Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Curating content

Please do not start discussion until this notice has been removed and the RFC is publicized.

Curating content In the past few months, there's been a large amount of articles created that have been contradicting previous RFC results and site guidelines, or at least pushing a gray area. After some individual discussion about a few of such articles, it's been apparent that we need to go over previously decided policies and either fully flesh out their interpretations or alter them to better suit the needs of the wiki. There's a lot to look into and quite a bit that needs to be discussed, so please review as much of the information I'll be providing as you can.

The goal of this RFC is to refine and curate what we present and how we present it.

Now first and foremost, assume good faith. Please understand that the person you're debating with is trying to help the wiki just as much as you.

Secondly, get aquainted with existing guidelines and RFCs. These are probably the most important for anyone participating (and really doing any heavy editing) to go over. The deletion policy should be your first go; one section in particular goes over what was discussed in the Notability RFC. There has also been a discussion about how to go about writing Descriptive Names for articles. We might as well bring in the C&C policy while we're at it, which had a very large discussion for the Wiki Scope.

The third set of information is more of a series of lists than something you need to absolutely read; however, I do recommend looking into them as they are what prompted this RFC. It's important to look into what guidelines we have established and how these items could potentially cause conflict, or how we can change things to avoid their conflict. These lists will be below the rest of this introduction. Please note they are neither inexhaustive nor static; these items can and will be changed as we go over particular problems with certain ones.

Now for the main topics that this RFC will be clarifying.

These are deletion-eligible candidates that were decided upon in the Notability RFC. As stated in the deletion policy, these were not intended as hard rules, but as guidelines to be kept in mind.
 * 1. Things found in the real world (or real world culture) that are found or mentioned (possibly as comparisons) in the Metroid Universe, but have no special meaning or effect on gameplay. This means things like carbon, epidermis and Bigfoot. This doesn’t include things like water or the cow which have special meaning to the Metroid Universe.
 * Are there any issues understanding what this applies to?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for keeping Wikitroid following its goals as a Metroid wiki?


 * 2. Flora, fauna, and structures that serve as scenery, especially when there is little to no information on the topic. These should be discussed on relevant articles if it can be done so without detracting from the main article.
 * Are there any issues understanding what this applies to?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid as an extension for 3. below?


 * 3. Topics whose articles restate that which is in other articles or could be discussed in other articles without leaving the primary topic or creating large walls of text. Like the former Large lava pit arena article.
 * Are there any issues understanding what this applies to?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for organizing information and reducing extraneous articles holding limited information?


 * 4. Topics who have very low potential to have an article with much more than 3 sentences relevant to Metroid describing it.
 * Are there any issues understanding what this applies to?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for curating Wikitroid's content to keep a sense of professionalism?

The following guidelines for naming articles that do not have their own proper names were engaged in the Descriptive Names RFC.
 * 1. As it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly where the "name" portion of a descriptive name ends, to prevent the names from becoming too cumbersome they should be of the least length necessary for them to make grammatical sense, to provide an indication of the identity of the subject, and to delineate it from other, similar subjects.
 * Are there any issues understanding how this intended to be used?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for creating distinct names where none exist?


 * 2. Descriptive names must be treated within text as conventional nouns, not proper nouns.
 * Are there any issues understanding how this intended to be used?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for keeping a sense of professionalism?


 * 3. If the descriptor does not meet the same standards of professional voice that are applied to article text, it cannot be used as a name, such as a "communal" ULF that was described as "white squiggly things".
 * Are there any issues understanding how this intended to be used?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for keeping a sense of professionalism?


 * 4. The ordering, conjugation, and other such aspects of descriptive names can be altered to match conventional English language and professional voice, provided that the basic meaning of the descriptor remains the same.
 * Are there any issues understanding how this intended to be used?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for ensuring titles are not limited to awkward phrasing?


 * 5. Descriptive names are to be identified as such by placing a "descriptive name" template at the head of the article.
 * Are there any issues understanding how this intended to be used?
 * Is the reasoning behind its inclusion easily understandable and/or valid for notifying readers of both casual and professional caliber what names are not official designations?

New in this RFC.

The following items are intended to be an alternate way to look at the Notability guidelines for creating or deleting articles. Instead of focusing on specific cases, these can be held against any article. The more points an article cannot pass with, the higher the concern for its notability is. These can be used alongside the existing scenarios, or serve as a rewrite of them.
 * 1. The subject has little to no gameplay elements or interactions.
 * 2. There is little to no direct, first-party information given on or by the subject.
 * 3. The subject has no explicit, proper name directly viewable in first-party media.
 * 4. The subject has low recurrence within a Metroid game or the series.
 * 5. The subject holds little to no remarkable importance to a Metroid game or the series in terms of story, mechanics, progression, or community.
 * 6. The content within the subject's article cannot state sufficiently deviating information from other articles while remaining relevant to the Metroid series.

It's important to not just look at each point individually, but as a whole. For example, if an subject has enough deviating and relevant information (6.) but doesn't have any remarkable importance (5.), then the information could instead be stated on a related article with more notability, trimming it down if need be.

Rooms almost always have gameplay elements (1.), but some are just a single hall or corridor with minimal common enemies. Rooms may or may not be given much first-party information on them or provide little information themselves (besides merely describing scenery), but a good amount of Prime series rooms have many unique scans (2.) and some non-Prime rooms like Geothermal Power Plant become important centerpieces for segments of a game (5.). Prime rooms are given direct first-party names while rooms from other games usually aren't (3.); however, there are exceptions like Breeding Room and repetitive naming schemes in Prime. Regardless, most rooms have no recurrence within the series (4.). Whether or not they can state unique information as an individual page depends on what exists or occurs in them (6.), but a general description of scenery could be better suited summarized between rooms as a whole on their regional pages.

Meanwhile objects like are simple obstacles (5.) with only two locations (4.). No first-party information is given on them (2.), including a proper name (3.). The only potential deviating information is that they are, well, destructible thorned roots that do contact damage (1.), but isn't that better suited to simply be referenced (if even) on something like Spikes (6.)?

Once again, the goal of this RFC is to refine and curate what we present and how we present it. To that, I present you the primary questions for the first stage of this RFC:
 * 1. Are the guidelines and policies we have in place sufficient and/or defined enough?
 * 2. Should the new guidelines be introduced, and should they be coexistent or a replacement for the current notability guidelines if they are?

Please take this time to discuss the items and proposals. What is written above is not concrete, any changes that are well agreed upon will be accounted for and applied. While the first stage is active, look over the list of articles below to help decide your opinions. These are also not concrete and can be changed after the first stage closes and the second begins, where we'll have a large-scale "requests for deletion" discussion. -- Madax the Shadow  {ADMIN} (talk &bull; logs &bull; contribs) 01:43, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Articles in question
NOTE: While this RFC is open, users are free to edit existing concerned articles; however, no new room or existing-notable-guidelines-conflicting articles should be created, and already existing articles should not be deleted.

List of non-room articles

High-concern articles

Low-concern articles

Unconcerned articles

List of rooms



List of older articles and rooms

''Note: This list is inexhaustive, and serves more as a series of examples for all articles currently on Wikitroid. Still, many do need to be looked into for notability.''

High-concern articles
 * (and variants of B, C, etc.)
 * (and variants of B, C, etc.)
 * (and variants of B, C, etc.)

Low-concern articles

Unconcerned articles

Disussion