The Scan Images...Policy And Placement[]
The unused Scan of the Cargo-bay Doors seen in Docking Bay 5 on the G.F.S. Olympus.
This is the infamous unused scan in Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.
( Correct me if I am wrong, but I believed this goes unused, right?)
Placeholder 3
Now their policy is completely different: see here (by the way, ignore that last part after my signature. This explains that .)
Bottom Line: Besides low definition, should this be in a gallery on the page? Or does the textbox eliminate the point of the scan section? Signed, DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 23:00, May 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I believe it has a purpose. One of the admins can get a higher quality version. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 23:45, May 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I am going to asume that someone around here (besides myself) knows how to aquire this photo, right? Other than leftover data on the disc itself, discovering this secret takes a little...ingenuity... Signed, DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 20:51, May 26, 2019 (UTC)
Keep or no[]
Keep I've already said why on the RfC. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 21:22, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- As have I. What's the point of doing this here right now? These room objects you have been creating were already in conflict and were eligible for deletion when the notability standards were guidelines. You've supported them to become policy, as I have.
- "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."
- The room objects, like cargo-bay doors, have so little information on them that you can discuss them within their localized locations. They don't have anything attached to them that would market them as eligible for their own article, like plot elements or global game progression. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:29, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
- What's the point of doing this? Because the RfC talk page is already so long and discussing this one on there would make it even longer. I said we should make the guidelines rules, but not hard rules. There have to be some exceptions, and even if a bunch of the object pages you named are removed, this one should be an exception for reasons I've already said. These doors do not have "so little information". We have a comprehensive template of all doors in the series and we don't need to exclude these. They appear in multiple rooms. As for restating "that which is in other articles", every article does that to a degree. If these guidelines do become rules, I want the wording of this made more clear. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:50, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Roy, I don't know how much more clear you want to make "without leaving the primary topic." If you take everything an article can present and attempt to place it within a parent article, but then note that it's actually detracting from said article, then yes it's certainly eligible to have it's own. However, half of the cargo-bay door page is repeating their situations within the rooms. All that's left is just their opening animation. We have no information other than what's given within the couple rooms to make it independent. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:25, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- It gets more ambiguous when the object appears in multiple rooms. Landing cradle is a single room object, I'll give you that one. This one appears in multiple rooms, so unless you want to have the same paragraph on all of them... let's let others decide whether this goes. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:42, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Roy, I don't know how much more clear you want to make "without leaving the primary topic." If you take everything an article can present and attempt to place it within a parent article, but then note that it's actually detracting from said article, then yes it's certainly eligible to have it's own. However, half of the cargo-bay door page is repeating their situations within the rooms. All that's left is just their opening animation. We have no information other than what's given within the couple rooms to make it independent. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:25, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- But there wouldn't be the same paragraph with each room. The situation changes with each appearance, so each room is going over it with it's own unique details, not the others. This page is doing nothing more than simply repeating them without being able to supplement substantial additional information. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:11, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- How they look and operate? The mechanisms in them? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:12, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- The terminals are also covered by rooms, even just by the temp scans alone. All that's left is appearance, like "arch that is shaped similarly to a slice of bread". I don't see anything more this can provide. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:17, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- We can de-clone (to use a Smash term) the room pages so that the doors page text is differentiated. With your argument, would you justify removing Mounted Blast Shield, since that only appears in a few rooms? Surely, those room pages can adequately summarize it. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:31, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Except the blast shield has a logbook entry accessible independently to the rooms they're in. It's not much more, no, but having a spot in the logbook gives an edge over localized temp scans. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 05:00, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
I think I see what's going on here...To merge or to separate...that is the question... Signed, DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 02:37, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- It's a long story: Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Curating content --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:41, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
In theory, you could discuss this door on the room pages. However, with this door appearing in multiple rooms, whose articles are already very detailed regarding their appearance and what is in them, it becomes trickier to include. What is the real harm in having this page? You suggest moving a description of the door's appearance to every room page, which is frivolous as it detracts from information about the rooms themselves. Unless you think that isn't worth noting? I believe it is and that we can keep this one. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:19, June 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Bump. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:31, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
There's no harm, but there's no benefit either. It's frivolous to go into extreme detail about the door's bread-like appearance and opening animation, since that's all that can be talked about that isn't already present on their three meager appearances. I don't suggest going into such extreme detail at all on those room descriptions. I suggest a mere sentence or two going over the door, the terminal, and any unique situations to that room (dead marines, as an example) is perfectly fine. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 20:18, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
- We're never going to agree on this page. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 20:55, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
- We're not agreeing on most objects like this. I don't believe there needs to be an article for every minute thing you could potentially write a paragraph on if you fluffed it up enough. There needs to be a line drawn on what actually needs an article and what can still be documented perfectly fine on others. If you follow that same train of thought, then our lines are in different places and we're going to have this exact same back and forth for every single item on the rfc (and for some that aren't on there). --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:47, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
- I think you mean if I don't follow that same train of thought. I will tell you which room object pages I won't fight you on. You already know one, Phazon grass. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:26, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
- We're not agreeing on most objects like this. I don't believe there needs to be an article for every minute thing you could potentially write a paragraph on if you fluffed it up enough. There needs to be a line drawn on what actually needs an article and what can still be documented perfectly fine on others. If you follow that same train of thought, then our lines are in different places and we're going to have this exact same back and forth for every single item on the rfc (and for some that aren't on there). --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:47, June 20, 2019 (UTC)
- No I meant exactly what I said. If you're considering what pages need to be made and what can be talked about without creating one, then your limits/line are different than mine. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:35, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
It's easier to tell you which pages I will not concede: Power cables, Electrical system, Exposed membrane, Metal panels, Aurora Unit access doors, Energy Generator (Energy generators page can be merged with it), Cargo-bay doors, Mechanical hatch, Stone structure, Door lock system, Power node, Tall Chozo structure, Cannon (Zipline Station Bravo), Chozo DNA, Thorned roots and Chest plate. Doc has also voiced support for keeping the Cannon page and improving it. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:53, June 21, 2019 (UTC)
Still don't know why you're bringing these up here. Also I don't feel like repeating myself more, so what I said before about bay doors applies to those: no need to have a separate page when all their documentation is covered on a parent article. Also the generator pages have nothing in common besides the phrase, they don't belong together. --Madax the Shadow {ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:03, June 21, 2019 (UTC)