Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Wiki Scope

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

The current stage will end shortly after all three bureaucrats have made their closing opinion statements.

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)

RfC community discussion pre-closed, moved to the 2->3 interstage. Note that this is a "pre-close", and I will be reviewing the discussion. When I have completed the review, I will either chose to reopen the discussion for a some more time (if there appears to be no consensus), or completely close the discussion and move on to the bureaucrats' closing statements. However, at this time, I have done a very quick review of the discussion, and I must say I am appalled at the behavior of some editors, especially a certain administrator - you know who you are. Please be aware that, when my review is finished, I may chose to take action against those editors I believe to have behaved themselves very poorly through this discussion, especially if I believe their actions to have violated the No Personal Attacks policy or the Civility policy. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 09:24, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

The RfC has been moved to stage 3. Bureaucrats should now write their closing opinions in the section at the bottom of the page. Note that, after this point, no non-bureaucrats should be editing this RfC. (Note: I'll be writing my opinion in a day or so.) The RfC will end shortly after all opinions are written. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 05:40, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Refining the description 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 has been "closed". Please do not modify it.'''

Final closure by FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? at 05:40, July 20, 2010 (UTC).

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, and you can't get that kind of information anywhere else. (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)

That's because they probably don't have a good government set up. And we are large. We can be large without these articles. We could get the info somewhere else, and where is that? Here. Stop being so childish and try to listen to other people's opinions instead of brushing them off. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 18:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Often, we like to describe the relation in detail, and while the brief summaries allotted on that list article can be helpful, it won't be thorough. Recall the Metroid microgame articles. We couldn't jam those into the list. Not there is any reason to because they do not effect the overwhelming majority of the wiki. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 18:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

We'd make the list go in depth about the cameo. So yes we could squish the microgames in there. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 18:27, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * We could, but most of the subjects could potential go on much longer than those. That would be an awfully long list article (which aren't helpful in a long format). The structure we've had works fine and is often employed. The list covers the general information with the articles providing readers with more in-depth info. They don't need to match the versions of the articles on Wikipedia or any other wiki because it would only pertain to how the subject relates to the Metroid series. If it can't do that, then we have to delete it. (Just like what happened to the otherwise potentially valid Alien article that we discussed above.) ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 18:37, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

You're just that stubborn, aren't you? Mr. "Senior in College". -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 18:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to continue derailing the conversation or can you participate maturely like the rest of the users? ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 18:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Zeldapedia's Cameos category cover things in the Zelda series that have reference to the Metroid series. We have too many articles for things that don't have reference and none of the community except you likes it. You're going too far from Metroid information. If we have Twilight Princess then we can also have Eggplant Wizard and Zant and Master Sword. Hell, Midna. Then what are we? Yes, some cameos in other games do have potential for pages. But that detracts from what our wiki's goal is: to create a Metroid encyclopedia. We're not going to be any different than other wikis with cameos and references. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 18:56, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

We actually can't create those types of articles in this wiki under the current scope, or any possible scope decisions that could arise from the RfC. Please refrain from Strawman arguments and offer some productive discussion. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 19:02, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strawman arguments?! Who do you think I am?! I am a freedom fighter who disagrees with your style of government. When will you consider my points "productive"? Soon you'll want articles for Zant because he appears in Twilight Princess. Not a legitimate enough reason. Did your IQ just drop suddenly? What made you want to do this? Go make your own Wikitroid and start making these articles. Because nobody wants them here. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 19:09, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm going to make something quite clear. Plain and simple, do not use phrases in your posts saying what we do or how we work, or do things.That is addressed to both ChozoBoy and RoyboyX, as well as everyone else. When you state your opinion as to what you think we should do and how we should do it, then you need to word it as such, that you are stated what you think. Best example: "Often, we like to describe the relation in detail", said by ChozoBoy, (not picking on you). You all need to word your remarks in a way that says what you think, instead of acting as though you are speaking as the left hands of Wikitroid, because you aren't. And I will not have an argument being fought with a statement that is worded to directly represent Wikitroid. Please use things like: I don't think we should. Thanks, and continue discussion, please. 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!)  19:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize. In that instance, I was referring to the set of microgame articles that RoyBoyX and I ("we") created to explain them in detail. I knew that he would recall that, but I didn't mean to confuse the rest of the participants in the RfC. Unfortunately, if this is just going to be Strawmen/Ad hominems followed by requests to refocus the discussion, I'm going to have to abstain until there are more participants. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 19:29, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the wiki should allow articles about games that have referential content. Neither do I think that the characters that have been in games that refernced the Metroid series should be kept. These include: Pit, Link, Luigi, Mario etc. However, the actual referential content should be made into articles imo, such as the Varia Suit (Animal Crossing: City Folk), etc. Seeing as we mention the products like games as in-universe, mentioning out-ofuniverse games in in-universe articles should be ok too I think. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 19:27, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * HK, I think you might be a bit confused. Nintendo games don't have referential content. You might want to look at how the terminology is defined in the RfC's description. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 19:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Is everybody saying they want the games and characters merged into lists, or everything? -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 19:30, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I'm sorry about that. I mean non-canon references. Thanks for helping me out there. Yeah, so basically I'd like to see the non-canon character articles removed. But more-so the games themselves, because I think that the character articles have more to do with the Metroid series than the game articles (overall) Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 19:37, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * In this instance, I would prefer to keep non-canon Metroid articles. (Though how they are structured and exactly what type of information is allowed in them should be refined.) Other wikis employ non-canon articles, but signify them as such with a template to preclude the information about it. Because they are relevant to the Metroid series, this is why I would argue that they should be included in the scope. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 19:44, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case I agree with you concerning the character articles. I checked around on the Mario wiki, and they do indeed have character articles for Metroid (Samus). They do not however, have any game articles from the series. My ideas for the game articles on Wikitroid is that they could be replaced by an article about the series: for example, instead of Twilight Princess, we could just have the Legend of Zelda series. And/or Wikitroid could just link to the articles on wikipedia or on the respective wikia when necessary. Can you expain to me your reason for the game articles, and why they should be kept? Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 19:51, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of several "series" articles, such as ChozoBoy's earlier suggestion that he wanted to restore Alien Series too. Zeldapedia has a huge list of Cameos, with seperate articles for enemies that appear in Zelda games and originate from other series. They don't have pages for most cameos like Zelda related WarioWare articles. On articles that have non canonical information they have a template to say so and a category to show articles that have this information. As for cameos, they have pages for all Smash Bros. series games. Seriously. Their Cameos list is huge and has almost everything. That's why I'm not in favor of keeping the cameos too. But I never said I wanted to keep the games or characters either. I say destroy em all. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 20:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm more in favour of seperate articles than one big list. Zeldapedia's looks sort of messy, having a few articles or just cameos on the series article would be a better idea imo. But I do think that a non-canon template to go with/replace the Real world template on seperate articles is a good idea. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 20:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * (In response to HK's previous post) Mario Wiki may have actually gone too far (in my opinion), as they have articles for things that aren't explicitly related, such as all of the Smash Bros. stages and even Ridley. Such articles can't possibly focus on the series connection to the subject. However, other wikis do have specific cameo articles with the type of template that I'd described. They don't detract from the wiki, list only the pertinent information alongside the game infobox and aren't intrusive at all. That is to say that they are not linked to by more than a few relevant pages.


 * Take a good look at List of cameos and crossovers. Some descriptions are short, but some get really big and intrusive if you are a reader looking for a quick summary/list. Imagine that we cut down on that Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga description by removing the long quote from the deleted conversation with Samus and include that instead in a brief article on the game. In addition to the quote, the article would get the standard game template and the information on things like a chart on the effects of the Power Grip badge and the deleted Energy Tank badge. I wouldn't want to see all of that for every game get crammed into what is supposed to be a List article. If the article gets made, most of us wouldn't ever need to see it again but it would be present for the reader of Wikitroid, who upon browsing the list could decide to look at more detailed information. That's who the wiki is for. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:15, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then make a list for the Mario Series, one for the Zelda Series and so forth instead of an article for a game that only has 2% of metroid in it. Metroid101 20:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me. No, it doesn't make the list's section on Saga longer as we have the Power Grip thing in the main list and the dialogue in the C&C list. I'd much rather have most cameos in the list. Including games. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 20:18, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

As I said, series articles, while indeed a possible solution, seem silly. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 20:23, June 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read all of the discussion and not just parts. I said that that information should be removed and summarized on the list article. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is summarized on the list. -_- -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 20:31, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dear lord, I go off the grid for half a day, and suddenly everybody takes an enourmous interest in this subject! There's WAY too much stuff in here for me to respond to at once, but one of the points I keep seeing brought up is that a lot of otherwise irrelevant subjects that are not canonically connected to Metroid have a considerable influence on the way the canon turned out. These subjects should be included, their articles focusing motre on the impact on Metroid than on the information about the subject in its "native" environment. However, "foreign" things impacted by Metroid should still in general get at most a list, link, and trivia point.--AdmiralSakai 01:31, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Such as? And here's a possible solution to some reference artcles that ChozoBoy and HK simply refuse to let go. Metroid (Animal Crossing) could be merged with Baby, Varia Suit (Animal Crossing) could be merged with Varia Suit, Samus Mask could be renamed Helmet, which has all information that was on the page as well as that trivia about the helmet design on Varia Suit, and some other stuff. Lastly, Samus' Suit gets merged with Power Suit. There's a solution to some cameos, this can find them a new home other than in the list. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 12:23, June 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * What? You created/developed those articles and I never discussed them. I wouldn't be surprised if HK never did either, given your track record here. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 15:51, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

First I'm going to say: Careful ChozoBoy. The above remark: "I wouldn't be surprised if HK never did either, given your track record here," is getting awfully close to being one of those hostile-sardonic remarks, that you and RoyboyX made famous a while back. Keep it kay. Now on to other things. Just going to tell everyone, I don't care what the conclusion of this is. So long as we make it completely and irrefutably clear as to where the line is drawn. Hell I don't care if we make articles for every last "cameo or crossover" to be honest! My only beef with it is, however, we either make an article for all of that sort of thing or that we do not make an article for it. None of this: make a list for these, make an article for this, mix and match jazz. And when we come to that conclusion, that's it. No do-overs as we've had in the past. Just making some things clear here, for some people that wanted my opinion on the matter. 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!)  17:07, June 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to pull this off topic, but he's clearly been doing this type of thing the entire conversation. Allow me to pull up one of those that I hadn't previously addressed: "ChozoBoy's earlier suggestion that he wanted to restore Alien Series too." I don't have any intention of restoring or creating such an article. What actually happened, (though I'd felt that anyone reading up to that point could discern) was that AdmiralSakai and I used this as an example of something that would feasibly be "valid" in light of the no-referential content stance we took, which has not otherwise encountered any opposition thus far. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 17:25, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone stop name dropping, we are supposed to talk about the wikia's scope, not bashing other peoples opinion!
 * Okay so, I believe that some of the cameos are worthy for articles, such as the Kid Icarus Series, not Pit and the Kamatoyo(or whatever it is) Those can be merged with a Kid Icarus page. As for Twilight Princess, that can be merged with the Sticker article (and so can others in the future like, Super Mario Galaxy, Excite Truck, Etc.) However the Wario Ware Sticker should get an article and have all the micro games merged into it. The SSBB sticker should give us a link to the article. Metroid101 17:39, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay so, I believe that some of the cameos are worthy for articles, such as the Kid Icarus Series, not Pit and the Kamatoyo(or whatever it is) Those can be merged with a Kid Icarus page. As for Twilight Princess, that can be merged with the Sticker article (and so can others in the future like, Super Mario Galaxy, Excite Truck, Etc.) However the Wario Ware Sticker should get an article and have all the micro games merged into it. The SSBB sticker should give us a link to the article. Metroid101 17:39, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

This wiki is for canon information. People or companies affiliated with the series get a full article. Anything else that does not appear in the Metroid series does not deserve an individual page. Keep an organized list for any non-canon or refrential content to redirect to other sites. Th e Ex t er m in at or {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 00:04, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. 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!)  00:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too Metroid101 00:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I concour as well.--AdmiralSakai 02:45, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to get rid of them? Those are some of the more interesting kinds of articles. When i check out wikis after I read the main articles I normally go look at that kind of stuff and I bet a lot of other people do too. Metroid database has more details on non-canon stuff but you guys have waaaay more games covered because they're missing a bunch. Blaze of Fire 07:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blaze of Fire. Some of the full articles should be kept. Specifically, I would like to see the character articles and the items in Animal Crossing articles retained, but like ChozoBoy said, refined. A list would be not much use at all. Readers wont want to see a huge list of all the cameos, because it forces them into that cameo category when they could have other information that would be better suited to be elaborated on in an article. If we were to take all the content from the cameo/crossover pages at this time, and shoved them into a list, how long would that be? Too long in my opinion. We should have seperate articles. Hell Kaiser ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 18:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, a lot of the information will be moved to the trivia sections of the objects and people appearing in the games, not destroyed. The time involved in doing this is considerable, but the time involved in doing anything is: think of how long it will take to replace every single logbook entry with the new template, or to verify whether a hundred entires are canon or fanon and delete them, or to write articles in general. Time factors come with the territory, and if we are to avoid them we would have to stop changing everything in the wiki.--AdmiralSakai 20:07, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is a wiki for Nintendo's Metroid series. We are a wiki for just one of Nintendo's franchises. We don't need all these red links for Kid Icarus and Zelda and Kirby. We don't need pages for the games, either. Or the characters. Or the cameos (the reference to Metroid, i.e. Komayto). As I said, not all of them have to be merged into lists. Some cameos, such as the Metroid item and the Varia Suit shirt in Animal Crossing could be merged with Baby and Varia Suit, respectively, with the list giving a brief description on them and linking to Baby and Varia Suit. On a side note, ChozoBoy's idea for an article on the similarities between Metroid and Alien seems horrible, as the first attempt at a page for this was horrible, and it seems just fine as a collection of tables and templates on Metroid (Series), and Trivia points where applicable.

Do whatever you want for me saying this, but I sometimes compare ChozoBoy's actions to a wiki troll such as Blue Ninjakoopa (if he reads this, I mean his former actions). Nobody agrees with what he is doing and yet I am the one who gets into all this trouble. Recently, on Talk:UAM 9 (Metroid), he claimed I was edit warring when I removed a red link he added to the page. I'd like to state that I consider it to be an edit war when I remove or create a red link and some other user (such as him) comes and removes or recreates it. I'd like to have a new regulation to this RfC stating that no new red links should be created and no existing ones shouyld be removed either similar to the thing about creating pages. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 12:32, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Who told you to go around to bash other people?!?!?!?! I believe we should make a Mythology page, that is a way we can include the Alien Series without making an article for the alien series. Metroid101 12:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I wasn't bashing you. I was saying the first attempt at a page for it wasn't so good. The similarities are just fine as a template on Metroid (Series). -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 13:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * He's defending ChozoBoy, obviously. Just because you weren't insulting him personally dosen't mean some of the things you said don't seem insulting. This is off topic anyway. If we merge those pages with existing articles, then that defeats the point of saying that the wiki is for canon info only. The non-canon will be on canon pages. I think we should still keep it, but not in the merge method. I would be more happy with seperate articles, then we could have a template that tells reader that the info is non-canon. Or, I would even prefer a cameo/crossover list to your idea. If we merged them into canon articles, then it would be A) contain less info because it dosen't have its own article and B) Have canon and non-canon together, which defeats the point of a pure canon wiki. Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 16:20, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Or I could have a brief description on Baby and Varia Suit and the actual cameos are on a list. Is that what you were getting it? -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 16:30, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

To HellKaiser: The non-canon contenrt would be confined to the Trivia sections. These sections already contain a great deal of out-of-universe and non-canon information, and they seem to work well enoungh with it now. A bit more of the stuff wouldn't hurt.--AdmiralSakai 17:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my suggestion RoyBoyX. I would still much prefer each to have their own article though. To AdmiralSakai, please note that the POV Policy allows trivia sections and so on to contain Oou content anyway. I disagree with having them in the trivia section. Trivia is far too overused in some places, e.g. Gandrayda page. Although that's in-universe, I don't think trivia should cover non-canon stuff. And please stop saying "would be"/"Will be" or "this is what will happen", everyone. The whole point of this is to discuss the scope and find a solution, to suggest ideas, not say what will and wont happen just because of your opinions. <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 20:00, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

RBX, your suggestions are still very pick-and-choosey. (This was exactly the problem with your previous RfC recommendations.) We aren't here to discuss what articles we like and which we don't, but to determine what the preferred scope of information to present to our readers will be. The line between Referential and Non-canon is incredibly clear. We can point any new or existing user to that and it won't be difficult to understand. It's a clean, no-fuss solution. ChozoBoy [ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off I'm going to say, If I see another personal attack like the ones ChozoBoy and RoyboyX are beginning to post, I will personally void all future posts on this RfC for that user, is that understood? You may then debate on my talkpage as to why I should allow posting again on this RfC.


 * Also, one last thing. ChozoBoy this is your final warning, further above I warned everyone to cease the use of phrases such as "we are" when describing the RfC or Wikitroid. As a forensics teacher (goes with english), I know what words and phases affect the subconscious, as is the point of forensics, so don't anyone tell me I'm being ridiculous. Subconsciously, the word "we" automatically, mentally categorizes the entire group as a single entity, it's a manipulative tactic when debating/arguing, and a dirty one as well, whether you know it or not. Again, ChozoBoy, this is your last warning. And... RoyboyX, you did the same thing above as well: "We are a wiki for just one of Nintendo's franchises. We don't need all these red links for Kid Icarus and Zelda and Kirby. We don't need pages for the games, either." Which means this is your first warning as opposed to ChozoBoy's second. Upon the third, I will void your future posts. Again that goes for everyone. If you want to say something about the Wiki, then say something along the lines of: "I think the wiki..." or "I don't think Wikitroid..." Now, do I make myself clear? Everyone? 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!)  00:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yes PH, you make yourself clear. ChozoBoy can't grasp that if he were to make pages for these games, Wikitroid would be the Nintendo Wiki with a Phazon background and Samus logo. Half of Wikitroid would cover Metroid and the entire other half would be non-Metroid. If he thought Twilight Princess warranted an article, then that would warrant Midna and Zant an article too. If he thought Kid Icarus warranted an article, then that would warrant Medusa and the Eggplant Wizard. Why did he only add links for Twilight Princess and not the rest of the "ship bumper sticker games"? (Don't you get any ideas...) Why am I not seeing him making links for an Alien article? People come to Wikitroid to learn about Metroid. Metroid. METROID, GOT IT?! Otherwise the name would be Nintendoid, the Metroid and Nintendo wiki. Contrary to ChozoBoy's past claims that people come to learn about the cameos, they would come here to learn about Metroid and Metroid only. The list we have would inform them of all cameos, and trivia where applicable would too. Do I make myself clear now? The only non canon Wikitroid should allow is manga like Samus and Joey. Smash Bros. too, cause Samus is playable.

Why didn't FL just certify the closure of the RfC, tell ChozoBoy that he was hereby not allowed to stop me from removing the links and let me destroy everything? Why did he have to restart the RfC when he knew the general consensus was that everyone wanted the pages removed? Or in other words, that I clearly was winning? Surpress that thought too. Why did ChozoBoy just go ahead and make red links and pages without suggesting to the community of Wikitroid his idea? If only one person thinks they make valid articles then he certainly should not be in power. He only agreed to making pages for the Smash characters because he thought he could use them as a means of breeding more red links for things like Twilight Princess. This whole idea is turning us into, like I said, a Nintendo wiki with a Phazon background and Samus on the logo. His quotes on the talk for Twilight Princess' AfD (which voted delete, yet he refuses to let me destroy it), state that "it is not here because of the Smash Bros. series, it is here because of the Metroid series." Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. That's what his whole idea is: bullshit. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 13:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

People, people, please, knock it OFF. This RFC exists to discuss the scope of referential content, not insult one another. If you cannot maintain at least the semblence of civility, I will personally disregard all of your future posts, and I strongly urge other participants to do so as well. This means you, RBX, and ChozoBoy. And although I myself have unintentionally violated this rule myself, it would be a great idea to refreain from the sorts of absolute definitions of preexisting status if it cannot be empirically confirmed (that's Vulcan-speak for avoiding "wikitroid is".) It seemed to me that we were fast approaching some form of consensus until a few people started taking this personally... and I would very much like to see that consensus develop in a timely fasion. If personal bickering obstructs that, then I will just have to deal with the bickerers with whatever resources are available to me. AdmiralSakai 15:15, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

We're only insulting each other because we can't agree with each other. He's saying I'm doing it wrong. Whatever. We know what the general consensus is, and that is remove all pages and links and merge them into lists. That's the whole goddamn objective and nobody thought of it?! Sheesh.

I'm rather disappoinbted by how this has turned out. How he immediately thinks he can create red links and pages and not allow anyone to touch them. I'm about ready to leave Wikitroid because I can't have an opinion without being yelled at. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 15:30, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion. I just take issue with the means by which you express it. If you don't want to get yelled at, don't insult other participants and tone down the strength of your language. AdmiralSakai 16:05, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the actual objective of this RfC, I'm also all open for anything that had an impact on the series, or if anything from the series had an impact on it, to have a full page of its own. By impact, I mean one affected the other's story line, characters, or objects. Th e Ex t er m in at or {ADMIN} (talk &bull; e-mail &bull; contribs &bull; count &bull; logs) 17:18, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should make a template for the non-canon pages if they are kept. Like the real-life template, but obviously to tell readers that the topic of the page is not canon in the series. There's also the subject of the Justin Bailey page to discuss, which I think might be important in the scope of the wiki. It's situation seems unique, and we should talk about how that's going to fall into the scope, whatever way the new system is enforced after the RfC. <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 20:56, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot HK, for editing this when it was just about to close -_-. Nothing will be kept as most of the consensus states that we are going to merge the articles into lists. As for Justin Bailey, I don't know why you brought that up here, as it appears in Metroid and nowhere else (apart from cameos in two WarioWare games) and as such it does not fall under non-canon (if it does, please clarify so, but not here). Now, nobody edit the RfC until July 2. I don't want this to go on forever. -- R o y b o y X {ADMIN} 21:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop acting like you can do whatever you want, RoyBoyX. The discussion is still on-going. It will continue for as long as it needs to, not for as long as you want it to. I just wanted to know whether or not the template would be a good idea if the consensus was that some articles would be retained. I can see a few people here who would like them kept, in some form, rather than completley removed or turned into a list. As for Justin Bailey, I thought that might be a useful contribution, but upon second opinion, it seems that it isn't a well suited topic for this forum. <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 21:46, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * For reasons I have previously stated, I am strongly opposed to the idea of retaining the articles. However, if they do end up being kept, I would find a "referential content" template (preferably a large one as opposed to something like the out-of-universe tab) to be a considerable improvement. And while I was hoping that a consensus would maniphest over these last few days of no activity, I am not about to silence other users just so that I can start nominating for deletion. By all means, I would prefer if people kept discussing the topic however long they saw fit. AdmiralSakai 23:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closing opinions by bureaucrats
'''The RfC on Wiki Scope has been "closed" with the decision of experimenting/testing the use of the 3-Point System for possible future use as a policy for Referential Content (C&C). Please do not modify it.'''

Final closure by: -- 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!)  18:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats: It is now your turn. Essentially, all you have to do is review the discussion above, then write a little bit about how you think the RfC ended and why. Remember to base your closing opinion on the discussion and to reflect the community consensus in your statement. The RfC will close when all three bureaucrats have written opinions, with the majority opinion becoming the operative close of this RfC.

Statement by Bureaucrat Piratehunter
Okay... First off I'll just say, I have read over this RfC and come to the conclusion that, well, Wikitroid wants things unrelated to metroid to be removed... which, was already pretty much the case. Now... I realize that the Discussion has ended, BUT, I have a theory... After countless hours of thinking and dwelling on how the hell we can draw a firm, yet flexible line as to where we allow articles and where we do not, I came to this conclusion: a simple 3-Step system. If we can agree that this would work well for this problem, then I strongly suggest that we basically make it the golden rule for Cameos/Crossovers. Here's how it works...

Basically it is a set of 3 Questions that each individual must ask themselves about the object, that will dictate whether it is Metroid-related enough to be added to Wikitroid in the form of either an full Article, or a List. The questions are:

'''1.) Is it Metroid related? (that means directly related to the Metroid Universe. in other words it must relate to an in universe item of sorts).'''

'''2.) Does it play a major/semi-major role within the series of which it is found? (whether that be Metroid or Mario, or whatever. Obviously if it isn't metroid related (question 1) then you would not even think about including it on Wikitroid)'''

3.) Does it take place or exist within the Metroid Universe? (that means the universe where you find Samus and the Space Pirates and such, not SSB's universe)

The rule is, you ask yourself these three questions before adding the object to Wikitroid's Database. From then on out, it is like a sort of point system. For each question answered with: Yes, you gain a mark/point. Now, here's the fun part... After asking yourself all three questions about the subject in question, you add up all the marks (the max amount being 3). If the subject receives only 1 point, then it is deserving of being in a list, but nothing more. However, if the subject receives 2 points or more, then it deserves an article (the point of having 3 questions is just to give a second chance to get 2 points). And the rule is, and I can't stress this enough, if you cannot answer one of the questions based on lack of intel on the matter, then you may not create the article until you do find out. Here are a couple of examples:

1.) Is it Metroid-related? Yes, there are multiple microgames related to Metroid within the Game 2.) Does it play a major/semi-major role in the series? Yes, going through and completing these Metroid-based microgames is necessary. 3.) No need to ask, we already have 2 points.
 *  WarioWare 

We have 2 points! That means that we either make an article for WarioWare, or an article for the Microgames related to metroid!

1.) Is it Metroid-related? Well, we don't know that. Sure it looks like a Metroid, but we don't know if it was meant to, so we cant answer this, that means it cant be added to the database
 *  Komayto (KI) 

2.) [Void]

3.) [Void]

This would mean that we cannot make the article/list Komayto, until more info is found about it.


 *  Super Smash Bros. 

1.) Is it Metroid-related? Yes, Samus herself, as well as numerous trophies and such appear in the SSB series.

2.) Does it play a major/semi-major role in the series? Yes, Samus is a playable character in the series, and there are Metroid themed stages found in the main story.

3.) No need, already got 2 points!

Two points! That means it gets it's own article. This is for the entire SSB series, but it is recommended that the games be done separately, so that we can make articles for all three games instead of just one big one for the series.

It is remarkably simple and very easy to employ, and would indefinitely fix the problems we are currently having with the Wiki's Scope. I ask that this be seriously considered as a normal-usage-tool to determine a subject's relevance. Tell me what you think. And ask any questions on my Talk Page. 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!)  20:45, July 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say "Does it play a major/semi-major role in the series?", shouldn't that be the metroid series, not the game series it's from? <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">Hell <font color="Crimson" size="2px">Kaiser <font color="FireBrick" size="2px">ryo12 [ ADMIN ] (Talk&bull;Contribs) 16:07, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it should not. The point of that is to give a point to things that are metroid related and play a major role in a different series. Everyone, please not that this 3-Point Rule is for use on Potential Cameos and Crossovers, not things such as SNESes, Game Producers, and companies like Nintendo or Retro. It is only to be used to figure out if something merits a page, if it is potentially a cameo or crossover, simply. And HK, this section is not a discussion section. 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!)  20:59, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bureaucrat MarioGalaxy2433g5
The community clearly made consensus to put referential content in a list and/or at the bottom of the article whose subject was referenced. However, what to do with non-canon content is unclear. They agreed to keep some articles and put others in a list. I think Piratehunter's idea could work except question three asks if it is important. Now the question is what is the meaning of the word important? How are we to decide what is important and what isn't? It is what I wanted to get at when I said RoyBoyX's initial RfC was unclear, but couldn't figure out a way to put it. Before this RfC is to close, we would need to determine a way to see if non-canon content is important or otherwise. Or we can determine it on a case by case basis which is what we have sorta been doing up to this point.

Also Piratehunter, Metroid-Related isn't that specific either. You could practically argue for an article about, say, Primids from Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Samus fought Primids in the Subspace Emissary. Technically its Metroid related. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 18:40, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it isn't mainly the Rules' fault, it is that I wasn't very specific :P. First off, the  way I have been tasting it, is that: a Cameo/Crossover is considered to be important only if it has an unavoidable encounter within the cameo-ing series. And example would be the Zero Suit in Fatal Frame, compared to the Metroid Minigame(s) in WarioWare. In WarioWare, the minigame is unavoidable, in order to proceed with the rest of the game (minigames) you must go through it, so it is considered important, as it is yes, unavoidable. And, it is metroid related, so it receives two marks and deserves an article (that is where you must decide, whether you are making an article for WarioWare or for the Minigame, or both. That isn't too hard to decide, but it could cause problems in the future so that is something we need to decide on.) And now, the Zero Suit in Fatal Frame. It is in fact, through the 3-Point System,  *not* considered important, because it is *not necessary* to see the suit. Unlike the Minigame in WarioWare, it is actually avoidable. So that is where I draw the line between important and not important, Whether it is important within the actual series it appears in, which is determined as whether it is unavoidable or not (with cameos and crossovers I mean. This system is solely meant to be used for C&Cs...). So that is pretty straight forward, and RoyboyX and myself have been putting through test scenarios, to see what articles would stay and go. I have to say, we haven't had any problems with it :)
 * And now for your other question. No, the term Metroid-related, in this usage, means that it is directly pertaining to the metroid series. And I mean that in the strictest of manners. And things are directly pertaining to the Metroid series, only if they are found within the Metroid Universe, or in metroid media of other sorts, period. It just has to be directly within existing Metroid paraphernalia (media, producers, etc.) Therefor, the Primids of Subspace would not be considered Metroid-related. BUT due to the insanity of SSB, because of its combining of the Nintendo Universes, SSB is pretty much in a category of its own. You must consider SSB to be a game in the Metroid series, therefor you must list/make articles for it's enemies. I hope that makes sense. SSB can't really be considered within the Metroid Universe, but it technically must be considered as a game in the metroid series. So you must treat it as a Metroid Game, and add all the important things from it to wikitroid, but, it isnt within the canon metroid universe, so for future references to the actual metroid universe, you cant use SSB as an arguing point. See what Im saying? 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!)  19:07, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now for your other question. No, the term Metroid-related, in this usage, means that it is directly pertaining to the metroid series. And I mean that in the strictest of manners. And things are directly pertaining to the Metroid series, only if they are found within the Metroid Universe, or in metroid media of other sorts, period. It just has to be directly within existing Metroid paraphernalia (media, producers, etc.) Therefor, the Primids of Subspace would not be considered Metroid-related. BUT due to the insanity of SSB, because of its combining of the Nintendo Universes, SSB is pretty much in a category of its own. You must consider SSB to be a game in the Metroid series, therefor you must list/make articles for it's enemies. I hope that makes sense. SSB can't really be considered within the Metroid Universe, but it technically must be considered as a game in the metroid series. So you must treat it as a Metroid Game, and add all the important things from it to wikitroid, but, it isnt within the canon metroid universe, so for future references to the actual metroid universe, you cant use SSB as an arguing point. See what Im saying? 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!)  19:07, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just saying you could argue your way via "X is in the same game as Y, so X deserves an article". Just wanting to remove any possible loopholes. (Wait, whats that about SSB, the enemies aren't getting articles right?)


 * However, I doubt that the closing statement was meant for new ideas. :P The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 21:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, another thing is, if it does have a few loopholes: One, those can be fixed over time. And two, if we employ it, it will be better than current :/ (having nothing :/) And no, the closing opinion isnt about making ideas, but, the matter is, we still don't have a semi-foolproof solution as to how to go forward with the consensus. :/ Despite some people wanting this RfC closed ASAP, I don't think we can appropriately do it without a solution to use to employ the consensus. That's what Im trying my damnedest to do with this 3-Point Rule. And to your first point, no and no. The Rule is meant to be based on items related to the the Metroid Universe only. Not games, despite my earlier version which I've changed, :P This solution isn't foolproof, but it is only maybe a quarter of the way off from being that way as well as exactly what we need. :/  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!)  21:55, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. Now we just need FastLizard4.


 * I wasn't exactly sure what the community wanted either. The MarioGalaxy2433g5  { talk /contribs/Logs} 03:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bureaucrat FastLizard4
(Note: I'm adding subheadings for each bureaucrat, so that the discussions can be easily separated).

Right then, I guess it's my turn now.

Reading over the discussion, it's obvious to me that the community wants these referential content articles (somewhat inaccurately referred to as "cameo/crossover articles") gone. The hard part lies in how we distinguish between what is allowed and is not allowed. While many ideas were presented in the discussion, it seems that no one could agree on any one idea. Personally, I feel Piratehunter's idea of the three-question system is a good one (although it needs a written-out policy behind it explaining it in more detail and providing exceptions, etc.). I feel that a couple things that should be added, though, both involving the amount of content in a prospective article.

First, I go to Wikipedia's (much stricter than ours) speedy deletion policy, a.k.a., WP:CSD:

Speedy deletion criteria for articles:


 * A1. No context.
 * Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." This applies only to very short articles. Context is different from content, treated in A3, below. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly-created articles.


 * A3. No content.
 * Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images. However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information. Caution is needed when using this tag on newly-created articles.

And, perhaps more relevant to the subject here:


 * A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content).
 * An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

Wikipedia also has a notability policy, which in short states that (quoting from the "in a nutshell" section):

"Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

Of course, I'm not suggesting that we directly use Wikipedia's policies here (which would be very ungood ), but that perhaps we could draw on them to create a "fourth point" to add to Piratehunter's 3-point system: Will the subject's article have enough content to justify the existence of a separate article? I feel that, even if a "cameo/crossover" is notable enough to have its own article, this restriction should exist so that we don't have hundreds of eight word articles that would be much better off in a list. Of course, redirects could exist so that the subject's name's article redirects to the list of referential content.

Also, it's worth noting that there's nothing forbidding multiple lists. To draw on my earlier example, Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wikia, has several lists for Star Trek references in different media (References in Television, References in Films, References in Music, etc.), and then separate articles and/or lists for specific films or series in cases where there have been very many references between the two (e.g., Star Trek references in Doctor Who and Star Trek references in Babylon 5)

I'll leave the RfC open for a little while longer so that people have more time to comment on the bureaucrat statements. In addition, the development of the policy regarding these articles will likely involve the community in some way which I have yet to figure out. -- FastLizard4 {ADMIN} (Talk&bull;Contribs&bull;Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 10:50, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Bureaucrat Piratehunter
Simple, even getting this far (the 3-Point System), you must have enough information, or the subject must bear enough information to merit an article as well. As FastLizard4 said above. So the way it can be done is as simple as this: Before even considering the 3-Point System, you must have an answer of: Yes or No, to the following question:

'''0.) Does it possess/have the potential to possess, enough relevant information to actually be made into a credible article (size, detail, etc.)? (In other words, does it have enough information, detail, and overall size, to be considered to have a full-sized article. I'll make a leap and say, at least on paragraph of information... relevant information... if an admin sees that it hasn't any relevant info, it will be deleted.)'''

If a "Yes", then you can move onto the 3-Point and see if it actually merits an article based on relevance. However, if you receive a "No", you still move to the 3-point, but only to see if it gets at least one point to be made into a list/part of a list, because you already said "no" that it doesnt have enough info to be made into an article, so it only needs one point. Even if it gets 2 points, it will still only merit a list inclusion, because the answer to "0" was: No. I hope that's clear :/ Also, for easier reference, I've moved the 3 (4) rules below, as well as the 4th above.

'''1.) Is it Metroid related? (that means directly related to the Metroid Universe. in other words it must relate to an in universe item of sorts).'''

'''2.) Does it play a major/semi-major role within the series of which it is found? (whether that be Metroid or Mario, or whatever. Obviously if it isn't metroid related (question 1) then you would not even think about including it on Wikitroid)'''

3.) Does it take place or exist within the Metroid Universe? (that means the universe where you find Samus and the Space Pirates and such, not SSB's universe)

-- 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!)  15:46, August 10, 2010 (UTC)