Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/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.'''

Cameos and Crossovers
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? Hell Kaiser 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 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. T erro r Dact 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)