: Should Bob be the new Wikitroid mascot (whatever that means)?
 * Possible Postitions: Agree (if you believe Bob deserves this great honor), Neutral (if you are not yet convinced of Bob's glory), or Disagree (if you have no sense of humor you are very unconvinced of Bob's glory).
 * Default (no consensus): Bob will continue to not be the mascot of Wikitroid.

Discussion

 * Agree As RfC creator. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs} 05:07, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree Metroid is fun!  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and I approve this message."  14:24, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree You know you're doing something right when you work backwards and still succeed.  YES!!!  The  Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 16:15, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not? Also, lol Ex. <font color=#010080>D<font color=#190080>o<font color=#310080>c<font color=#490080>t<font color=#620080>o<font color=#790080>rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah man. Agree. Ex and Dr. Pain's sigs look the same. <font color=Black>May<font color=Green>The<font color=Black>Light<font color=Green>Of<font color=Black>Aether<font color=Green>Protect<font color=Black>You       22:54, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * They kind of do, don't they? Mighty fine looking sigs, too, I must say. ;)  The Ex  terminator  {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 01:13, April 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Shortest book in the world: Different ways to spell Bob. Bob for President! :3 04:23, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Template:Talk
Talk bubbles. Good idea, methinks. Example here. Might need a bit of work before committed to templatespace, do at your own risk >:3

What I mean is, the template itself is fine, but to work efficiently, it might need supporting templates. It worked fine for my wiki, which isn't as advanced as this one, but what harm could it do? :) The creator, Tactic Angel gives full permission for any wiki to use it, so that's clear. Who want it, and who doesn't? 01:52, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Oppose: Unnecessary, makes pages have lots of unnecessary coding and makes pages harder to follow. Sigs work better. <font color=#010080>D<font color=#190080>o<font color=#310080>c<font color=#490080>t<font color=#620080>o<font color=#790080>rP a i n 9 9  {ROLLBACKER} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 19:29, May 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Fair enough, you have your opinion :) I was thinking maybe extra personalization, it makes it easier to see who's messaging you. It's not like a sig, they're two different things. You can use both. It's not really that much coding, as you put it into a template of your own, blah blah blah. Everyone has one. 01:16, May 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I've seen these used elsewhere and I never really liked them. While on Crysis Wiki I leave it up to the user whether they use it, but I agree with Dr. Pain. It is quite a bit of extra coding and it takes up a lot of room when viewing the page. Joe Copp 04:58, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Connections
<p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Seeing as there isn't an existing policy on connections to to other games and users (myself included) have created literally pages of arguments on the matter that went absolutely nowhere, I thought I'd codify a set of rules. Let's begin with defining what connections to other media are : basically, something in Metroid looks, acts, or plays a role in the plot suspiciously like something in another, unrelated game, movie, etc. (I've never run into “sounds like”, but I guess it's possible). Usually these are given an entry in the Trivia section. This is not something explicitly and iconicly Metroid appearing in another medium, or something explicitly and iconicly “other game” appearing in Metroid. Those are cameos and crossovers, and we already have a policy for those.

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> Now, obviously we can't allow them all, because that would fill the wiki with meaningless things that vaguely resemble something in Metroid (“Hey everybody! Admiral Dane and Capitain Picard  BOTH WEAR UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ”). But on the other hand, I think it would be bad to preclude these all together- connections make the wiki interesting, and as the source for all things Metroid we kind of have a responsibility to document possible inspirations. So I propose the following policy:

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> Basically, a connection is relevant if it is not something that could easily have happened by accident: that is to say, if a connection is strong enough that it is more likely the deliberate work of the developers than it is just a coincidence. Now, usually it's impossible to confirm once-and-for-all that a connection is deliberate. As a wiki, uncertainty is something we naturally have to deal with, and we sometimes just have to select the most probable explanation as the “true” one in the absence of facts, and make some reasonable speculation. However, I am also of the opinion that even if we're wrong, the improbable explanation is true, and it really is just a strange coincidence, then it should still be covered because strange coincidences are interesting and can become a part of a game's fabric. Now, I'll admit it's hard to weight probabilities on something like this, and I expect some debate on the liklihood of individual connections, but I've come up with some angles for adding weight to a connection's unlikeliness:
 * <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> Obviously, the more similar something is to something else, the more relevant it is. Once again, this could be physical appearance, role in the plot, or some other characteristic.
 * <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> In that same vein, the more similarities something has with something else (usually across multiple characteristics), the more relevant it is. Put another way, multiple similarities together give the subject more weight than jut the sum of the weights of those similarities.
 * <p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> However, something is less relevant the more common it is in outside media, simply because common things will just be more likely to show up due to their being, well, common.

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> For obvious reasons, if a developer specifically says that something was based on something else, we cover it, but I think we should also cover the denial if a developer specifically says something isn't related to something else, partly because that means said thing was important enough to warrant a response, and partly because we have the good habit of jut covering everything a developer says.

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in"> Obviously, some of the philosophy behind this will be removed in the final policy so that the thing can be condensed into a set of guidelines.
 * Question: Should we implement the plicy outlined above (possibly in simplified form).
 * Positions: Agree (If you want the ploicy outlined above condensed and implemented), Disagree (If you do not want the policy above condensed and implemented ), Neutral (If you are unsure).

Discussion

 * Agree- as policy progenitor.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and you should really read my book."  18:13, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree- (If I have a handle on this correctly...) Just made a post arguing against an instance of this. I think that if someone wants to put an exception forward on the talk page, they should be allowed to make a fair case, but the fact is that the trivia section of articles are very much abused with things (along these lines and others) like this. An example of a good argument might be a brief section on the history of early powered exoskeletons in reality and fiction in the Power Suit article, with a link to that article on Wikipedia. An example of a bad argument would be to compare recent and unrelated powered exoskeletons. (Fictional or otherwise.) ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 19:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- All good points, but I'm not sure if I understand the first part of that example. It seems like you're talking about a description of a subject that makes use of out-universe technical or historical information, not a connection to another specific fictional work.  "My name is  Admiral Sakai , and you should really read my book."  22:09, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- That's correct. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 03:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I feel like it will be very difficult to decide what is and isn't considered a relevant connection if this proposed policy is put to use. I foresee a lot of conflict between users trying to argue this. I think that a better policy would be to simply disallow these seeminly random coincidences unless it is explicitly defined as a legitimate connection, because allowing all of them will attract a lot of speculation and will clog up the trivia sections of a lot of articles. Joe Copp 00:25, July 1, 2012 (UTC)