Wikitroid:Requests for Comment

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

This forum 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 (the instructions for doing so can be found here). 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.

"Unknown" Naming System
This RfC was closed at 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of keep, consider suggestions presented by users below. Please do not modify it.

This RFC regards the unknown naming system put in place to name the articles that do not have a canon name. However, I have two problems with this system: First, it is arbitrary (meaning: while the newly named articles are redirected to, the system is absolutely arbitrary; at least, the unofficial names are generally accepted by wide groups of people. The numbers are arbitrarily created and assigned to each article). Secondly, there appears to have been no community consensus for this change (at least, none that I have found). So, I am putting this up to a vote now:
 * Question: Should the new naming system be kept or removed?
 * Possible positions: Keep (if you support the new naming system), Remove/ Oppose (if you do not support the new naming system), and Neutral.
 * Default if no consensus: Keep

Discussion

 * Oppose - per reasons I wrote above. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samusiscool2 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While it wasn't voted on, we do need this system or something similar to name these articles, because we cannot just leave them with unofficial names. Numbers were meant to show differences between articles, and show the order in which these articles were named. As we find them (realize they're there, usually) they get the next number down the line. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 06:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (As opposed to using fan-names.) ChozoBoy 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keepSamuslovr1 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but figure out a better numbering system. I would say a letter to indicate which game and a number for order of appearance. For instance:
 * Metroid=M, Metroid: Zero Mission=Z, Metroid Prime=P, Metroid Prime Pinball=B, Metroid Prime Hunters=H, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes=E, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption=C, Metroid II: Return of Samus=R, Metroid 3: Super Metroid=S, Metroid IV: Metroid Fusion=F
 * So, say, the third unknown enemy encountered in Metroid: Zero Mission would be labeled ULF Z3, and the first unknown device in Fusion would be UAM F1.
 * Still, the “Unknown” Naming System, even as it is now, is a HUGE improvement over fan names. This is a good first step towards this wiki being something people can take seriously. --AMetroidGuy (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''

Off-Topic Images
This RfC was closed at 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of:
 * Off-topic: Delete indiscriminately, no grandfathering.
 * On-topic fanart: Keep, must be tagged with {&#123;fanart&#125;} however. Strict limit of 10 (for now) fanart images per person.  Recommend that if they have more fanart that they upload it to the Metroid Fanon wiki.  No quality requirements, but must not be anything pornographic or otherwise highly inappropriate.  Administrators reserve the right to determine what is innapropriate and delete such images at any time.  Deleted images and reuploads do not count against a person's limit, meaning that if 4 of the 6 fanart images they uploaded were deleted, then they currently have only 2 uploaded and may upload 8 more.

At this point, these policies and all other policies will be moved to Wikitroid:Images for reference. Effective immediately.

Please do not modify it.

It has come to my attention that off-topic images are becoming rampant on the site, and many users do not like this. So, here is a very simply vote - whether off-topic images should be allowed or deleted. However, there are two topics at vote here:
 * Questions:
 * Should off-topic images be allowed (meaning, should we allow users to upload them) or should they only be hotlinked, and will existing off-topic images be grandfathered?
 * Possible Positions: Choose one that most represents your view and leave a comment after your vote. Allow, Delete, and Neutral (if delete, remember to specify whether or not grandfathering should be allowed)
 * Default if no consensus: Allow, or if the consensus is delete and there is no grandfathering consensus, allow grandfathering
 * Should fanart be allowed, (Note: This is NOT the same as off-topic, as fanart means images relating to Metroid that are not officially Nintendo) and should existing images be grandfathered?
 * Possible Positions: Choose one that most represents your view and leave a comment after your vote. Allow, Delete, or Neutral (if delete, remember to specify whether or not you support grandfathering)
 * Default if no consensus: Delete, with grandfathering
 * Notes: Technically, fanart is forbidden (see the Upload Form for that policy) but has been ignored, hence the default outcome is delete. However, there are so many that it would be hard to delete all, so grandfathering is also the default for delete.
 * Submitted by: FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) at 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * About Grandfathering: Grandfathering is the process of exempting something that violates a law from that law because it existed before the law was put in place, while making everything that would violate the law after the law has been put in place illegal.

Off-topic vote

 * Delete - No grandfathering. ChozoBoy 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No grandfathering. I would gladly remove it all myself. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blurrr (Talk) 00:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No grandfathering. Ksabers 08:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No grandfathering. Zeruel21 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No grandfathering. MetVet

Fanart vote
'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''
 * Allow - I don't think Nintendo-related imagery is too much of a problem, not that I feel a need to upload images, or anything. ChozoBoy 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow - I would highly approve of a limit to how much fanart a user can upload, such as ... maybe two images per user. The rest could be hotlinked. Furthermore, I would recommend that all fanart images have the word "fanart" in their title name. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would a category and template message on each image suffice? -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it would suffice. As long as it had the same effect, that is all that matters. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 22:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow - I agree with samusiscool and chozoboy - Blurrr (Talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow This time it  is me. Samusiscool3 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) *EDIT* No pornagraphic,gorey, or highly inapprpriate images. The real Samusiscool3 21:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow As long as we have permission by the author. Otherwise, links. - Ksabers 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow As long as it is of good quality and is relevant. Zeruel21 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow* -Only if it clearly labeled as fanart, and only on userpages, not official content pages. MetVet

Possessive Nouns
This RfC was closed at 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of no consensus; we'll stick with the old "unregulated" system (that is, use whatever you've been taught is correct, although consider making redirects, etc. to accommodate others). Please do not modify it.

It has been brought to my attention that the primary form here of making singular possessive nouns from words ending in "s" is to simply add an apostrophie, as is done with "s"-ending plural nouns.

However, I would suggest that the norm be changed to all singulars getting an "apostrophie-'s'", instead. My reasons are as follows:


 * 1) The Metroid games and materials, to some great degree (research into which all do this would likely be needed), and at least of recent times, use this format. This being the Wikitroid, I feel it should be consistent to its subject matter.
 * 2) Immediate recognition.  All readers recognize apostrophie-"s" as a singular (including group words like "children", "people", and once upon a time "Metroid"), but not all may realize that (or may have to focus on) "s"-ending singulars might be handled like most plurals. Applying a singular standard would make things simple to discern, even.
 * 3) Possible confusion.  I don't know how many words there are that may act this way, but drawing back to those unaware or untreaded in the current format, the "s"-apostrohpie can make certain words unclear about if they are plural or singular. We know (or soon find out) that there are not more than one Samu, but some of the other, less prominent words may be hazy. Relatedly, in the article that prompted this request, I encountered " Amorbis' "; is the plural for "Amorbis" "Amorbis" (see: "sheep", "deer") or "Amorbises"?  This sort of ambiguity is confusing.

TJF588 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Essentially, this boils down to whichever variant of English we wish to use. American English dictates that s' is always correct, regardless of whether the noun is singular or plural.  Saxon (British) English dictates that singular nouns should be given s's, while plural nouns should be given s'.  Note that this only concerns nouns that normally end in "s" (such as Samus and Amorbis).
 * Possible positions: American or Saxon (as described above)
 * Default if no consensus: American, as it is the primary form of English used on this site.
 * This information added by an administrator after the RfC was created. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * American - As I noted above, American English is the primary form used on the site, thus we should stick to the American form. As for this making it unclear whether or not the word is is singular or plural, this isn't truly the case, as this can be determined by pronoun forms, subject-verb agreement, and other context clues (is/are, eats/eat, etc.).  -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * American This is American english wiki Samus is cool  talk. 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * American - No comment.Samuslovr1 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * American English - My opinion highly correlates with FastLizard4's reasoning. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * American - Agrees with FastLizard4. To Samusiscool3, both ways are "english", but different types of english. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saxon - Well, you know my position, as I'm more concerned with the constructs of the source material being properly represented rather than a mold to form (in a language that is constantly evolving? Where does any English teacher side with not quoting a sentence-ending period that's not a punctuation included in a sentence-ending quote?). TJF588 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you don't know very many English teachers. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Saxon - It'll help a lot when plural ammerpossessives start to come into play. -  (U • T • C ) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * American English - Ok, ok. Let me just say something. I know for a fact, because I am quite good when it comes to the correct forms of English grammer. When it comes to s-apostrophe and apostrophe-s, here's how things work. When we're dealing with nouns, the correct plural-possessive way end it is with an s-apostrophe. For example: (pirates'), (troops'), (beams'). However, when dealing with proper nouns, the correct plural-possessive form would be in fact, apostrophe-s. For example, even though you would think the corect possessive form of Samus, would be Samus', it isn't. It is and should be written, or posted as, Samus's. Why? That would be because the "s" at the end of Samus, is part of the name, it isn't an expression of the name being plural. Therefore, since there is nothing currently making the name plural or possessive, you must add one. You must add a letter (s), with an apostrophe. Now let's just go back to improving Wikitroid! P i r a t e h u n t e r {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything like that in my grammar book (which is rather new, 2002). -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm just saying what I know personally. Just voicing opinion. P i r a t e h u n t e r {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've checked a few different resources, and it seems that no two sources agree. I have no idea what should be done here.  -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought both were acceptable ways. This also brings up the idea about typing in American English. I mean, what about words like gray, armor and defense? In Saxon English we spell them grey armour and defence, so is it still acceptable to spell that way too? If there are more people voting for the American English then i will have to spell in aAmerican English too, as will some other users. I think we should use both. Hellkaiserryo12 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, before this RfC, they were. But, TJF588 brought up the question of consistency, and that's why this is going on.  -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''
 * American - This is indeed, from my impression, an American English wiki, as Samusiscool said, however, Piratehunter is correct. Wiki and what I've learned say "Samus's" (belonging to Samus) would be correct. (My otherwise unused grammar handbook agrees, in fact.) Now, she should always be singular, or the world has become a very strange place. On the other hand: Amorbis, Amorbis's; Amorbis, Amorbis'; and THEN, sheep, sheep's; sheep, sheep's. ... and I just confused the crap out of myself. No "real" English word exists like Amorbis (singular and plural the same, ends in "s"). AlishaShatogi 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Using "You" and the use of Battle Guides in the Wiki
This RfC was closed at 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of:
 * It appears that the general consensus is that all articles should be written in the 3rd person in-universe perspective; that is, all articles (with the exception of those regarding the games themselves and a few others, which will be tagged with a special template marking them as from the "real live" perspective) should be written as if the Metroid universe were real, and as if they were documenting actual events or characters. In short, "you," "I," and "the player" should not be used in favor of "Samus," etc. and all "battle guides" (or guides in general) should be integrated into the body of the article (describe the battle and how the battle is completed rather than detailing how to complete the battle, for example).
 * Templates to be created:
 * Template:Reallife
 * Template:Cleanup-oou (that's oou as in "out-of-universe")
 * Policies to be created:
 * Wikitroid:In-Universe

Please do not modify this RfC.

It has come to my attention that a lot of articles in this wiki use the word "you". This most often happens when the article is advising the reader on a certain part of a game. For example if one were to look at the Zeta Metroid article, there is a section called "Battle Tactics" in which it gives the reader a guide on how to defeat the Zeta Metroid, in this example. Obviously, no article should contain the word "I", (as it refers to the author), unless a quote. In most instances I think that it would be more appropriate to use "The Player" or "Samus" for the battle guide section. I don't really think that this wiki is a player's guide to the games, so articles containing a quide on how to complete an aspect of the game should be merged into the main bio for the creature, instead of being a guide. There are plenty of guides out there, and Wikitroid is not one. Here is what i suggest we do, to sum up. Hellkaiserryo12 19:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the Battle quide sections.
 * Change all information that was in it that reffered to the reader to "Samus" or "The Player" (depending on the context, although I think using Samus is better).
 * Merge that info with the main part of the article, explaining in a fair amount of detail on how the creature was defeated by Samus, not how to defeat it.
 * Do the same with the rest of the articles. Bosses and violent creature (ones that take a strategy to kill) are the ones which are mostly using "you".
 * Agree - This has always been discouraged, but I guess it's time to write it into the MoS (or a separate policy page). -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree For the reasons I already wrote about above. Hellkaiserryo12 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree While I've never touched "Battle Guides", "you" is unprofessional, unencyclopedic, and easily avoidable. It shouldn't be an issue, outside of many users simply not being knowledgeable about this type of thing. ChozoBoy 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree Samus is cool 3   talk{ROLLBACKAH} 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Would this also mean that the battle strategies would be taken out of all articles? The "You" problem is a simple fix, if that is all that is desired. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If the general consensus is in favor of removing the "Battle Guide" sections, I must at least recommend that we continue to outline a creature/entity's combat routines, "battle moves", etc. This is after all a source of information for the Metroid series. Although strategies which are composed primarily of opinion are free to go, it would be unfavorable to remove genuine information from the articles. Armantula513 [ADMIN] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

style="color:#000000;">S a m  u s l o v r 1 ]]01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Same as Armantula. Wait, I thought "You" already wasn't allowed in articles. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree Per reasons above. Squee master  20:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree I (again) agree with everyone here.[[User:Samuslovr1|<span
 * Agree Not only is "you" unprofessional, this isn't really a game guide. Battle strategies don't belong on pages that aren't walkthroughs (Which I don't think we have). Zeruel21 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree The third point in particular is spot-on. Wikitroid exists to recount Samus's exploits across the galaxy.  There should be no issue concerning how "you" (who?) would go about playing her games.  Samus can do her Hunter thing, players can enjoy, spurn, or even expand upon her hunting, but "you" will do NOTHING. --Super Aviator 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Semi Agree I think that the you should go but the battle guids should stay to make the information easier to find.  That is after all the point of the wiki.   Metroidhunter32  00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi Agree you is highly unprofetional, but if we merge the battle guids into one article it might be effectant User:Clarkmaster


 * Someone (or multiple people) that is/are really ambitious could search for instances of "you" within the wiki and edit those pages. ChozoBoy 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral You can do whatever you want i don't care, but i don't think that wikitroid should be a online players guide that is what IGN is for.(EGAD1 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC))


 * Semi-Agree "You" is terribly unprofessional, but regarding battleguides, I was thinking that may they could be relegated to a seperate article. Naturally, a ton of people will be looking for advice on how to beat a particularly tough boss when they come, so my view is, rather then get rid of the battle guides, instead it should be put as a related article. for example, one page could be entitled "Ghor", about the character, and for the boss battle, a seperate page could made called "Ghor-Battle Tatics." I think this is a better solution. User:Tuckerscreator 21:28 28 March 2008


 * Agree "You" should not appear in any articles, and Battle Guides should be incorporated into the article in other ways; ie: Samus had to destroy the Berserker Lord's armour by reflecting its projectiles. Parts of a Battle Guide subject to opinion; ie: The best way to defeat Ridley is..., should be removed completely. Archibald 83 06:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Using "you" is not well formatted for any wikis, but another page devoted solely to battle tactics is a waste of time. Editing current articles to use "The Player" or "Samus" seems much more professional and efficient. MetroidfanCNC 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree You/I/Opinion/Speculation + Wiki/Artical = Crappy Wiki

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''
 * Semi Agree "You" should be removed, but the creatures' weaknesses and attacking patterns should partially remain as they are part of the creatures. They should be shortened and reduced somewhat so that it isn't a battle guide and more of an outline of the creature's characteristics. Omly 19:42, 9 April 2009

Sourcing Policy
This RfC was closed (late) at 03:42, October 26, 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of: After waiting quite some time to see if a clear consensus would crystallize (which hasn't happened) and taking some time to study the response, I have decided that instead of mandating the use of sources, requesting the use of sources alongside information that cannot be easily verified otherwise would be best. A help page will be written by me (within the next few weeks, if not days or hours) detailing how to reference pages, and appropriate notices will be inserted below the edit form and in the site notice.

Please do not modify it.

On this wiki, there are very few pages that make use of sources and references. As a result, vandalism is extremely easy to place here, as well as fanon, if it weren't for the watchful eye of our administrators right now. Far too many pages tend to use statements such as "as seen in Echoes" or "according to the manga" rather than making use of the sources section. A sourcing policy needs to be enacted.

Conditions:


 * 1. All references to in-game information, such as lore and statements by characters, need to cite the game it appeared in, the publishing date, the developing team, the publisher, and the area the event took place in.


 * 2. All references to books such as game manuals, game guides, and manga need to cite the name of the book it appeared in, the publishing date, the publisher, the author (and illustrator for a manga), and the page and chapter the information appeared in.


 * 3. All references to statements by important real-life individuals need to cite the name of the person, the location that they said their statement at, and the date of the statement. If it was in a publication, then one needs to cite the publication the same as one would cite a book or manga.

However, the reason why it looks like this hasn't been done yet is because there is no page on this wiki detailing how to add sources. I myself had to teach myself from scratch. So my fourth condition is:


 * 4. That this wiki create a page in the Help:Editing section detailing how to create sources for any type of source.

So now the rest.

Question 1: Should Wikitroid enact a sourcing policy for articles, that when making a significant edit referring to the above criteria, that one should write the references to the source for the concrete statment?

Question 2: Should Wikitroid create a page in the Help:Editing section explaining how to create sources for books, games, people, and any other not covered here?

Possible Positions: Agree(if user agrees with above conditions), Neutral(if user is unsure of conditions), Disagree(if user disagrees with above policy and conditions)

Default if no consensus: Sourcing Policy will not be enacted and no Help:Sourcing page will be added to the Help:Editing section.

--Tuckerscreator 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree: Check out this page on the Pikmin Wiki. They have the text they are quoting from the game separate to the article. The same thing is done with creatures and pages that include all of the text (like Lore). I'd like to see this done here, as well. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree This is a definite must for our users to work on. It's nice to say where something comes from, but real source citations are much better and cleaner. It also contributes to ensuring accurate information, given that people won't just put something up that they vaguely remember. Some may think this is a hassle and a waste of time, but it really is an important part of being a encyclopedic source of Metroid information. Zeruel21 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - Agree with sourcing policy, but with a few changes:
 * Documentation on citing would be on the policy page itself; the help pages are "shared"
 * Sourcing Policy would be renamed Citation Policy. Articles are already sourced (they say "from the manga" or similar); this RFC discusses the use of In-Line Citations (which point to a specific document).
 * Documenation for the cite templates needs to be written (the templates themselves already exist)
 * A verify template already exists, as well as a category for pages marked with that template.
 * And, of course, I'll probably start drafting the policy in private along the lines proposed above as the RFC progresses and put a final version of the policy in the project NS when the RFC is closed. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - FastLizard, I accept your conditions.--Tuckerscreator 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree policy is too spesific. Most editers will not reemember that much info, and thus it would stump the grouth of the wiki. Would also result in irtating anouts of info that most people wouldnt care about (like who made the game. if they want to know that they will go the page on that game). JosephK19 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this problem. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - I don't seem to understand, because all we need to do is make an effort to use sources. Addition of an easy to find Help page for how to use sourcing would be helpful, but apart from that I agree with the above opinion. Hellkaiserryo12 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - AlishaShatogi 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - I remember this being an issue the last time I logged on (around Sept. 2008) and trying to source many pages on my own. Without proper guidelines, my attempts were rather feeble. Wikitroid needs this if it is to be considered "credentialed" (in a sense of course). Remember, Wikipedia does not allow (or, rather, prefer) articles without citations that are incredibly specific because otherwise their information will (and has been) taken to be unreliable. Bob Chao 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree - There's no reason to have in-text citations if we're going to have them at the end of the article. Most articles would just refer to the same things multiple times, and having in-text citations would only cause extra trouble in making so many notes, and possibly discourage people from making articles. ConstantCabbage 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - Again, no Wikipedia articles seem to have this problem. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree - The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight Disagree - More (detailed) citations will just make things more cluttered, and as long as some reference is given to a game, comic book, or video, readers will know how to verify the information they read should they so choose. Dogman15 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree-I agree if there is one thing insured. When posting, editing, revising, etc. something non-canon, it will have a note or something saying "Be warned. This is non-canon." next to the source. --DekutullaZM 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Response That is a good idea, DekutullaZM, but the problem with it is that much of the non-game media, such as the many Metroid mangas, are disputed as to their canonicity, and Nintendo has not said anything about their status, so nothing definetive can be said by us.--Tuckerscreator 18:40 29 June 2009
 * Re:ResponseNo, no, no. I'm saying, if it's obviously non-canon, we should tag it or whatever it's called. For example, Metroidguide.com is obviously non-canon, but some of it's info seems very good for theories and images and whatnot. --DekutullaZM 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have a page about Metroidguide.com anyway. And even still, it's always debated what is and isn't canon. Metroidguide.com is largely plausible but so are the Nintendo Comics System comics. So we can't really tag anything. I wish we could but it's only going to get people argueing.--Tuckerscreator 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''
 * Agree - ƁLƱƦƦƦ(If victory is too high to climb, take the elevator.) 21:05, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Rich Text Editor
This RfC was closed at 21:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC) by  R A  N  1 {ADMIN} (talk • contributions • logbook) with the final resolution of: As a result of the discovery that the RTE does not, indeed, have the &nsbp; problem anymore, it would be sheerly pointless to disable the RTE. Additionally, all of the reasoning for the support comments is now practically invalid. Thereby, I am closing the RfC with a withdrawal of the request.

Please do not modify it.

It seems that many of us have taken note of Wikia's Rich Text Editor (RTE), which allows users to edit documents without having to deal with using the code that I, along with some other users, use in our plain text editors. However, the RTE has been known to have some flaws from the beginning, namely the mass adding of &nsbp; (non-breaking spaces) in between words in place of normal spaces, which is quite a pain for those of us who do use the plain text editor (This is one example). This problem becomes ever-apparent when users such as IPs unknowingly edit using the RTE, causing this to appear on every page they edit on. The RTE cannot be set to a default due to all Wikia accounts being global, so the only good way to prevent use of the RTE is to disable its extension entirely. So, here's the question:


 * Question: Should the RTE be kept, or the extension deactivated?
 * Possible Positions: Keep (if you would like to keep the RTE on), Neutral (if you are neutral about the matter), or Remove (if you want the RTE deactivated).
 * Default if no consensus: Leave the RTE active.

Submitted by:  R A  N  1 {ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 01:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment: Is it possible? The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 02:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: The Rich Text Editor was installed using an extension (located in the "Other" section). Like all extensions, it can be enabled and disabled, but it does have to go through Wikia Support. To be straight to the point: Yes, it can be turned off.  R A  N  1 {ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 02:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Remove - I say destroy the pest. To MG: yes it is possible, SmashWiki has it disabled. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 03:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The problem removing it creates is that people who are used to it will have to learn the old way. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 03:06, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's what the RfC is for, isn't it?  R A  N  1 {ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 03:09, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral: I prefer the normal editing method, but the RTE is much better for new and unregistered users. I really dislike having to remove all that rubbish from pages though. It would be a good tool if it didn't create so many annoying things in the wiki code, and with the normal method one can edit more specifically. However, I would like to see these problems fixed instead of removing the program altogehter. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 14:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Neutral: I don't really care either way, or to be more precise, I support each side to some extent. On one side, it'd be nice to edit normally while anon, but on the othr hand, if you can't deal with the &nsp's, then you shouldn't be an Admin (b/cause no one besides admins care, to my knowledge...). Don't eat me, admins.-- Deku tulla  ZM  01:11, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Remove: Destruction FTW! T erro r Dact <font color="Black" size="2px">yl (Talk &bull; Contribs) 04:00, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Remove - There'd be far less stuff to fix if it was disabled! Dark Samus <font size="+0" color="#660066">89  16:26, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - HALT! I got an email back from Wikia saying that they fixed the whole nbsp thing. So, now what do we do? -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 21:00, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''

Room lists and templates
This RfC was closed at 20:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC) by P   i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) with the final resolution of: Keeping both the Room Lists and Room Templates.

Please do not modify it.

New room templates were made a long time ago for the various rooms in the Trilogy. Before that, room lists existed instead, which were quite disorganized and was missing some rooms, as well as having some nonexistant rooms as well (Artifact Chamber?!). But I have also noticed that some templates miss rooms the lists have.

So, the votes can be:


 * Keep - If you want to keep the room lists and templates.
 * Delete - If you want to delete the room lists in favor of the templates.
 * Neutral - If you are neutral about the matter.

Submitted by: -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 21:06, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Maybe some additional element can be worked into those articles to distinguish them from the templates? ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:17, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Whats the point in deleting hard work? --Metroid101 21:57, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I agree with ChozoBoy. There are a lot more ways to use the list; it's best if we wait to figure that out. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" style="font-size:11px;"><font color="#9D1B1B">R <font color="#1D628E">A <font color="#467637">N <font color="#CCC">1 <font face="Bank Gothic">{ADMIN} <font face="Monotype Corsiva">(talk • contributions • logbook) 23:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Merge: I say we merge 'em. Best of both worlds, right?-- Deku tulla  ZM  23:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: The templates are just handy tools to put a lot of stuff on a page without taking up much room. The room lists are the official pages. To organize, all you need to do is have someone go over the complete map, write every room down, and make sure that there are no other rooms with the same name (Save Stations, for example). Th e Ex t er m in at or {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 02:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''

Talkheaders
It has come to my attention that Talkheaders are being considered, in a manner of speaking, redundant, on Wikitroid Talk/Discussion pages (the pages they were created with intent for). The current arguments for them being "unneeded", are that:

"1.) They add unneeded changes to Wikitroid RC."

"2.) Creating a page simply to give it a Talkheader gives the illusion that a conversation regarding said page, is ongoing."

Be that as it may, Talkheaders are meant to be present on Talk Pages for the purpose of providing a set of pre-editorial notes and rules, regarding preferred etiquette during discussions. They are meant to provide a user with guidelines, before they edit/post on the Talk page. Leaving a Talk page blank (without a Talkheader) until a conversation actually begins, would be like waiting to put a Stop Sign up at a 4-way intersection until an accident actually occurs. Which is highly irresponsible (obviously). I call this Request for Comment, so that we can hopefully make it a necessity for Talkheaders to be present on every Talk page, not just the ones with an already ongoing conversation. In other words, make it a necessity that every Talk page has a Talkheader, even if it is blank (so that future conversation starters will be correctly and undoubtedly informed). Also, if a supporting consensus is in fact met, keep in mind that we may eventually employ the help of a bot for to assist in adding the needed Talkheaders. So, all-in-all:


 * Question: Should the presence of a Talkheader on a Talk/Discussion page, be a priority, regardless of conversational activity.


 * Possible Positions: Agree (If you agree that Talkheaders should unconditionally be required on Talk pages), Neutral (If you are not sure), or Disagree (If you disagree that Talkheaders should unconditionally be required on Talk pages).


 * Default (no consensus): A Talkheader's status as a necessity is left unmodified.

Submitted by: P   i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 12:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Agree: Okay, as PH said above, talkheaders are supposed to be guidelines for editors. Now, how are they supposed to do that when a page is blank? What are you going to do when someone doesn't follow them, because not every anon is going to know the talkheader by heart. Are you going to scold them, or block them? It wasn't their fault. It was ours because we, especially admins, should make sure that they know what to do and what not to do. It will be our fault for their mess-up, so we'll get the blame and that will put us in a bad position. We need talkheaders on every talkpage, conversation or not. Th e Ex t er m in at or {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 21:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Agree Same as Ex. Only next time I'll have AWB hooked up and I can finish the job with that. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 21:28, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I agree with the idea behind it, that Talkheaders should already be on pages to help new users, promote civilised conversations etc. But I think that creating lots of talkpages will take a long time, waste time on other things that could be done around the wikia, and (as you said) clog up the recent edits page. Employing a bot may solve the problem, but that would also add more changes to the recent edits (unless you hid them somehow). There are too many pages without talk pages that I don't think it's necessary. I also think that this idea sort of insults the intelligence of new users. If they decide to swear and make rude comments on talk pages, it's their own fault. They shouldn't really have to look at talk headers to know how to behave when having a conversation with another human being. <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 21:38, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss: Obviously, people should know not to swear, but I'm talking more about signing, new topics, and that other stuff. That is mainly what a talkheader is for. Th e Ex t er m in at or  {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss: Try making a new Talk page. You'll be greeted with "This is a talk page. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes." along with Help links before the text box. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 23:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Maybe I'm just crazy but I really like reading discussion pages even if not to comment, and seeing every single minor one with a whitelink makes it impossible to tell which pages actually have a legitimate discussion going on. It also makes it a lot harder to find issues that need addressing--I'll ask a question in a talkpage and it gets ignored for months or even a year because no one knows that talkpage has content. No exaggeration there, by the way, it's happened. I understand why they're there, but isn't there some way to automate the process, maybe with a button saying "this page has no content, click here to add a talkheader" and then penalize users/anons who ignore creating the banner/following its guidelines? To say nothing of the RC spam, of course... Dazuro 01:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Essentially agreeing with HK and Dazuro here. I don't think we need to have a talkheader for how people should act on the talk page. True, the talkheaders should be on every talk page, but they should only be added on an as-needed basis, in my opinion. Anyways, we don't need a reminder of how to sign on every talk page; that's as useless as the Monaco sidebar to registered users. New users learn in time, and it isn't that hard to learn such a simple thing as adding ~ to each post you make. As an after-note, you guys need to set up a bot account if you're going to do this. You guys not only managed to flood RC with those talkheaders, such activity that I'd normally see from a spambot, but also tried to hide other activity that other contributors would find questionable, which is not fine by me. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" style="font-size:11px;"><font color="#9D1B1B">R <font color="#1D628E">A <font color="#467637">N <font color="#AAA">1 <font face="Bank Gothic">{ADMIN} <font face="Monotype Corsiva">(talk • contributions • logbook) 02:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Piratehunter compared an unused Talk page to a 4-way intersection without a stop-sign. Anyone see the problem with this? How often do you guys see fights breaking out on a Talk page before someone gets the chance to stick a talkheader up? ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 23:19, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss: Just to clarify ChozoBoy's above statement, I was referring to it as though it were a real world, civil/legal issue. If there is no Stop Sign (talkheader) at the intersection (talkpage) when a wreck occurs, the State Dept. of Transportation (Admins) will completely and legitimately be held responsible for said accident. But doing the latter, of adding a stop sign (talkheader) in advance, before the accident occurs, will remove all potential for the Highway Dept. (Admins) to be blamed. It's basically a disclaimer, saying that, "We're warning you ahead of time, so if you get into an accident, it's your fault because we did our part to warn you." Disclaimers are here to prevent lawsuits, not literally on Wikia of course, it's just a figure of speech, but my point remains. P   i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 16:27, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * The way you present it seems like this is being done to "save our own skins". I notice the majority of voters here are admins, too. Is this for the new user's best interests or the admins? <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 16:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Both. The new user gets informed on what to do and what not to do, and we admins can irrefutably say that "we tried" or "we warned you", basically. It's the best for both sides in my opinion. P   i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 16:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss: Note that requesting a bot flag would hide any edits from the Recent Changes. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 22:28, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so we would be making talkheaders a necessity, but by employing AWB we would not have to actually add them, or watch them being added. P   i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 23:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: It can cause confusion about the existence of a Talkpage. Reminding users to create talk headers can be done through a MediaWiki page. (The one that controls the editing a talk page message) The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 23:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agree: - Wasn't this solved already? Anyways, I think it should be done not by hand, but by the thingamajig the Beuros use to automatically do it to every page. It's important, because I've seen so many things irrelevant to the talk subject, that it's just not even funny. Talkheaders might fix this. <font color="Black" size="2px">T <font color="OrangeRed" size="2px">erro <font color="Cyan" size="2px">r <font color="OrangeRed" size="2px">Dact <font color="Black" size="2px">yl (Talk &bull; Contribs) 00:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Agree: We don't want new comers to do the things I have done in the past (Fanon and Fighting) so basically we want to prevent the 3 F's F**** (Swearing) Fighting and Fanon. Metroid101 00:28, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Discuss Name one time that a user has swore, or fought before a talkheader was added. Also, Fanon has nothing to do with Talkheaders at all. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 01:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I think he means adding speculation and theories to the talk page. And talkheaders say that the page is for the discussion of the article. (It dosen't include any message telling users not to discuss theories etc, granted). <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 02:18, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * ReplyI've got to say, I'd take all of the kooks on all of the talk pages that we get, to be able to see which ones actuallly have talk on them or not again. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 05:39, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Metroid Answers
This RfC was closed at 03:48, May 23, 2010 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} with the final resolution of making a Metroid Answers Wiki to complement Wikitroid. The site will be at metroid.answers.wikia.com. Please do not modify it. I've only thought about this for a short time, but I think this should be put into and RfC regardless: I realize now that anything like Metroid Answers does not exist here on Wikia, and could be of great help. This Metroid Answers would be similar to Wikianswers (and now a bunch of other sites): it would only be composed of questions and answers to said question. In the case that someone happens to Google a question, if we happen to have the question for it on an Answer Wiki, the first page they would see is something like that. By linking over to Wikitroid, we get better chances of drawing more readers and potential contributors over here, which is a plus for us. As a result, I think of it as an extension to Wikitroid. Of course, that's just my opinion, and that's why we have RfCs, no? ;).


 * Question: Should we create a new Metroid Answers to complement Wikitroid?
 * Possible positions: Support (if you agree to creating Metroid Answers), Oppose (if you disagree to creating Metroid Answers), and Neutral.
 * Default if no consensus: The Answers Wiki will not be created.

So, let's discuss. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" style="font-size:11px;"><font color="#9D1B1B">R <font color="#1D628E">A <font color="#467637">N <font color="#AAA">1 <font face="Bank Gothic">{ADMIN} <font face="Monotype Corsiva">(talk • contributions • logbook) 03:00, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Support: I wouldn't be around much for that area, but it sounds like a good idea. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 02:35, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Excellent Idea --Metroid101 13:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Yeah I'll say yes (RAN told me to). But I probably can't run it as I have too many things to do. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 01:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Semi Support: People seem to be in favour, but will anyone actually edit there? <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 21:30, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Yes. We could change the answers widget to direct you to Metroid Answers instead of the main answers. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 02:01, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Sounds like something a long time coming.-- Deku tulla  ZM  15:46, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''

Cameos and Crossovers
This RfC was closed at 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) by R o y b o y  X {ADMIN} with the final decision being to merge all cameos and crossovers into lists and remove all red links and pages from the wiki. Please do not modify it.

(Certifying results. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 01:13, June 3, 2010 (UTC))

'''This RfC is currently undergoing a modified closure procedure. Non-bureaucrats, please do not modify it.'''

This RfC was officially closed at 01:14, June 4, 2010 (UTC) by FastLizard4''' {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials?. By majority bureaucrat opinion (see below), this RfC has been declared void. It is preserved for archival reasons. Please do not modify it.'''

Since it seems I am going to have to write an official opinion on this, might as well do it now. While RoyboyX's closure of the RfC was, admittedly, a little out-of-line, I concur with the conclusion. In my opinion, the present consensus was for the cameo and crossover articles to be deleted and merged into lists. Indeed, I would support this action even without the RfC, because it seems to be a topic our own administrators cannot discuss without fighting. The definition of this RfC to me is quite clear: it boils down to whether or not individual articles about appearances, cameo or otherwise, of elements in the Metroid universe in games or media of other series should be allowed, and if they are not to be allowed, if they should be merged into a list (or perhaps multiple lists). The consensus I see is for these articles to be deleted and their contents merged into a list or multiple lists. Some !voters have correctly pointed out that interwiki links exist for a reason, and that it is also beneficial for us to link to other wikis that are supposed to cover information that is out-of-scope for this wiki. My opinion on the outcome of the RfC: Delete/merge. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 07:24, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

And now, for the closing procedure....

Each bureaucrat will be asked to write an opinion statement on the outcome of this RfC below (in the "red text section"). The majority opinion will become the operative resolution for this RfC. However, until all three bureaucrats have written opinions (I, FastLizard4, have already written mine, above) or five days from the time this message is saved have elapsed, this RfC will be considered inoperative. That said, if any user knowingly performs an action on an article that could be considered under the scope of this RfC (specifically including cameo/crossover articles), including creating new cameo/crossover articles, or the deletion/restoration of them, may be blocked and/or lose any user rights they have. These articles should be considered off-limits at least until the RfC is closed.

In the case that no majority bureaucrat opinion arises, this RfC will be considered void, and a new (perhaps better written) RfC will be opened. This seems to be a necessary step in the interest of fairness.

Bureaucrats: Write your statements immediately below. Please limit your decision to one of the possible outcomes of the RfC (i.e., keep articles or delete/merge them). Please try to base your opinion on the discussion below. Remember, you are writing about how you think the RfC has ended, not your personal beliefs on the matter.

THIS RFC WILL CLOSE ON: 07:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC), OR WHEN ALL BUREAUCRATS HAVE WRITTEN CLOSING OPINIONS, whichever comes first.

Pardon me, and no offense, RoyboyX, but this is by far one of the worst put-together RfC I have ever seen. I agree that CAMEOS should be merged into a single page. However, Roy, what I have only recently come to see, is that you do not even seem to understand the difference between a Cameo, and a Crossover:


 * Crossovers are called such, because they have something from the Metroid series included in them that is important and that plays an actual semi-important roll in the storyline. It has nothing to do with them being playable.


 * A Cameo, however, is something from the Metroid series that has little or no roll in another series' story. On most occasions, they are in the form of a sort of, Metroid themed Easter Eggs, or something of similar importance.

These sort of things need to be explained and stressed. This RfC is worded so literally, that it is putting the importance of the Samus Doll from Mario in the same category as SSB! Which I am quite certain, everyone here would certainly disagree. This RfC needs a sincere rewording. Cameos are not the same thing as Crossovers, and this RfC treats them as such. Personally, I will not waste my time deciphering this RfC, nor do I feel MarioGalaxy2433g5 or FastLizard4 or any other user should. Again, no offense to RoyboyX, but it is sloppily put together, hastily worded, and in my opinion, possible even created somewhat out of spite for other user(s). A proper RfC is in order. I say that this RfC is declared its equivalency to a "mistrial", and reopened with proper wording, and proper specifications. That being said, my opinion on the outcome of this RfC is basically, and for a lack of better terms: mistrial. P  i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Wanna see something really scary? (New Forums!)  11:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Piratehunter. I believe that it was horribly written. I had that opinion since the beginning of the RfC. It doesn't differentiate between Crossovers and Cameos as Piratehunter said. I also believe that if you interpreted the RfC strictly, ALL cameos and crossovers would be deleted. Including SSBB. I believe that a new RfC that is properly worded should be opened. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 21:42, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

This RfC was officially closed at 01:14, June 4, 2010 (UTC) by FastLizard4''' {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials?. By majority bureaucrat opinion (see above), this RfC has been declared void. It is preserved for archival reasons. Please do not modify it.'''

It would appear that the Cameos and Crossovers section of the wiki has been rather controversial: that is, some users seem to think that any game that has one or more references to the Metroid series should get a page. This includes games such as Kid Icarus.

Many users, however, are against this idea. Because of this, they are repeatedly disregarded for their opinion on the matter, and thus we still have red links for most of these games. These users, however are against these games think that any game that has more references to the Metroid series than one or have a playable character from the Metroid series (i.e. Super Smash Bros. series), or the reference in the game itself (i.e. Komayto from Kid Icarus) should warrant a page. Now, here's the question:
 * Question: Should this Wiki cover references both to and from Metroid about non-Metroid media and franchises within the scope of their own page or within the context of lists?

Possible Stances:
 * All non-Metroid media information that holds relevancy to the Metroid franchise should be moved to corresponding lists covering that material, or...
 * All non-Metroid media information that holds relevancy to the Metroid franchise deserves its own page and should receive one as such.


 * Possible Positions: Keep (if you would like the game pages to be made and what we have so far kept), Neutral (if you are neutral about the matter) or Remove (if you want all pages and links except the cameos themselves removed)


 * Default if no consensus: Leave the games and links as they are.

Submitted by: -- R o y b o y X  14:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Delete - Seeing as I'm not an active editor, I don't expect anyone to take what I'm saying here overly seriously. But as an admin on Zeldapedia, Wikitroid's ally, I have seen many issues like this on our wiki in the past. I don't want to become anyone's enemy here or act like I dictate this wiki's policies. All I am saying is that I think having articles for every cameo may be a tad too much. I understand, providing info is the key goal here and buffering your edit count is always good. I also realize you have competition you need to stay ahead of and for many of you, new/more articles creates a thrill. But this just seems a bit odd to me personally. A Metroid reference on Zeldapedia would generally just be added to the cameo page, which I see you guys have, and then we would generally link to this wiki. This is done because if we made a page for every cameo, things would get too stretched out from our primary objective (of providing info on the Zelda series) and overly convoluted. Again, I expect many of you to disagree with me (as well as many who agree), but this is just my opinion here. Take it or leave it. --EveryDayJoe45 14:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel the policy is too "pick and choose". Why should character articles be kept if their respective games are not? <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 14:58, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - I'm still pondering whether or not to merge them into a list. Mario, Wario, Link, Kirby and Pit have more interactions with the series outside of Smash Bros. -- R o y b o y X  15:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Personaly, I agree with EveryDayJoe, since I have been saying that since Wikitroid decided to step out providing information on the Metroid series. Every game or character should just appear in a list that link to their respective wikis, but should not have an individual page for each of them. If people want to find out about Pit, they'll go to his home wiki. If they want to know about Mario and his green bro, they'll go to Mariopedia. If they want to know about Samus, they go here. Seriously, would you go searching for F-1 Race on Wikitroid? Th e Ex t er m in at or {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 15:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with EveryDayJoe45 and The Exterminator. I'd say something insightful to further support the position, but it's pretty much all been said. - Isdrakthül  15:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss IMO, a better RFC would be to define the "Scope of the Wiki". Like how related an article has to be. This RFC is too "pick and choose" as HK put it and doesn't take into account future cameos, etc. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 15:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, this is still very poorly conducted. It still sounds like you are picking and choosing personal issues instead of trying to look at or define what the core of the wiki should be (our "scope"). In regard to the articles, as long as they focus almost entirely on their relation to the Metroid series, then I think that type of article is well written.

Take a look at the Pit article, for example. It is very nearly 100% about his connections to the Metroid series and does not delve into unrelated areas of the character. You won't find that at the Kid Icarus wiki. The one criticism of the article, in this regard, would be that it does not currently link to KIWiki and/or Wikipedia's article for the character. The same could be said for many of these articles, and that would certainly be a better way to improve them. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - Wikipedia doesn't even have a Pit article. They've all been merged. We should have the cameos and crossovers list and some cameos themselves. Nothing more. Unless the game is like Smash Bros. and has a playable character (Ultimate Alliance doesn't count as Sam never showed up in the final version) or like Tetris DS and has a lot of references. Really. No other wiki does this. Just cameos and nothing more. A list, and cameos, but nothing more. -- R o y b o y X  00:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply You still didn't respond to me. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 01:08, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - Screw the characters now. I'll make their list. -- R o y b o y X  01:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge to list - I broadly believe that crossovers and cameos of all sorts should be merged to their own page, but at the most, put on very broad pages. For example, on Memory Alpha, they have a page called "Doctor Who" that contains a list of all Doctor Who references in Star Trek and Star Trek references in Doctor Who, but for other series with less (notable) references, they have broad non-specific lists. (I hope this makes sense, if not, poke me to clarify. .) -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 02:16, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - In my honest opinion, those articles are way too unrelated to play that big role in this Wiki. That just makes Wikitroid go beside the its main purpose. Dark Samus <font size="+0" color="#660066">89  09:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I've no problem nuking those pages, so long as, as FastLizard4 said, they all be merged into a single list or perhaps multiple broader lists. Now let me just ask something, if I support, am I going to regret it because I fueled a potential barrage of personal attacks? P  i   r   a   t   e   h   u   n   t   e   r  {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) 15:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - Nuking what pages? The cameos like Catch Mode? And who would attack you? That was a stupid question, I know exactly... I was saying we keep those pages but not the games or the characters (the latter are merged into a list). Most wikis have a list and pages for actual cameos (in our case, the Komayto, the Chozo Blood Rights and such). The cameo lists have brief summaries while the actual page foir the cameos go more in depth with info on the cameo (such as descriptions of features in the WarioWare microgames). -- R o y b o y X  15:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)




 * Delete/Merge - (Sorry it isn't on the very left of the page... my Mac won't let me type there >:| ...) I believe all those articles like Pikachu, Pit, Peach, Zelda, etc. need to be deleted and the sticker articles like TP should be merged with the Sticker article instead of TP having its own article itself. Because Lostpedia didn't make an article for Half-life or Cloverfield but instead made an article featuring ALL of the cameos/crossovers (with the exception of Fringe) Metroid101 18:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss : I still am sticking to the fact that this RfC is unflexible. You state that only the following articles will stay and don't take the future into account. Maybe there will be a huge cameo in this one game in the future. However, according to the RfC, the article technically couldn't be made because it isn't on the list. A BETTER RFC WOULD BE TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE WIKI. I refuse to vote on this matter unless the RfC is done right. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 23:15, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've always been something of a purist when it comes to cameos and things, as well as a page minimalist who prefers to keep information in a few dense articles as opposed to small stand-alone articles.(Did that make any sense? I hope it did......) I also am a big stickler for keeping the site's intangible "Metroid identity" as a largely in-universe reference source. The plethora of out-of-universe crossover articles severely detracts from that, in my opinion.--AdmiralSakai 13:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've always been something of a purist when it comes to cameos and things, as well as a page minimalist who prefers to keep information in a few dense articles as opposed to small stand-alone articles.(Did that make any sense? I hope it did......) I also am a big stickler for keeping the site's intangible "Metroid identity" as a largely in-universe reference source. The plethora of out-of-universe crossover articles severely detracts from that, in my opinion.--AdmiralSakai 13:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I'm having a little trouble understanding exactly what the conditions are, but my stance is: merge into lists. Remember when "Ice Climbers" had their own page? Much of them are simply unnecessary. Still, I'm going to need more research to determine exactly what I think the conditions should be and mostly likely I'll end up piggy-backing off one of our more experienced users here!Tuckerscreator 19:42, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - What do you mean "conditions"? And people, how flawless do you want this? -- R o y b o y X  20:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Pages, keep list of cameos/crossovers with brief descriptions - I say delete the pages, but keep the cameo/crossover related information on the cameo/crossover page. I also say, ALL the pages are deleted not pertaining to Metroid Canon, because it may confuse people searching for Metroid related things. <font color="Black" size="2px">T <font color="OrangeRed" size="2px">erro <font color="Cyan" size="2px">r <font color="OrangeRed" size="2px">Dact <font color="Black" size="2px">yl (Talk &bull; Contribs) 00:44, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd have to say that I agree with MarioGalaxy now, actually(his 2nd comment), that the RfC isn't accounting for possible new additions in the future. We simply need decide what the "scope" of the wiki will be; THAT is what I mean by "conditions", the scope that is being suggested.Tuckerscreator 21:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss The problem is that it only deals with what we have now. If a new cameo were to happen, we would have to have this discussion all over again. A better RfC would be to define what kind of cameos deserve their own articles. There is no such definition in the RfC, which would require users to guess what the RfC intended. That is what I am saying. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 14:07, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

I would say "none". They're just too minor of a thing, and in my opinion they detract from the general tone of a Metroid data collection, as well as something of a contradiction of the otherwise-strict canon policy.--AdmiralSakai 19:59, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss if it were a crossover game that is canon, then they deserve their own article. Like if LoZ had a game where Link met Samus (not for like in one scene but pretty much for the entire game) but right now we have nothing like that so everything is just minor and deserves to only be in that list. Metroid101 20:08, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Reply to MG and 101 - I am saying that the games that have references to Metroid are what I'm against having. The cameo in said games themselves, such as the Komayto, the Animal Crossing items and all Super Smash Bros. stages and Catch Mode, Marathon Mode from Tetris DS. Those cameos deserve their own articles. Microgames from WarioWare too. And also Captain N related articles. Not the games, unless it's Smash Bros., Melee and Brawl, we all know why, and we do actually need a page for Tetris DS, so I am in favor of keeping that. -- R o y b o y X  20:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply Then that should probably be defined in the main section above, not down here. We need some revision.Tuckerscreator 21:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to RBX I couldn't agree more!1 but some of them should be merged (the Animal Crossing items and the Wario Ware microgames)< Those ones into 2 articles called Animal Crossing and Wario Ware. Metroid101 22:01, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to TC: Thank you for finally getting that into his head. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 01:36, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MarioGalaxy. Note to all people commenting below! The RfC has been changed above, please read the above conditions and decide your opinion based on such. ''Tuckerscreator' 01:39, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete It isn't as good as I would like, but it is as close as I am getting. I say delete because that is the point of inter-wiki links. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 15:37, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Remove Probably the best option here is to remove. At the most, we could have a full article about, for example, the Legend of Zelda series, with everything in the series that has an article here having a section in the article. Ganondorf would have a character summary of one or two sentences, followed by his relevance to the Metroid series, etc. ConstantCabbage 19:21, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete I say delete too. The information in question isn't really as that integrated as we SAY it is so a list should do plenty. ''Tuckerscreator' 04:20, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

'''This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.'''

Wiki Scope
(Note: This RfC is intended to replace the RfC above, which was declared void by majority bureaucrat decision due to poor wording.)

''' IMPORTANT NOTE: This RfC will not proceed like most RfCs. Please read the entire description BEFORE voting or doing anything else.'''

Description
Note: The description shown below is the active description for this RfC, after modifications.

This RfC will operate a bit differently than most. There will be no set positions any user can take, because this RfC is very broad and there are too many possibilities to enumerate each. This RfC will deal with definitively declaring, in the form of a policy, what the scope of the wiki is, specifically as it pertains to certain non-canon (e.g., cameos/crossovers) subject matter. Note that this RfC is to be limited to non-canon and referential content, as fanon and off-topic content is already banned from the wiki, all fanon should be directed to the Metroid Fanon wiki, and canon content is, of course, always allowed its own article (and this will not be questioned in this RfC). For this RfC and policies that result from it, the following definitions for "canon", "non-canon", "referential content", "fanon", and "off-topic" will be used:
 * Canon - Subject matter rooted in the primary media for the Metroid series, the games and related media.
 * Non-canon - Subject matter rooted in officially licensed Nintendo media (or media licensed by Nintendo - it doesn't necessarily have to be from Nintendo, merely licensed by them).
 * Referential content - Popular culture references to the Metroid series in non-Nintendo licensed third-party corporate media. Corporate media means that the media wasn't created by some guy, but by a movie studio, professional game studio, professional band, etc.
 * Fanon - Material that pertains to the Metroid series, but was created by a fan group, as opposed to a corporation or other professional group.
 * Off-topic Material that in no way pertains to the Metroid series.
 * Side note: Please do not refer to any articles as a cameo or crossover article, as these terms are misleading, for the articles they describe can actually be non-canon or referential content. If you do use the terms "cameo" or "crossover" in describing an article or content type, you will be asked to change your wording, or your comment on the matter will simply be removed or ignored.

Note that not up for discussion here is the distinction between "canon" and "non-canon". Both are already allowed on Wikitroid, and will continue to be allowed. However, up for discussion is how non-canon content should be allowed. The community will be allowed to discuss the definition of "non-canon" during the !voting phase (stage 2), if it so desires.

It is also important to note that this RfC applies only to articles, articles being defined as content pages in the main namespace (no prefix), and that there are some important exceptions to this RfC, such as trivia sections on articles.

The primary question is if Wikitroid should allow referential content, and if so, how it and non-canon content should be allowed - for example, should each individual non-canon or referential subject get its own article, or should they be put in a list? If put in a list, how detailed can the lists be? How many lists do we have?

This RfC will proceed in multiple stages, as shown below.

Current stage: 2 of 3 
 * Stage 1: Refining the description of this RfC [done]
 *  (1->2 Interstage) [done] 
 *  Stage 2: Community discussion [CURRENT STAGE] 
 * (2->3 Interstage)
 * Stage 3: Closing opinions by bureaucrats

The current stage will end when discussion has ended (three days after the last edit).

In the first stage of this RfC, the community will be allowed to propose changes to the RfC's description. This stage will last 14 days (two weeks). At the end of the 14 day period, the proposed changes will be reviewed and merged into the RfC description (the 1->2 interstage). At this point, stage 2, the community discussions, will begin. During this stage, the community will "vote" on the RfC, much like on any other RfC, except that they may type up any opinion they want, provided that it responds to the question (which will be developed during the 1->2 interstage after the refinement suggestions are merged into the RfC's description). The voting will last until a community consensus occurs, which will be defined as three days after the last edit has been made to the RfC discussion (you may suggest a different definition of this during the refinement stage). After voting concludes, the 2->3 interstage will occur. During this time, any actions that need to be carried out in preparation for stage 3 occur. And finally, stage 3 will be the time when the wiki bureaucrats (3 total) form opinions on the outcome of the RfC. More detailed rules regarding these opinions will be set out during the 2->3 interstage. The majority bureaucrat decision, which will be based off of the discussion and will serve to evaluate the consensus, will become the RfC's result. Following the closure, an official policy will be written based off the RfC's result (if necessary).

I will be responsible for maintaining the RfC, including closing it and changing stages. I ask that no other admin/bureaucrat do this for me, as this will do nothing except increase confusion. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 02:10, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: While this RfC is open, users are free to edit currently existing "cameo/crossover" articles; however, no new articles should be created, and already existing articles should not be deleted.

RfC moved to the 1->2 interstage. !voting should start sometime in the next couple of days. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 06:06, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

RfC moved to the voting stage (2). Community discussion may now begin. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 08:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Refining the description of this RfC
This is the current stage of this RfC.

Members of the community may suggest changes to be made to the RfC's description (see above). The period for doing this will be 14 days. After this period has ended, the suggestions will be reviewed and merged into the RfC description, which will become the operative description for the discussion period. The "question to be answered" will be created after this period. Remember, the goal of the refinement period is to establish an RfC that is definitive.

Please make your suggestions below this line. Please do not modify the RfC description itself.

The refinement stage of this RfC has ended. Do not edit this section.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that certain aspects of the wiki should be immune to any restrictions. For example, the Trivia sections of our articles often may include information from all five of the categories FastLizard4 gave. Restricting the Trivia would take the bulk of those sections. Not that I think it's too radical for me to say it, but I think it does need to be made clear that Trivia is not part of the discussion. Additionally, I don't think the discussion should cover images, as our current image policy is fine. As a preemptive counter to anyone who would suggest that we not allow fanart... well, I am not aware of any Metroid example of fanart being better than the official concept art, but if you can tolerate a Pokemon example, take a look at this [] official art for Arceus, in contrast with this [] fanart. If I were running a Pokemon wiki, I would want my Arceus article to have the fanart, and I think if a similar contrast came with art for a Metroid concept, and we could use the fanart, we at Wikitroid would hate for a policy to prevent us from using it to our advantage. This isn't as self evident as the trivia, but the trivia exception needs to be stated, and if you agree with me on the fanart exception, it does as well. ConstantCabbage 18:53, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should definately restrict this to the existnce of articles... we can debate images and sections and so on at a later date, and we should say this in the description. I would also add in something separating "major" and "minor" references (i.e. the old-style "cameos" and "crossovers" that were impropoerly defined and thus got us into such an increadible snit before) as well as some description of what the current prevailing policy/policies is/are (what blocs of people have written articles about, what blocs of people have asked to delete or deleted, and so forth). A list of some or all of the relevant articles (the capitain N ones, the Brawl stages, Link, and so forth) would also be nice. Oh yes, and I have noticed that the actual description is not easily viewable from the editing page: hence, I have copied it below.--AdmiralSakai 19:49, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * To ConstantCabbage: We already voted against Fanart in articles in one of the above RfCs. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 18:04, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also just realized something potentially important: the canon definition mentions only games, which implies that the manuals, mangas, and so forth are not canon. Yet it's my understanding that they are canon. This should be changed. In fact, I think we need some sort of deinition about how far the "Metroid Universe" extends in general.AdmiralSakai 19:17, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I missed that part, too. I don't think that they constitute the entirety of the canon. Like I've said in the past, I don't even think it is our responsibility to draw canon lines. We just give the readers the best information and they are left to determine what they will out of it. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:27, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, the "just games" clause should be removed.--AdmiralSakai 13:25, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 08:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 08:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * What about articles such as "Super Metroid Redesign"? I think we ought to have pages about mods or games that are exteremely related to metroid. I'm not saying we should have an article for every flash game that puts Samus or a metroid in it, but large, important fan games such as these. Take for instance the half-life wikia, which has pages for some of the major mods on it's source engine, such as the portal "prelude", "Black Mesa", and "Counter-Strike", which has actually made into a game. I think we should have pages about major things like that halo mod with metroid characters. -- Deku tulla  ZM  12:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that is classified under the fanon-canon debate, as opposed to the crossover one. Maybe we should put in a passage stating something to the effect of "this RFC only refers to official Nintendo and corporate media, not independant content", if, indeed, we want it to only refer to formal stuff... should probably be clarified.--AdmiralSakai 15:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that is classified under the fanon-canon debate, as opposed to the crossover one. Maybe we should put in a passage stating something to the effect of "this RFC only refers to official Nintendo and corporate media, not independant content", if, indeed, we want it to only refer to formal stuff... should probably be clarified.--AdmiralSakai 15:38, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that might be a ways off from this RfC, Deku. Modding is a big part of Half-Life/Gary's Mod/etc. and not in Metroid. I know a few of those pages were grandfathered, but they might be better off moved to the Metroid Fanon wiki. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:16, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is beyond the intended scope of this RfC. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 08:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

The refinement stage of this RfC has ended. Do not edit this section.

Community discussion
The community discussion phase of this RfC is now open. It will end three days after the last edit is made. Please keep discussions pertinent to the topic (see the RfC description).

Summary of RfC Question: Based on the definitions of canon/non-canon/referential content/fanon/off-topic given in the description above, should referential content be allowed on the wiki, and if so, how should it be allowed? In addition, should the way non-canon content is allowed be changed?

Please discuss below this line.

I would like to remind us all that this is the Metroid wiki: not the Capitain N wiki or the Kid Icarus wiki or the Super Smash Bros. Brawl wiki, but a largely in-universe collection of canonical information pretaining to the Metroid world and the events (i.e. games, comics, mangas, and maybe even movies) that occur within. Another purpose of the Wiki, I would add, is to gather information on the real-world people and events that impact and affect the development of the Metroid universe, through things like developer bios and specs for various platforms. To me, at least, this establishes a sort of in-universe Metroid atmosphere around the site that I rather enjoy and believe contributes in many ways to our success as a reference source and the interest and participation of editors such as myself.

However, the proliferation of out-of-universe articles on minor referential content that has little to no impact on the Metroid universe itself often detracts from this atmosphere, particularly when the topic is far removed in aesthetics, plot, or significance from Metroid. (Many of these subjects, such as Brawl and Capitain N, are actually liscensed and produced by Nintendo, which makes defining canon/non-canon lines difficult unless one uses terms such as in-universe and out-of-universe to determine what "really" happened in the internally-consistant and verified collection of events, locations, and characters that comprises the Metroid world.) In order to maintain the general direction of the site and its utility/popularity, I suggest that articles on "foreign" subjects that merely contain a reference to Metroid be removed (or at least that any future articles be prevented: although grandfathering the existing ones would not be ideal, it would deifnately be an improvement).

Of course, the information contained within these articles is often important, and some sort of metric should be used to define what is purely referential and what is not. I have developed such a metric based on two questions: If the answers to either of these questions is "yes", then the object is deserving of an article of its own (although other sitewide restrictions on what constitutes an article can of course still apply). If neither condition is satisfied, that doesn't mean the information should be completely lost: there are other things to do with it. To make a long post (really more of a dissertation) short: '''Referential content that includes Metroid subjects (even from Nintendo-produced media) that does not exist within the canonical Metroid universe should not be given an article. It can, however, be listed in a single out-of-universe article, or in trivia sections.--AdmiralSakai 13:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)'''
 * 1) Does the subject actually appear in the Metroid universe? Examples of "yes" subjects would be Light Beam, Cow, Ylla, and Mimic, as these all actually appear within the mangas and games. Examples of "no" subjects would be Starshark, Suimar, GBA SP, and Claire Hamilton, as none of these people, things, or places are actually confirmed to exist in the same logically-consistant fictional universe as Samus and the Metroids.
 * 2) Does the subject have a direct impact on the formation of the Metroid universe, yet NOT exist within it? Note the second clause does not include subjects with a similar name to a real subject that are in fact entirely different things (such as the Beetle), or subjects that exist in both reality and Metroid but serve a notably different role in the Metroid universe (such as Humans, or the Cow) Examples of "yes" subjects would be GBA SP, Claire Hamilton, Super Metroid, and Ariadne Yuko. Examples of "no" subjects would be Zoomer, Starshark, Human, and Mimic.
 * Put an entry in the trivia section of whatever Metroid thingy is being rerferred to, explaining that, for example, there is a tertis game set in Brinstar (in the trivia section of Brinstar).
 * Link to whatever reference source collects information on the game the thing appears in from the trivia entry, specifically the page of whatever area or character makes the reference.


 * That's quite a post! While reminding the RfC which wiki we are contributing to isn't quite necessary, I'd like to clarify that (even though the in-universe content is more often the most popular content then not) this isn't a Metroid universe wiki, it is the Metroid series wiki. We made the distinction last year when we adopted the Real-life (out-of-universe) template and category to keep the two things on one side of our fence or the other.


 * We deal with out-of-universe content that is related to the series (games, developers, hardware, closely related subjects, etc.) but I would suggest the line for article creation be drawn at the parent company, Nintendo. In the previous RfC, FastLizard4 brought up that the Star Trek wiki has a page for Dr. Who compiling all of the references to each other between the two series. In an ideal "complete" wiki (from my own perspective) I'd expect to see content that covers every directly related subject related to the parent company (including developers, related hardware and software, and other significantly notable subjects). Such a scope would not predominantly include subjects that are not licensed by the parent company (that is to say that the TV series House would only be given mention in related articles and not given its own, despite a few recurring appearances).


 * An open mind should be kept for exceptions. One such exception might be an article on the influences (not necessarily the similarities) of the Alien series on the Metroid series. Justification for this (because this was just one of those rumors for a long time) would be the magazine interview with Sakamoto from last year that cited the series as a source. I addition, Nintendo Power claimed that the Super Metroid comic's Samus was partly based on Ripley. This is something that I would be open to as a justified exception to the boundaries of the described scope. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 05:35, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling we are arguing a lot of semantics again here:
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean by "drawing the line at Nintendo": does this refer to question two's distinction as to what "influencing" articles are accessible? Or does it refer to references in other media produced BY Nintendo? If it's the former, I would find it in need of a few exceptions (Alien immediately springs to mind for me as well), but usable.
 * I would also like to confirm my agreement with your statement that out-of-universe articles are an important part of the wiki. I personally study the in-universe articles much more than the out-of-universe ones (I first found wikitroid as a research source for a Metroid total-conversion mod I am amking for Galactic Civilizations II), but I understand the value of OOU's on the site.
 * --AdmiralSakai 13:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * --AdmiralSakai 13:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that referential content should, at most have a brief mention on the page whose subject is related to that content and possibly on a References to Metroid in other media page, with the exception of the Alien series.

Non-canon content, on the other hand, should be decided on more of a case by case basis. Things like Galactic Pinball should go on the Cameos and Crossovers page with a link to another wiki that describes it in greater detail. However, Captain N could get an article describing Samus's role etc., with a section on the Cameos and Crossovers article with the Main Article template. However, in the case of subjects such as Samus and Joey whose canonity is questionable but focus primarily on the Metroid Universe, they should get their own articles and should be described in depth. There are probably other cases too, but I can't list them all. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 17:22, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

By that do you mean just one article on Captain N, or the system we have now where individual subjects limited to Captain N get their own article?--AdmiralSakai 17:40, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds like we are laregely on the same page. To address your previous question, the "line drawing" was to set a boundary for official licensed material and subjects related to it. (OOU people, hardware/software,etc.) The idea that was addressing was that once you leave the content that is officially licensed/recognized, there aren't any other clear barriers between Dr. House, Spy Kids 3D, Game Informer, fan sites, fanon, and all the things that exist in between that mention Metroid but are not licensed.


 * I would call to keep the articles such as Galactic Pinball and the specific Captain N stories that are related to this series (RoyBoyX and the other users that contributed did an excellent job on them). I don't think that the logical conclusion is to find someone else to describe our articles for us. That argument could be put forward for all of the OOU articles, in such a situation. Why not just redirect to Wikipedia's Metroid II, Edwin Neal, and Game Boy Advance articles? I would instead set a criteria that the articles focus on the subject's relation to our focal series (which sets the article itself apart from anything that we could possibly redirect to, though there is no reason not to include outside wiki links within the article). Aside from that, a minimalist non-Metroid description and infobox (for software/hardware) may be necessary to describe the subject. Our hardware articles currently include a lot of non-Metroid specific information, however it could be argued that they may be an exception because the information is still useful. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:26, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding paragraph 1: yes, we seem to be repeating each other a lot here. The Nintendo liscensing thing sounds like a great place to cut off influence articles. I've even codifuied the "Alien Loophole" in more generally applicable terms: If a non-lisenced subject is confirmed to have influenced the creative process behind canon material in a verified Nintendo-produced source, articles are permitted.
 * Regarding paragraph 2: My main thesis here is that in many cases you will get the same sort of information from a generic or other-site article as you would find in one of ours, which is why we should all save ourselves some time and outsource some of the work. However, in many other cases (the Cow is the most glaringly obvious), you are most definately right and the articles we would create would be much more useful to a Metroid-interested reader than an outside one. That, I think, is where we should draw the line (as I attempted to explain in question 2, which sounded a lot clearer when I was writing it....) As for the Capitain N articles, I've noticed some glaring issues with a lot of them. Take, for instace, Starshark: an article about a creature that has only ever been seen in Capitain N and is written from the perspective of the Capitain N multiverse, but does not have the out-of-universe tag, implies that the creature does in fact exist in Metroid, and does not cite the comic for any of the information. And then there are the assorted enemy articles with Capitain-N-derived information intermingled with the in-universe Metroid portions, sometimes mentioning that it's from CN, sometimes not. These need a serious look, as examples of article'd referential content on steroids. (I realize that I should probably go and fix these issues, but if I removed all of my own examples I would have no way of proving my point and convincing people that the same thing might grow on us again....)--AdmiralSakai 22:05, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

We already had an article about the Alien comparisons, called Alien Series. It was made by Metroid101, and got deleted after an AfD, in part because the article was in dire need of cleanup and the comparisons were relatively weak. Not just because I wanted it deleted. To make it up to 101 I've made an entire section on Metroid (Series) that covers every reference to Alien in the series from Samus being like Ripley to Ridley Scott and Ridley and Samus bonding with the Baby and Ripley bonding with Newt. Are you suggesting articles relating to House and Spy Kids 3D due to the cameos they have? And does "Game Informer" refer to the joke about MOM? As for fan sites and fanon, they should be deleted unless they have appeared in official media (i.e. the Metroid Database). And, well, you know how I am with other references to the series. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 21:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was doing the opposite of suggesting that we create such articles. Please be careful when following the discussion, or you could miss out on a key point.


 * In regard to things like the Starshark article, it was actually introduced in a Metroid page and the creature did not appear in the Captain N story. In regard to canons, I rather dislike the type of thing I see on the Zelda wikis where the users have decided which games and source materials are canon and which aren't. I've stated numerous times in the past that our job ought to be to provide the readers with information and not to create it. We don't have the same resources that Wookiepedia has where canon materials are defined by the creator, so we ought to just be presenting all of the facts as clearly as possible to let the reader make the most informed decision about such things. However, this may be deviating a bit from the RfC. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 22:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * About the Starsharks: I guess I must have missed the NCS part.... I believe I made the mistake of connecting RX338 with Capitain N as well...... now it makes more sense why nobody else wanted those articles deleted.................. oops.
 * Gaffes aside, I'm not specifically requiring or requesting a standardized list of canon sources so much as a system of article relevancy testing based in part on a seperate descision of whether or not an article is canon-- a descision that can be made by an all-encompassing RFC, article editors whenever the question presents itself, a coin toss, or whatever, as long as it's somewhat sensible: the specific way in which canon is defined doesn't matter as long as people can look at an article, come to some conclusion as to its canonicity, and then use the guidelines we are discussing now to decide, based on that conclusion, if the article is within the scope of referential content.--AdmiralSakai 23:11, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, non-canon material has been allowed. For example, other wikis like Wookiepedia have articles for things as diverse as the Han Solo/Indiana Jones crossover. We've got things with dubious canonical relevance (such as Blood of the Chozo and Captain N) with opening statements that say the subject only appeared there and in addition, categories to separate all of such subjects. There isn't any real problem with the article, however if it was strongly desired, templates for the top of the page could be made to further distinguish them from other in-universe articles. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 00:41, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, unless there's a LOT of them and they strongly impact the information in the game, I for one would consider such a measure unnecessary. But let's not derail things again. From now on, I'm going to assume that the canon policy will remain the way it is now. So, my vote remains delete articles, make a single "referential content" article, and encourage trivia entries and outsourcing (when appropriate).--AdmiralSakai 02:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AdmiralSakai on that one (however Blood of the Chozo is strictly composed of Metroid content).

Everything started when ChozoBoy made Kid Icarus. I initially thought that this was a bad idea, and said so here, but I don't think he took my opinion seriously, simply stating that he planned to continue making the articles, and that the red links "wouldn't be staying red". After a long while, I figured out what his plan was, and broke my ties with him, attempting to remove all red links in failure. He wouldn't let me delete Twilight Princess even after the AfD for it said delete.

He is slowly killing the purpose of the wiki, which is to provide information on the Metroid universe and not everything related to it. That's why I started the RfC and ultimately had it decide the entire scope of the wiki. I'm in favor of keeping all Smash Bros. related articles and any future games that have a playable Metroid character. The main Captain N article can also stay with everything merged into it.

Contrary to ChozoBoy's belief, these articles do not fall under the scope of the wiki. I compare this to Weyland Yutani protecting the Aliens and the Federation protecting the Metroids/X. In this case, ChozoBoy is protecting every article and red link for this. I say everything gets merged into a list, with the exception of Super Smash Bros. articles and some other lists if appropriate. I was a nuisance to this wiki too, but I fought to keep this a Metroid wiki. And that's how it's going to turn out. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 12:59, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * RoyBoyX, please do not turn this into a drama scene by creating some character story for me and derailing the conversation. As it stands, you are hardly contributing to the conversation by writing three paragraphs about a user when the subject is the scope. The reason we are having this RfC is because you poorly managed the last two. If you'd like to contribute, then please read the entire discussion (not keywords, like your previous post to this suggests you've been doing) and discuss the points made. There isn't a whole lot to actually discuss when the remainder of the post is a list of your opinions (just like the previous unusable RfC). ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 17:08, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Very well. As you know, I am very against having individual pages for these games. It just makes absolutely no sense at all, as if we're the Nintendo Wiki, which would cover all games by Nintendo, when we're Wikitroid, which is supposed to cover information about just one Nintendo franchise: Metroid. Yet you want Twilight Princess and Kid Icarus to stay. The scope of the wiki covers canon Metroid information and information related to it. This includes real life articles such as composers, actors and the games themselves. This also includes Nintendo Power and Blood of the Chozo, none of which are canon but feature all Metroid references (when I mean Nintendo Power I mean the MP1/SM comics). This does not include Twilight Princess or Kid Icarus, but it does include Super Smash Bros., which has a playable character, Samus. Captain N also warrants an article that just covers everything related to Metroid in it. So all this cameo and crossover jazz is ruining the wiki's purpose and possibly even reputation. You don't even listen to my opinions (this was before I started removing red links) without simply saying that you plan to continue. This is really beginning to irk me, and thus that is why I vow to put a stop to your operation. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 17:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * RoyboyX, STOP PLEASE!! You're making it too dramatic! I say we don't have Twilight Princess article. I believe we should have the Super Smash Bros. Article to stay, but have the character articles deleted because its only about a paragraph long that is actually about the character. So that makes it valid to merge into the SSB series articles. Metroid101 17:36, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly see why the SSBB articles need to be preserved... they are large, Nintendo-produced references to be sure, but they don't impact the Metroid series or universe in any significant way. And yes, I think Roy should avoid such a terribly severe emotional investment in this debate.--AdmiralSakai 17:40, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Am I doing everything wrong now?! But yeah. You're right about the characters. They're getting a list. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 17:41, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

They don't impact the Metroid series or universe, but the article is actually describing its impact on them. Take a look at the Pit article. The entire thing is almost completely about the character's relation to the Metroid series. (It could probably use less SSB info. That is only giving users the impression that they are supposed to be SSB articles, anyway.) Contrary to RBX's "ruined reputation" claim, other wikis do the same thing. The Mario wiki has articles for Samus and other relevant characters. Most other large wikis do similar things, and because we've covered everything in such great detail, we are getting to the point where we are becoming a noticeably large wiki. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 17:57, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Closing opinions by bureaucrats
The closing opinions stage of this RfC has not yet started. Do not edit this section.