Changes: Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Curating content

Revision as of 00:30, 30 October 2019

This Requests for Comment was closed on 00:30, October 30, 2019 (UTC) by Madax the Shadow. Implement Wikitroid:Room policy, create "List of rooms in [Game]/[Region]" pages, and solidify Notability RFC guidelines into proper policy/ruling. Please do not modifiy it.

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 fledge 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.

New notability guidelines

The following items are intended to be an alternate way to look at the existing 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.

The subject has little to no gameplay elements or interactions.
There is little to no direct, first-party information given on or by the subject.
The subject has no explicit, proper name directly viewable in first-party media.
The subject has low recurrence within a Metroid game or the series.
The subject holds little to no remarkable importance to a Metroid game or the series in terms of story, mechanics, progression, or community.
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 thorned roots 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, destructable 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:

Are the guidelines and policies currently in place sufficient, or do you think additional policies/guidance are needed?
If the latter, what do you think about these particular guidelines?

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 • logs • contribs) 01:43, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Existing notability guidelines

The following is present to give a reference to the existing guidelines as well as provoke consideration and discussions for what they were intended to accomplish.

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?

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

Ship-upgrade system

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

Industrial-grade pesticide
Save Station A (and variants of B, C, etc.)

Low-concern articles

Unconcerned articles

Guidelines discussion

For additional existing discussion reference, please see below. ->

Talk:Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level)
Talk:Arachnus' room
Talk:Dessgeega-infested hall

Live chat on IRC/Discord

# Log extract from #wikia-metroid from Sat 16 Feb 2019 16:13:26 to Sat 16 Feb 2019 19:40:19 (PST, UTC-08:00)
# Messages with (edited) are showing as they appear on Discord
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> this list of articles is absurd. i'm not getting into rooms yet, just objects (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> did the notability rfc mean nothing?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> That was primarily for stuff like Bee, Epidermis and Carbon, where it was purely words
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The resolution got rid of those, but wasn't very well defined
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> did you read the deletion policy?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> I can see your point about room objects, but not the rooms
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> The following were made eligible for deletion via the Notability RfC. Note that these are not hard rules and articles that are examples of these will be determined on a case by case basis.
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> 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.
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> what prompted creating these things
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> ðŸ¤· Spontaneity?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> If that's a word
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> its understandable if it isnt' (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Why don't you make a list of the articles you take issue with?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i am
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's why i mentioned sublime text
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> {{#ifexist:pagetitle|[[pagetitle]]|pagetitle}}
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that way don't have to go back and remove links for anything that gets deleted
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> see, this is fine
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Ship-upgrade_system
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i have no issues with this
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> its a one room object, with a complicated system and unique feature
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> but this
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Battery_unit
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> this is more than capable within it's room
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> @Bearborg i'd hate to ask such a task, but there's apparently quite a few rooms in the 1st and 3rd games that don't have scans properly filled out. don't have working controllers for trilogy right now, any way you would use dolphin to collect the information?
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> dolphin no, PrimeWorldEditor yes
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> got a list?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> nope
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> all i know is that prime 2 is complete
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> or should be, seems later areas have scans but i don't remember finishing it since its been years
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_rooms_in_Metroid_Prime https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_rooms_in_Metroid_Prime_3%3A_Corruption
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> welllllllp that'll take a while to go through
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> i'll give it a shot though
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> yeah, it took me a while for echoes
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> apparently i missed these things too
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Bigbug
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> From deletion policy: 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.
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> That is very different from a stationary rafflesia flower in Brinstar
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> how so? do you interact with it? does it affect gameplay? do we have anything besides the model and internal file name?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> the notability rfc was made specifically for cases like this, and the resulting addition to the deletion policy to branch out into any topic that has little information or is better suited in an existing article
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> is a single image with a caption specifying its location and/or behavior too little info on something that exists in the background?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Yes it is, this is clearly a living creature and not some little flower
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Anyone else have something to comment?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> "flora, fauna, and structures..."
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> fauna means living creatures
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Let me ask you this: if I wrote a page for the big Pyrosphere room with the glass tube, where the Vorash tries to eat you, and called it Multilevel room (which it is called in the guide), would you take issue with it?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> yes
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Because of the name? Is it the names that are your main issue, or the relevancy? Or both
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> here's an excerpt from the list i'm making
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> These rooms add little unique information deviating from their parent subjects' articles, have indistinctive unreferential names, or hold no important events relating to game or story progression.
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that room is easily described in two or three sentences on vorash
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Uh, no
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> It has items, and other enemies, and puzzles
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> You can't cover that on Vorash's page
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's what this rfc is going to help decide about
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> because i'm also going to make a list about previous articles that would take issue
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Which is nearly all room articles with this logic
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> such as inter-area transports in primes, industrial grade pesticide, etc.
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> this is going to be a major curating on what we present and how we do it
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> we avoided making 2d rooms this long for this very reason
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> You created that page (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i did
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> and it's in conflict with what we're re-deciding on
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> it's not only mentioned in a single room, but can also be briefly mentioned (if even) on a hazard/poison page without detracting from the topic of said page (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> A general hazard and poison page?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> mmhmm
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> we have room lists
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Which list off room articles, yes
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> metroid cycle
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Or do you want all rooms merged with those lists?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> for the primes? no
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> you would have to carry over the scan information
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> and it would make a giant wall of text
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> These have no issues with presenting unique information, have distinct referential names, or hold important events relating to game or story progression.
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> A hazard and poison page is a wall of text
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> hardly
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> look at special:longpages
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> prime scans would dwarf everything
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Alpha_Metroid_chamber https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Alpha%27s_chamber here's some indistinctive unreferential titles
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> alpha's chamber, alpha metroid chamber
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Well, we could easily change one to a conjectural title that's different
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> gonna have to do that quite a bit if i'm going to even consider these non issue right now
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> how about water-filled tank
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> is that room or an object
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> it's not listed anywhere in the game
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> A room
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> There's a Cryosphere room (named ingame) called Water Tank
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Would you get rid of that? Or Room MW? This proposal of yours is a slippery slope (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> "The hall in the next room is a long water-filled tank. Drop into the Skultera-filled water and fight your way past the Skulteras and Frondanas in the water." (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> how exactly is it a slippery slope? i'm trying to curate our content. just because we can make it doesn't mean we should
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> this isn't just for recent articles, this is for Save station A-Z
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> this is for giving our information in a better presentation (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> for crying out loud, there's a red link for small passageway
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Doesn't mean we have to call it that
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's what you were going to
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's what you've been doing
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's what peaboddy has been doing
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> I can use conjectural names, but I thought if I could avoid that, I would
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> these are conjectural names
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> taking a brief description and calling it a name is conjectural naming (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Well I don't believe it is
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The names themselves are unimaginative, yes, but it's not conjecture on our part
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> you're okay with people navigating our site with articles titled water-filled room
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> we have complete control over article titles and content
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> How is that any different from Watery Hall
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> using descriptions that were never meant to be names from a third party strategy guide is conjectural naming
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> it's explicitly, distinctly, named by retro in game, viewable on the map screen
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> And the same goes for Water Tank, Room MW and Breeding Room?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> none of those rooms state their sources of their names. were they named in game? translated (if so from where)?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The names appear on screen when you enter them
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Also, the words Room MW come out of Adam's mouth
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> then yes, they are the same as Watery Hall
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> '''Unconcerned articles''' These have no issues with presenting unique information, have distinct referential names, or hold important events relating to game or story progression.
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Let me know if the page I created just now falls under your umbrella, even though I use a conjectural name
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i thought i asked to hold off on creating these things
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> That will be my last one
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> couldn't have instead shared it here first
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Hadn't thought of that, too late now I suppose
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> You hear the points that Peabody and I have made, right?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> a much better title (i'll disregard the fact you put it as a proper noun for now) however, being an unnamed room that bears no gameplay, story, or community significance,  why should it exist?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Again, if you're going by lack of gameplay, story and community significance you'll end up removing a lot of access room pages
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Including those with actual names
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that depends on what we define in the rfc
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> @Bearborg thoughts on any of this?
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> gotta side with madax for the most part, i think we've really gotten over the top with articles for uninteresting rooms/objects
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> i do personally think we should keep info for background critters like bigbug, but i wouldn't be averse to merging a lot of those into a single page per game or per planet or something
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Bigbug and Bugcrystal should not be merged
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> As for proper noun, if I'd called it "Arching passageway" or "Small arching passageway", as it's named in the guide, you would've told me it's not a name
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> <s>why would they merge? one exists in areas 2 5 and 6, the other in area 4.</s> see what you meant (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Wikitroid%3ARequests_for_Comment/Descriptive_Names
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> "Descriptive names must be treated within text as conventional nouns, not proper nouns." (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> "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." (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> I wouldn't rely on anything Piratehunter said
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Or Complete Supremacy, aka Insurgence
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Neither of them are credible or trustworthy, as we've learned (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> are you saying those points are invalid
< LizardDiscord> <Bearborg> i might not be up-to-date on the piratehunter drama but him being a wackjob doesn't mean every policy he proposed is unreasonable
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Didn't you say this RfC turned into a shouting match?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> What points did he raise? This drama is not something you want to know about, Bear, trust me
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> it did, but it still brought up important points that, when people did actually participate with, provided agreement or critique to make it better (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> (for the most part. only one person disagreed)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Can you name such points?
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> All I see is him bashing ChozoBoy
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> Comment: Difficult to tell what the Agree/Disagree positions are. I'd like to see descriptive names kept, maybe with template disclaimers. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 23:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> Agree: I think we need some guidlines for these names. Some of them can get a bit ridiculous. HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (Talkâ€¢Contribs) 12:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> Comment: One possible solution to the template issue is to forgo the template and simply put the bolded name in quotation marks. That may or may not work, but I would like it to be considered. (It also makes me think of a quote, possibly from Dean Stockewll: "You know you have a good compromise when both parties walk away feeling screwed".....) "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message."
< LizardDiscord> 21, 2011 (UTC)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> Comment: As for the real matter on hand, I think that descriptors are important when they help distinguish between certain articles, but I don't like the fact that we need a "the" and "a" on every article. It takes up space and newer users when creating links might link to articles that don't exist. Then we have to reprimand said user and fix the problem. While it doesn't take up a lot of time, it 
< LizardDiscord> efficient. I quite like the ULFs because they're easy to link to and the most professional name that we can give to them. Complete Supremacy 21:52, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The last one is what we do now for conjectural names
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> <s>and in response to that last one</s> nevermind wrong one was striked out (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Well, he was wrong about the ULFs being professional (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> His edits here (Complete Supremacy) were purely as a cover to continue harassing me
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i don't see how unidentified substance 2 is professional
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> compared to getting a thought-out, proper designation
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Gah, I meant to write professional
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The ULF names were unprofessionl
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> ðŸ‘
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> regardless, the fact that you so easily disregard these guidelines that would help the wiki if followed shows that we need a new one (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> If you're going to do an RfC, then you'll have to make sure it's clear what is being proposed, and be open to change
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> pretty much
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> that's the point of how they're supposed to go
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Yes, but historically they have not
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> because everyone was too busy being a dick to each other
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Also, nobody votes on them unless you push them to, and then Lizard tells me not to "canvas" when I do
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> saw an announcement thing on the admin dashboard
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> might try that and see how it works
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The admin dashboard here? I don't have access to that
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i mean its probably a bad idea to give site-wide notice priviliges to nonadmins
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Fine, but expect that you may have to push people to vote on it
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> we got time until prime 4 comes out
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Otherwise it'll still be up in a year like our 3 RfDs
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> those do need to be closed, i think one of them hasn't gotten any attention and isn't particularly a good candidate
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> The disambig?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> no, there's another one
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> turbo bomb
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> none of its points are actually true
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> expands content that both bomb jump and sequence breaking glance over, and other pages link to it (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> it's also community term
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Nobody's voted on it, and I would agree with you on its merits, so the RfD should be closed
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> So why did you delete that disambig with only a single vote in favor of removing it?
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> I do see your point. All right, so this disambig is a weak example and we don't really need it. But I think this sort of thing should be decided on a case by case basis. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:33, November 6, 2018 (UTC) (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Never mind
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> https://metroid.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Artifact_Temple_(Disambiguation) make sure you take this out too then
< LizardDiscord> <Siriacus> Wow, I missed a lot while I was at work
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> indeed
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> feel free to leave a comment or wait for the rfc
< LizardDiscord> <MadaxTheShadow> i'll be including logs from here so there's more context to work with
(edited)
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Basically I want these room articles to stay, we can debate about room objects, but I don't see the harm in room pages
< LizardDiscord> <Siriacus> Regarding the Bigbug creatures, I think those are deserving of their own articles, personally.
< LizardDiscord> <RoyboyX> Agreed
< LizardDiscord> <Siriacus> Especially since as a Wiki weâ€™re supposed to document every creature in the series, both of the critters qualify imo
< LizardDiscord> <Siriacus> Whether they impact gameplay really shouldn’t matter, as long as they’re individual entities that move on their own (edited)
< LizardDiscord> <Siriacus> Now, pages for 2D rooms, on the other hand... eh

As RFC creator, I support the proposed guidelines as replacements to better convey the purpose of the existing notability guidelines. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:49, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the existing criteria for the most part. However, I strongly feel that deleting articles on entities that move independent of the scenery, like Bigbug and the Maintenance Units, would be going too far. After all, they're still unique alien creatures and robots that exist only in the Metroid series, and in my opinion merit their own articles, regardless of whether they significantly affect gameplay. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 04:05, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Need to sleep early for work, but I will add my full rebuttal here tomorrow night. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:14, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

We're basically dedicating an entire article to a temporary scan that is two sentences long in regards to maintenance unit. Seems a bit excessive for background scenery. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:40, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

These are just my initial thoughts on the RfC.

I want to ask for clarification, what counts as "first-party" when we are using sourced titles? Does Nintendo Power (and therefore guidebooks like Metroid: Zero Mission: The Official Nintendo Player's Guide) count? Does Prima Games (and therefore guidebooks like Metroid: Other M Premiere Edition) count? While we don't count most third-party publications (e.g. GamePro) as official sources, we do cite Prima a lot as a trustworthy source for articles like Yakuza, Whipvine, Fleech Swarm, etc. (while also applying common sense, in instances like Metroid Prime and Metroid Fusion: Prima's Official Strategy Guide screwing up a ton of common enemy names).

As for the proposed guidelines themselves... I like the idea behind them, that they're supposed to guide an editor through some critical thought whether a subject is notable enough to deserve an article. Unfortunately... I think they are not necessarily that effective, leaving gray area open to interpretation that doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

For example, take a look at TPO. I know it's an enemy and not a room or object, but let's just see how it fares with these guidelines. By default of being an enemy, it is interactive in gameplay (1.), but it's a very simple and basic enemy that flies back and forth in a manner identical to many other enemies (Yumbo, Pincher Fly, etc.) from the same game, so there isn't anything unique about its role in gameplay (i.e. it is the enemy equivalent of a straight hallway with nothing in it). There is very little first-party info (2.) available on TPO; in fact, there are exactly two English sentences, both of which are alternative localizations of a single Japanese sentence. It does have an explicit proper name in first-party media (3.), but this is the only point that it undeniably passes. It is found only in a single room in a single game (4.), and didn't appear in the remake or even in the artbook (which contains artwork of other enemies left out of the remake)! Again, it is a very simple and basic minor enemy that holds no significance in the overall game or series (5.). At this current time, though, I don't think that its info can be easily stated elsewhere (6.), but there is always the potential for creating an article for minor enemies or Chozo robots and simply merging this one into that list.

In conclusion, TPO would most likely fail to qualify as an article based on these guidelines. It only undeniably passes one point (3.); two points (1. and 6.) are a grey area; and it outright fails three points (2., 4., and 5.). If these notability guidelines were strictly enforced, I'd say that TPO should be deleted. But, I think we can all agree that TPO shouldn't be deleted, for a multitude of various reasons.

In that case, how effective are these guidelines really? At what point do we have people ignoring them because "They're more like guidelines than actual rules"?

Now, let's look at Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level), since that seems to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. As a room, it has multiple gameplay elements and interactions (1.), including enemies, hazards, obstacles, puzzles, items, and stations. It doesn't have first-party info (2.) or a proper name (3.), which are admittedly the biggest points against it. It appears in two games (already giving us the ability to compare and contrast its appearances in the two games), and while that might not sound like very much, the fact that it contains a Teleport Station gives it the valuable potential for being one of the most frequently-visited rooms in Samus Returns, comparable to the gunship landing sites from Corruption (4.). Again, having a Teleport Station gives it significance within Samus Returns, and in addition to its aforementioned gameplay elements, it also introduces new aesthetics and music that make it stand out while progressing through the game (5.). The last point, whether its info could be concisely stated on another page (6.), is debatable; personally, I think we have more to lose from deleting the article than we have to gain from merging it, since it has enough information to stand on its own as a room article.

In contrast, there's "Wallfire hall", which I've cited as an example of a room article that I will not write. Again, as a room, it has gameplay elements and interactions (1.), but it's just a short and simple hallway with two Black Wallfires, and that's it. Again, it lacks first-party info (2.) or a proper name (3.). Unlike the water-filled room, the Wallfire hall may be exclusive to just one game (4.), since I honestly cannot determine if it has a direct counterpart in the original Return of Samus (due to the altered layout of Area 2 vs. Phase 3), and it isn't a room that the player will likely be revisiting often in Samus Returns. The only notable thing about the room is that it leads directly to the Varia Suit's room, but there isn't anything special or noteworthy about the Wallfire hall itself (5.). Since there is so little information, any info could be sufficiently stated on other pages (6.).

I've said before that I carefully evaluate a potential article's content before writing it. It's through this line of thought that I personally came to the conclusion that Wallfire hall doesn't deserve its own article... but the water-filled room does. In a way, that means that I'm already running these guidelines through my head, but that's largely using common sense. If I can sum it all up in just a paragraph, it doesn't deserve an article. If I have enough info that I can write a decent article, then why shouldn't I write that article? --PeabodySam (talk) 17:04, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

First party is any media directly published by Nintendo, including games, manuals, videos, websites, and certain strategy guides (Nintendo Power as an example). Developer interviews are also classified as first party. Third party is any media not directly published by Nintendo but still endorsed by them, including strategy guide companies like Prima Games. Regarding Prima Games, they became the leading publisher but they are by no means a reliable source of information outside of, well, the walkthrough guide. You said yourself we had to correct many things from the Prime/Fusion guide, and they also botched information in the Samus Returns guide.

You're right about TPO, there's not much information to it. Right now it's perfectly fine under the existent notability guidelines, but has problems with the proposed ones. Do you think we should keep the current ones, then? Or, since you said you like the idea behind the new ones, what do you propose be changed about the proposed in order to better help enemies like it? Perhaps certain entries should have more weight?

Water-filled room was merely the first one I saw. The "proverbial straw" was when I saw everything as a collective, not one particular scenario or from one particular person. I've stated elsewhere and go into more detail a suggestion about rooms being expanded upon in lists, then having certain ones that hold particular notability be given a main article. This would help document maps while still giving rooms that deserve a spotlight a chance. Still, I don't see why a teleport station and music/scenery change needs much more that a couple sentences and a picture can accomplish, along with the region description at the top of the room list. Still up for debate though. Regardless, I do thank you for curating your own content. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 08:31, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

After Nintendo Power was shut down, Prima Games became the primary publisher of Nintendo strategy guides. Sure, they sucked at accuracy with the Prime and Fusion guide, but they got better over time. The Samus Returns guide, while I haven't read it in full, appears to be a significant improvement in quality.

The reason I'm mentioning this is in response to Peabody's question about what is considered a first-party source. Prima should be considered as such. As he said, we've used them to great length in the past, acknowledging when a name isn't accurate or erroneous, such as Elephant Bird. That is clearly a mistranslation, and it's noted as such on the page while still being used as its name. We do the same with Varia Suit, an obvious mistranslation of "Barrier Suit" that has stuck.

Let me properly start off my rebuttal by saying that I am quite sick and tired of the "It's a description" argument. That has been used very arbitrarily to refer to certain pages as flawed and an excuse not to create the article, or to remove it if it is created. Let me name off some examples of pages that could be considered to have "descriptions" for titles, but that nobody has raised an issue with: android, bioweapon, bioform, biomorph and bliptrans. If Watery Hall or Exam Center are proper nouns, and those five are not, what's to stop them from being considered descriptions? Do we merge those? What do we merge them with?

I'll be very blunt and add that I will not allow Bigbug, one of the pages you've tagged as "high concern", to be merged. I simply will not allow it. The background creatures in Samus Returns have garnered much fan interest, and there are scores of forums, tweets and communications discussing them, what they are and whether you can fight them. Bigbug02 in particular is very popular. You can't relegate something like that to a section. A little mushroom that grows on a tree stump, without extra information attached to it, yes, that is something you would merge. As for maintenance unit, if you do away with that you'll also have to off our Bird and Fish pages; again, both of those have amassed interest as well. Admittedly, the maintenance unit has not, but it appears in lots of rooms throughout the Sanctuary Fortress, it's ubiquitous. If the article name is an issue, I'm sure Bearborg can easily find an internal name to replace it.

I question why you've listed Industrial-grade pesticide - a page you created, I might add - as "high concern". It is not a Bigfoot and Santa Claus situation. I could be grossly misinformed, but to my knowledge there is no gaseous pesticide anywhere in the world. Any pesticides I've seen or used (I haven't used one, what am I saying) are in spray bottles and applied directly to the surface of an object, rather than dispersed as a gas through vents. For this reason, I think of it like the water and cow articles, cited as examples of articles that cover subjects which exist in real life, but provide a significant role in Metroid. Having said that, this pesticide is only scenery in the game, but it did serve a purpose to the marines stationed in the Splinter Hive. Can you also explain why SR388's solar system and Docking Bays would be of any concern at all?

Of the non-room objects you've listed as high concern, I particularly dispute Power cables, Tall Chozo structure, Cannon (Zipline Station Bravo), Chiton armor and Thorned roots. Well, I dispute them all really, but those in particular. This is due to their recurrence and uniqueness. Now, admittedly Energy generators could get a merge into Energy Generator. That's fine. But you cannot say that Tall Chozo structure is too short and has no data to back it up. It has a cameo in Smash Bros., official data from what you call a first-party source, and is unique enough among other Chozo statuary to receive its own mention. That leads me to another question: I've been calling this RfC an article cull, but is it? Is the goal to wipe these pages out if there's a result in your favor? Or significant reworking? As we debate, is it possible for some of these articles to be removed from the list? I would like to know this.

Onto the real reason this RfC was started: rooms in 2 or 2.5D Metroid games. Years ago we created articles for every room in the Metroid Prime series, which assigns a name to each room in the map, while the 2D and 2.5D ones are more selective with their naming. Your argument has been that a lot of these rooms can be summarized in a paragraph or a sentence on a relevant article. One example of why this wouldn't work is an article that I was planning to write, but was told by you to hold off on: Multilevel room. That's what the Other M guide calls the big room in the Pyrosphere with the glass tube, in which the Vorash tries to eat you, and later on you explore the superheated part of the room and the Vorash chases you. Your argument was that this room could be mentioned in a single sentence on the Vorash's page. No, it cannot. The Vorash is not the only notable thing about this room. There is that tube, there are Mellas, Magdollites, a hidden sensor puzzle, Grapple Points and numerous other features. You can't mention all of that on Vorash's article, for the same reason you can't merge Blast Furnace Observation, the room where you fight the Vorash, into its article. It is not a barren corridor with nothing in it, it's a hub area for the Pyrosphere. That alone makes it significant. Only problem is, it doesn't have a proper noun for a name.

Speaking of barren corridors, to quote Nikki Haley, you can't split the cow. You can't skip a few rooms because you think they're not as important as, say, Room MW or Proving Grounds. That's why we have articles like Temple Transport C, Hub Access and the various Save, Map, Ammo and Missile Station rooms. Now, I'm not saying I plan or want to write pages for every room in Other M, or Samus Returns, nay, the entire 2D series, but when I do write a room page, I should be allowed to. The reason I used these "descriptions" in page titles was to avoid having to make up conjectural names if I could. Crooked corridor in terms of an article name is not so different from Collapsed Tunnel. The only difference is that due to the spelling of Collapsed Tunnel's name, it's considered a proper noun. I created Experiment Floor Access with that title, only because had I used the guide's name for it, "arching passageway", you would've protested. You still did, but as I said, I wanted to avoid using conjectural names when possible.

What is this RfC really going to accomplish, aside from potentially erasing hours of writing and analysis of each room, and careful consideration of differences between games for SR388 rooms? Is the goal to possibly have a list of rooms in each 2D game? Like the Fusion one here? This list in its current form could only be edited by a single user, Asereje 144, who isn't a regular editor anymore, because he created the formatting and style, and insists on each room referencing technical data. A large list of rooms like that will only serve to cause bloat and be an eyesore, whereas individual room pages would make more sense. Again, this doesn't mean that every Other M, Return of Samus/Samus Returns or other 2D game room should or will get a page, but if there's information to write about them, and a name (sorry, description) to call it, then why shouldn't we?

The key takeaway in the previous debate about article guidelines is they are exactly that - guidelines, not hard rules. Also, it was unproductive and inconclusive. It devolved into a screaming match between Piratehunter and Complete Supremacy, aka Insurgence and a whole lot of other names. Putting those two aside, the guidelines implemented after that RfC are subjective and arbitrarily applied. There are lots of other articles for objects that were not listed among those of concern - examples that come to mind include Magma-eruption port, Colossal War Golem and Massive tentacle. Would you consider them dispensable? The former is a plot-central object, the second is involved in a significant puzzle, and the latter is on par with Bigbug in my view. People would and do look for that article.

The tendency of some users of this wiki to be very strict with regards to how we consider whether a subject has a name or a description, and that names must be official, is why the Unknown Naming System was such a disaster, and why I made the RfC to scrap it. Certain objects will be very difficult or impossible to get "proper noun" names for, due to a variety of factors, so we shouldn't use that as reason to limit what articles we make or edit. Instead of arguing about the semantics of names, we should continue to improve the wiki and add content to it to cover off as many aspects of the games and universe as we can. That is my rebuttal. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 20:44, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

* When I say "you", I'm speaking directly to the RfC's creator, Madax the Shadow.

Excuse my brevity, can't exactly sit down and respond to everything just yet, but I figured I'd address one part in particular. I didn't realize List of rooms in Metroid Fusion had been started and thought we had only done the ones from Prime. The format that's on that page is actually pretty solid for all rooms, even Prime's. Section off rooms by regions into subpages, and it would serve as a good list without the need to try to separate what rooms are notable enough and still list all the needed information. Keeping scans under hidden elements in addition to the region sectioning would prevent them from causing the lists to overflow with text. Keep in mind I'm not trying to delete information, I want to organize it. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 03:07, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Side note: even if you can't access debug information, the lists can still be expanded. There's nothing wrong with adding what you can to improve an article. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 03:10, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure combining all rooms into a list like List of rooms in Metroid Fusion is necessarily a good solution. When I (rhetorically, just to make a point) suggested doing exactly that with just the Prime scan data (not even the rooms themselves) on Talk:Arachnus' room, you immediately said it was a bad idea. Even if we divide the list into multiple subpages for each area, that's still a lot of rooms (and scans, along with other data like enemies and items) to cover for each page. And not just for the Prime games; for example, Area 1 (one of the smallest SR388 areas) has 36 rooms in Samus Returns, and while several of them are small and certainly don't deserve their own articles, that's still going to be 36 sections covered on a single page. And then how would we handle the rooms that are combined, split, added, or removed (assuming it isn't ambiguous) between remakes? I could see this potentially being a real mess.

Additionally, the Fusion room list article also makes no distinction between officially-named rooms (like Quarantine Bay) and unofficially-named rooms (like Quarantine Bay Access) besides a very brief disclaimer at the beginning of article saying that most rooms are unofficially named, and yet we still have four sections titled "No Name Room" because Asereje 144 couldn't come up with a descriptive name for them. Super Metroid is the only game with a devoted enough fanbase to come up with a nickname for every single room; the other 2D games (and Other M) don't have that luxury.

That being said, there could potentially be instances where a series of rooms can be covered by a single page. We already do this with Corridor No. 3 and Subterranean Control Room, for example. I was also considering expanding second tower corridor to cover all three tower corridors, rather than creating separate pages for the first and third tower corridors (which aren't as notable as the second). But, like I said, this should only be reserved for when it makes sense to combine a particular series of closely-linked rooms. --PeabodySam (talk) 18:55, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Peabody's points here. A large list of rooms would be too huge and too messy; individual room articles as we do now is better. A question I asked in my rebuttal, that hasn't been responded to yet, is whether articles can be removed from the list here if we come to a consensus that they should stay. I'd like to make a case for retaining the Mechanical hatch page. You may consider the title to be a "description" (again, an arbitrary label), but the subject is unique enough on its own to warrant a page, it plays a role in the story (albeit a minor one) and it is not a stub.

I'd also like to hear Peabody's thoughts concerning Mechanical hatch, as well as two other articles discussed here so far, Bigbug and Maintenance unit. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:00, February 24, 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm indifferent to pages like Mechanical hatch; I concede that it can easily be merged with Aurora Chamber (SkyTown), but I also think there's little harm in keeping the article as long as there's enough relevant content to document. As for Maintenance unit, I think the page is currently rather short and could use some expansion detailing the units' role and behavior; for example, can Samus shoot and destroy them (it's been a while since I've played Echoes, so I can't remember)?

I'm actually rather surprised by the fact that so many people have voiced support for keeping Bigbug. Then again, perhaps it isn't without precedent; we've had a page for Deceased Soldier for years despite it being a non-interactive background object without any real significance, simply because fans think it's an interesting subject worth documenting. But, the reason I'm perplexed is Siriacus strongly supporting Bigbug while expressing only an indifferent "eh" to the 2D rooms, which have much more potential for documenting useful information about gameplay. If you support Bigbug but not rooms, may I ask why?

That being said, I do not believe that these articles are causing any significant damage to the professionalism of Wikitroid, contrary to Madax's argument. The descriptive names, while perhaps generic or redundant, are clearly not on the level of "white squiggly things". The content of most of these articles surpasses the single sentence of "large lava pit arena". I've also previously argued that concerns about low reader traffic should not be held against an article; that would be like saying "We shouldn't have an article for Zuru because who even cares about a minor creature from Other M?" Therefore, I still do not see this RfC as an issue that must be solved by deleting/merging these articles with descriptive titles en masse. --PeabodySam (talk) 21:21, February 24, 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned in a rather long post in this comment tree detailing more of my designs for what they could be (including prime scans). There's always room for improvement, but if the idea of a page like MF rooms is messy, than what is MP rooms since it's just a list of links and might as well be a category. I personally don't see why a description of a room with a small picture is messy when it's in an ordered list. Maybe I'm blind, please tell me where y'all see issues with it. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 08:31, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

First, I'm gonna say that after reading your response, it's clear that I either failed to properly present this RFC or you didn't read specific notes that I often repeated throughout the entire thing. For example, right above my signature at the top where I ended the first section detailing the purpose of this RFC: "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."

Anyways, primary publisher does not mean first party, it just means biggest endorsement. They are not under Nintendo's publishing, therefore they are third party. And the thing that did get improved I assume is the guide itself, since that's the thing they're best at, but I've shared before regarding their lore sections that they still have issues. Hell, they even used our Rock icicle which was a descriptive name in the likes of thorned roots, except they weren't even icicles. I mean seriously, you want that as a first party source of information?

There's a difference between descriptions, umbrella terms, and proper nouns. Android covers a variety of subjects and isn't just a description. Watery Hall is a proper noun, that's the entire reason why it isn't considered a description. Concerning bigbug, I can't know everything. I can't know what people think about this. If you can show me how popular this is, sure, I don't mind if it stays. That's the entire reason there's going to be a second discussion to go over items like it. Same with bird and fish. I've stated earlier that maintenance unit's article is basically going over its two sentence scan, plus the fact it exists in a few locations within Sanctuary Fortress and that they don't exactly do anything. At least you can shoot birds and they explode in a cloud of feathers. Again, that's something that can be gone over in detail.

However, that's not the point of this part of the RFC. You've yet to address what I asked in bold and is the main question of this RFC: are the guidelines and policies currently in place sufficient, or do you think additional policies/guidance are needed? If the latter, what do you think about these particular guidelines? The notablity RFC was actually pretty successful and conclusive. Looking through the discussion, I'm wondering where it "devolved into a screaming match"? Unless you mean the one for descriptive names, which was only really opposed by you? I'm actually trying to see why you opposed it. It wasn't about not doing fan names, it was about addressing "treating these descriptors identically to proper names has proven largely unsuccessful and somewhat confusing". Ignoring an entire debate because of a single outburst by an old crass b'crat is hardly logical, particularly when it's purpose was for the better of the wiki.

"Certain objects will be very difficult or impossible to get "proper noun" names for, due to a variety of factors, so we shouldn't use that as reason to limit what articles we make or edit. Instead of arguing about the semantics of names, we should continue to improve the wiki and add content to it to cover off as many aspects of the games and universe as we can."

I want to improve the wiki, to add content to cover the games and universe. Yes, the scrapping of the ULF system was for the better, and so was the addition of notability and descriptive names and every other RFC we began. They were made to fine tune how the wiki and its contents are operated. You can't ignore certain ones to make it more convenient, they were created for a purpose.

Going over some other points, yes I created industrial-grade pesticide. Before the notability guidelines were created. And yeah, it's actually considered scenery under the current ones, and regarding the new ones, it does nothing in regards to Samus and just needs passing notes as being implemented by the marines on the task force article (which could use a bit of reformatting), splinter hive, or the like. Since you ask, here's the Wikipedia article on pesticide; there's more than just bug spray.

Docking Bays and SR388 solar system were given as examples for articles that, like Peabody mentioned with TPO, don't have much to do with gameplay, still have merits. Or at least what my skewed ideas of merits are. Perhaps "concern" was a poor word choice? I was just showing there's certain things we could expand on. For example, let's dive into Docking Bays and List of rooms in Metroid Fusion.

Looking at what's currently completed on the MF room list, I personally think it looks great compared to the likes of a generic list of rooms with absolutely no information or pictures. Yeah, the user that had started working on it had access to all the debug information, which is interesting to have but it's not necessary for someone else to contribute. Yep, they also titled some rooms as simply "unnamed room", which again is quite easy to fix with some decent descriptive names. For certain rooms we decide could need a bit more context, we can add a "Main article: room name" in addition to its brief description on the list where we have said room as a separate article.

How about boss rooms, particularly those that's literally just a box than get some enemies later on? Would you think a brief description and picture on a regional list be effective enough? Or do we need another separate article to detail a Dessgeega-infested hall? Even elevators and teleport stations can be linked together on their brief descriptions. We could improve the Prime lists by using that system. Individual save station rooms just need a brief description, while rooms that end up having lots of scan data get an additional article. Rooms like Habitation Deck might be able to hold their own article too, if we deem them necessary.

That would help resolve some issues while still covering everything Metroid. But while we cover everything Metroid, we don't need to inflate ourselves so much. Why does chiton armor, a misspelling from the Samus Returns Prima guide and merely part of the Omega Metroid exoskeleton, need an entirely separate misnamed article. Why do power cables need to be expanded upon in an entirely separate article from their parent page? Why do any of them need to? The structure is barely above scenery level with it's platforms, just barely. But why is that needed. I'm getting off topic, that's not what this part is for. That's for later.

Did I get everything? I don't think so. But going over everything you mentioned means going over the entire wiki, which is not something I'm doing in a single post. Please go back over and read the RFC. This isn't just some "article cull" that you seem to have vehemently been driven to believe. If you consider deletion, a part of curating that's just as mandatory at times as spellchecking, an issue then we might have to go over more than just a couple sets of guidelines. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 08:31, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

I’ve actually been planning on doing an expansion of the Maintenance Unit page when I have the time; there’s a lot of important stuff that could be added.

As for why I’m so in favor of keeping articles for creatures like Bigbug, I think we should also take into account whether a subject is unique to the series, as is the case with most alien creatures in the games. They may not be relevant to the gameplay per se, but they’re still creatures in the universe, and even in the case of unnamed creatures we still have filenames to use. Personally, I think that we should give as much attention to the universe of the series as to its gameplay, but feel free to disagree with me there.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to having articles for 2D rooms, because it’s not like their notability is in question. The only issue I have is that we don’t really have proper, non-conjectural names for most of them. With unnamed creatures like the Bigbugs we at least have tangible filenames that function decently enough as stand-in names, but for most 2D rooms we can’t really find better titles than “that room with all the Rippers in it”. So if any fan goes out searching for a particular 2D room, they’re not going to know what to search for unless they already know what we call them, because any number of names could apply to that particular room, or other similar rooms. If a plurality of people are in favor of creating articles for 2D rooms, I’m not against it, but I think it may be difficult with most names being conjectural at best.

Overall, though, I agree with Peabody that most of the articles called into question should remain intact, as they do not negatively affect the Wiki at all. Really generic ones like “power cables” can probably be removed, but the majority I think are doing no harm by continuing to exist. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 06:57, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

As more room pages get created, it's likely we'd make navigation templates for them as we have with the Prime rooms. Peabody's already prepared such templates, and I overhauled the BOTTLE SHIP template to serve such a purpose. If a reader searches for one of the named rooms in Other M (for example, Room MW, BOTTLE SHIP Residential Area or Subterranean Control Room), they can then use that to determine which "descriptively" rooms are which. The item lists can also link to room pages. "Descriptive" names can be used if they make sense, and otherwise we can use conjectural ones. Again, I wanted to avoid doing that as much as I could, but some titles will not make sense (like "Room full of Zebesians" - the room where the Ice Beam is authorized).

I don't agree with merging Power cables. We could turn that into a general page for cable technology in the series, as we have with Fish, which documents harmless scenery fish in MP1, MP2, MOM and MSR. They would be different species, but they have similar behavior and it doesn't make sense to split them up. I was planning to do similar general pages for pistons and turbines, since there are lots of examples of those in the Prime series. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 18:16, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

==Response to Madax's new points==

Making a new section so it's easier to follow.

The argument about errors in Prima Games guides can apply to Nintendo's as well. They weren't always accurate, but we took that into account and noted any errors. We use the names Rock Icicle, Chiton armor and Elephant Bird, while making it very clear on those pages that these are likely misnomers. We do that for any information or name from guides, whether it was Nintendo Power, Prima or BradyGames or whatever that published them. If you really want to crack down on "erroneous" names, then rename Varia Suit to Barrier Suit. That's a misnomer, but it's one that has stuck. Lava when referring to the substance underground is a term that has stuck. When you say Prima is not reliable, do you mean that we should not use them? I disagree with that. It's the closest thing we have to what you call a first-party source, even if Nintendo does not own Prima. Speaking of proper nouns, Chozo Tower is a proper noun.

See here, here, here, here, here and here for examples of interest in Bigbug. People don't write that stuff about the puffy rafflesia flowers in Super Metroid. Additionally, people took lots of photos of them on Miiverse (I borrowed some of the images from there) and I'm sure have chatted about them frequently in the Metroid Community Discord. Doc suggested that Bigbug01 and 02 could be split, I can get behind that. They're different creatures, while Bugcrystal01 and 02 are the same, but differently sized. Regarding Power cables and Maintenance unit, you did not address points we made at the very bottom, although they weren't part of my original rebuttal, so I understand why you missed them. You can see them above this section. You say that certain articles can be expanded, well, Maintenance unit can be expanded. You can shoot those like the birds. Let Doc give it a try. Let me try to expand some of the other ones as well.

As for the question you've wanted me to answer: I believe the existing notability criteria is sufficient. Yes, in calling out a "screaming match" I was referring to the descriptive names RfC. If the new guidelines are implemented, then yes it will amount to a cull, because where does it end? There are many articles this would affect that you haven't even listed. If any of the articles listed as being of "concern" (yes, it was a poor choice of word) conflict with the current guidelines, then they can be brought into compliance in their current forms. Let's do that, instead of slaughtering them and by extension half our content.

I was not saying we should ignore the previous debate, only Piratehunter's and ~~Complete Supremacy~~ Insurgence's arguments. PH used to boast about his "infallible logic", really it was insulting everybody in each argument. You can probably detect the exasperation in my arguments here, but at least I'm not slinging a metric fuck-ton of homophobic slurs at you. AdmiralSakai raised some decent points, but again, these are guidelines and not hard rules. Industrial-grade pesticide can be kept, it can be reworked. There are quite a few "industrial grade" technology articles here, some of which are proper nouns. Why get rid of those? After I raised the point about gas pesticides, I did remember that there's fumigation.

The room lists are there for the same reason the creature lists are there in their current form: to list off the rooms. Would you want to implement this Fusion list style that you're proposing on the creature lists as well? Some lists are better off in their current bullet point way, because if you added images and descriptions to them all, then all it does is make an exceptionally large article that will take hours to read, particularly if you attempt to format sections for rooms like the individual articles we have now, with sections for rooms, inhabitants, and three paragraph descriptions. Other lists, like the Smash characters one, need images and sections, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. You could argue that that list is very large, and it is. One solution to that would be to give the characters separate articles, as is done on Mario Wiki, but we attempted to do that before, and you remember how that went. You were very much against it. For the record I'm not advocating we do that again, this was merely an argument.

In terms of boss rooms, again, you can't split the cow, i.e. pick and choose which Prime rooms to make and which ones not to. Think about how users can kind of virtually "navigate" the Frigate Orpheon when they go to the Exterior Docking Hangar page, and "proceed" from room to room. It's a flowing pattern and it will be jarring to suddenly be brought to a halt. Habitation Deck is a story-relevant location, so it definitely holds its own. Chiton armor's been expanded significantly since I last wrote it. Why get rid of all of that to put it into a single sentence on the Omega Metroid's article?

Further points to consider. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 19:17, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Even though Prima is third-party, the fact that they're officially endorsed and licensed by Nintendo should at least make them an "official" source. It's what separates Prima from GamePro, IGN, or other unofficial guides, and it's the reason why Prima has been cited by Wikitroid while no other third-party has. As Royboy pointed out, while Prima's accuracy has never been perfect, neither has Nintendo's (for example, Metroid: Zero Mission: The Official Nintendo Player's Guide frequently misidentifies acid as lava, even though both substances appear in the game with notably different properties in gameplay). If we start regarding Prima as unofficial, then we'd have to regard the names of many articles like Yakuza, Nettori, Fleech Swarm, Paraby, Proteus Ridley, and the majority of Other M enemies as "dubious unreliable third-party info". Do we really want to do that? It's far simpler to continue doing what we have been: marking the article with the "Sourced name" template and providing a citation for the name. And as usual, in instances where Prima's info is clearly wrong or contradicts first-party media, we should simply make note of the error and not cite it as fact.

As a side note, we aren't particularly picky about citing Japanese guidebooks either, even though I'm sure many of them aren't directly published by Nintendo themselves (there's a ton of official guidebooks for each game, and I don't know enough about each one to determine which one is actually first-party).

Anyways, I digress. As for the main goals of this RfC:

While I like the "critical thinking before writing an article" idea behind the guidelines, it's already the same idea covered by the existing rules (Notability, Common Sense, etc.). Under the existing rules, I believe many of the articles listed in this RfC meet Wikitroid's standards, as well as other unlisted articles (such as the TPO example); see my earlier comment about "white squiggly things" and "large lava pit arena" for why the listed articles do not hurt Wikitroid's professionalism or violate the current notability stanards. The proposed guidelines contain too much gray interpretive area (what points hold more weight than others; whether different subjects, like enemies and rooms, should be held to the same standards; the inherent subjective and debatable nature of points 5 and 6; whether these are regarded as only guidelines or hard rules; etc.) to be effective. Right now, I can't say that I know how to improve the proposed guidelines, but I would have thought that the old rules are sufficient... at least, before the discussion started on Talk:Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level).

The reason I said that a room list would be "a mess" is because of all the information that is covered by individual room articles. They're neatly organized in their current state: an infobox, a description, how it connects to neighboring rooms, a list of enemies, a list of items and how to get them, scans and other official data, a trivia section for "interesting but unimportant" facts, and a gallery for more images of the room. Now, imagine trying to cram all that neatly-organized information for dozens of rooms on a single article. Either we retain the organized layout and end up with a really long page, or we scrap the organized layout and cram as much information about each room into a couple paragraphs while sacrificing clarity and/or content to make it all fit. Again, my earlier point with the scan data is how impractical it would be to have all that scan data (even for just a single area like the Tallon Overworld) on a single page, and that would only be a mere portion of a combined "List of rooms" article. There was also my previously-mentioned point about how sequels and remakes would make the rooms more difficult to list when they are significantly altered, merged, split, etc. between games; no solution has been proposed for this problem.

And then, who would judge which rooms in the list are deemed "worthy" of receiving their own articles? While I do curate my own articles, it sounds like you and I are going to continue to disagree about the merits of articles like Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level) and Arachnus' room. I wrote these articles because I thought they had substantial interesting content worth writing about, and you believe that they are unnecessary and can just be summed up in a paragraph on a parent article... and given the lengthy arguments we've both already made, I don't think we're going to convince each other anytime soon. We're certainly free to "agree to disagree", but when that disagreement puts the articles I've worked on at risk of deletion, of course I'm going to naturally feel a little bit defensive about it (while hopefully remaining civil throughout these polite disagreements, of course).

I want to help Wikitroid (just like you do) and I've seen an opportunity to do so by filling this void of info on some interesting/noteworthy rooms from the 2D games that could match the standard of the Prime room articles. Having names (descriptive or otherwise) from official guides to use for these articles is simply a plus that gives me extra incentive to write them. In the meantime, until this RfC is resolved, I'm respectfully hesitant to make any new articles, period... even for something like Fan, a notable obstacle that doesn't fit concisely on any preexisting page. Aside from a descriptive name, is there any reason why I shouldn't publish the Fan article?

I do think it's worth noting that, so far, most of us involved in this discussion have already voiced opposition to the large-scale RfD proposed as the second stage of this RfC. When these articles do not hurt Wikitroid and there are fans who could find them interesting and informative, why delete them? In an earlier discussion, I had said that many of the new articles (listed as "concern") are still in their infancy and will naturally be fleshed out with more information by more editors over time; let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because the baby isn't a full-grown adult yet. Even the "too big" Ridley had a small start (no, not that one) once upon a time. --PeabodySam (talk) 02:45, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

I really don't see why you couldn't write Fan. If that's what it's repeatedly referred to, then you should assume that's the name. I've spoken to Madax on Discord about it and he essentially said to leave it for now, maybe you should ask him directly. I had to convince him of the merits of the Piston page I wrote today, and show it to him on my own sandbox first. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:14, March 8, 2019 (UTC)

Since chiton armor has been brought up outside the RFC, I'll post my thoughts I had shared on the matter. Particularly, "I don't understand why I need to explain the fact that "Chiton armor" is restating the entire Samus returns section on Omega Metroid. I'm dumbfounded that a mechanic of a single enemy type warrants an entire article to state that a strategy guide's authors can't take the time to proofread things. Not only can the the chitin be stated within the OM's description, but it's ref link can also easily mention it's issue."

Anyway, it's one thing to take an actual name from the guides as an article title, such as Yakuza. That's fine. That's what the templates are for. What is not fine is ripping phrases that aren't names and using them as such, especially when it's not a distinct enough title as discussed in the descriptive names RFC. Fleech Swarm is fine; it's given a direct name since it has a dedicated profile in the inhabitants section.

But these third-party guides should by no means be considered official. In the introduction, the "History of SR388", it claims the Chozo did not create the Metroids. It claims that Ridley has been known as Proteus Ridley since before Samus was a bounty hunter. It even states the wave beam penetrates enemies ~~rather than~~ in addition to walls (it's also inconsistent with that statement). Yes, they should be corrected, but no, they should not be considered official; they're only given a license by Nintendo to profit off assets created for Samus Returns. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:05, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

Casting aside a source because of one really bad part is foolish. Yes, that backstory is full of holes, and we use existing media sources to contradict it. It does not mean you should deem the rest of the book unreliable, when most of it corresponds with whatever is in the game, even if it uses "descriptions". Chozo Tower is a proper noun, why is that page of "concern"? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:51, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

When did I say to cast it aside? "Yes, they should be corrected, but no, they should not be considered official". Also, it's not just the backstory; proteus ridley's bio also insists he was always known as such, the wave beam overview within the walkthrough is incorrect, and of course they made rock icicle's situation even worse since they apparently used our not-even-close-to-logical name that never got the descriptive names treatment. Regarding Chozo Tower, probably got attached by accident considering it's at the end of the list, or I may have resorted to tagging all of them by that point due to frustration.

Peabody, you asked about remakes and such causing issues with the lists. The lists we currently have are by game (e.g., List of rooms in Metroid Prime) so there won't be any problems within lists for that, since there will be separate ones for both RoS and SR. Judging rooms for requiring an entire article would be by community consensus; individual issues as always can be discussed on talk pages. If you believe the fans don't cause problems with the existing guidelines, then the note on the RFC states you can do so. However, I also recommend considering a proper descriptive name to distinguish these from any generic fan. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:28, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

By cast aside, I meant disregard completely. As I've mentioned, repeatedly, in the case of Elephant Bird and Chiton armor, we note that those are illogical names but still use them. If something better comes up for that, or Rock Icicle, then we'll use that. Rock Icicle is at least better than Unidentified Life Form 27. What descriptive names treatment? We don't have a descriptive names template like we do for conjectural names. We shouldn't have one, because again, arbitrary use. As for fan, I don't see a problem at all with calling it that. The only fan page it could conflict with is ventilation fan (which is not a description and which we are not deleting), and as you've pointed out, a hatnote at the top of it can link to a disambig or other uses. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:42, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

(UNDENT) When did I indicate disregard completely? "Not only can the the chitin be stated within the OM's description, but it's ref link can also easily mention it's issue". Descriptive names is an extension of the conjectural naming, it's just asking the user to be a bit more considerate of what they're naming articles for non-proper nouns. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:46, March 13, 2019 (UTC)

Explain to me why Electrical system, Soldiers, Cargo-bay doors, Cannon (Zipline Station Bravo) and Lava Tides are all listed as of concern. Electrical system refers to an in-universe source of power, even if there are electrical systems in real life. Soldiers are characters and the arguments against scenery do not apply there. It could do with images and a cleanup, but it's valid. Lava Tides refers to a significant hazard in both Super Metroid and Smash. You could merge that with lava, but given the size of the resulting article I'd say they're better separate. Cargo-bay doors are not insignificant, and we need a blast door page. The cannon is a unique fast-travel mechanism and not scenery. I consider the vast majority of these articles worth keeping, but I specifically want to highlight these five now. Finally, you should remove Chozo Tower from the list; if I'm correctly interpreting your statement, you only put it down on the list in a state of frustration and not because you consider it problematic. It has a proper name (regardless of the source) and it's a significant room, so it should stay. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 18:42, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I've negated the perceived problems of Chiton armor by renaming it to Chest plate and having it cover off multiple chest armor sets in addition to the Omega's armor. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 16:49, March 18, 2019 (UTC)

I really don’t think we need an article of any kind exclusively devoted to “chest plates”; while they serve gameplay functions, there’s nothing about any of them that can’t be adequately covered in their owners’ respective articles. That said, I do think the Zipline Station cannon page should remain intact, albeit expanded and improved significantly. But a “chest plate” is very much unnecessary, and frankly bordering on silly. Additionally, I see no reason why “lava tides” and “lava” can’t be merged; the resulting article would not be too long. “Electrical system” can also be axed, in my opinion. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 15:43, March 21, 2019 (UTC)

If there were ten more examples of Metroid chest plates would that change either of your minds? Yes, the individual plates could be covered off on their own page, but this is an in-universe technology with multiple variants. It is not Epidermis/Carbon/Bee. We can improve the cannon page, definitely. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:19, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

In universe technology? No, why are you doing this? Why do you keep treating these guidelines as nuisances to overcome instead of decisions to respect? The zipline cannon is just another one room mechanism like crane unit and hydraulic lifts; there's no good reason why these things are separated from their main page other than to create a stub to increase article count. You can't lengthen these articles without getting into speculation. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:34, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

I've been following this from the sidelines for a while now, and after a lot of thought, to be honest I find myself fairly neutral on the issue of lots of small articles. When taken within reason, I think there are plenty of places where a small article with a paragraph could make perfect sense, but then I think specific guidelines about what qualifies for an article are called for.

To be honest, I think the old notability guidelines are fine for determining what sorts of things deserve their own article. I really don't have a problem with short articles, my case-in-point would be Memory Alpha, which has articles on background elements of Star Trek that aren't really expanded on too much (e.g., Eastern Coalition), but even they discourage very short articles by policy.

In other words, though bytes may be cheap, that's not a reason to be messy. Measures for judging whether or not an article is created should be based on qualitative measures like how likely it is useful to be for someone who comes across the article, whether or not it would work better in a list, etc., rather than trying to, for example, trying to clear the list of red links. That sort of "metrics-based" justification for creating articles, if you will, does not a good encyclopedia make.

In honesty I think the old notability guidelines should still be sufficient, but I'm okay with the new ones as well; whichever we go with, though, I believe they should be made a proper hard policy. In particular, the current (old) notability guidelines do specify that articles about "...Topics who have very low potential to have an article with much more than 3 sentences relevant to Metroid describing it" should be avoided, and this is a sentiment I find myself agreeing with. If something is deserving of an article, it shouldn't be that difficult to add a few sentences and have a paragraph or two of relevant context or background information. If that can be added, great; if not, though, it probably won't bring any more use to readers to have it on its own article, and it can be kept in a list page for better organization.

Also, remember that this is a wiki; if there is consensus to try list-based articles even if you disagree, give it a try. If they really don't work out, then change them back and you get the added benefit of being able to say "I told you so".

One thing I would like to add, with respect to disambiguation pages, is that in cases where the potential disambiguation is between two or three items, one can just make the page about the most common variation and use a hatnote to link to the others; if I may use an example fresh in my mind from Wikipedia, the article on Pacific Southwest Airlines contains this hatnote:

This article is about the airline that operated from 1949 to 1988. For the US Airways commuter airline, see PSA Airlines. For the present day airline based in Texas, see Southwest Airlines. For the airline that currently uses the IATA Code PS, see Ukraine International Airlines.

This is a four-way disambiguation presented in the form of a hatnote. In almost every case where disambiguations have been created, this seems like a better way to handle the situation.

My two cents, please let me know if there's anything in my opinion you'd like expanded on. Thanks! --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 09:52, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

I can agree they need to become policy; exceptions can still exist and be made, but they're too easily put off as simply being guidelines at present. The existing ones would probably be better if that ends up being the case, as they don't leave as much of a gray area like Peabody had pointed out. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:04, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to making the current guidelines rules, but I will note that most of the articles tagged here are more than a paragraph long. Some are shorter than others, but not that short, and even so are far from being stubs. Many are also relevant to Metroid, with each article being a room or object/subject within the games, so guideline 1 does not apply to them. I am taking care to ensure that I have enough for a page before I write it, or if not that I will have enough later. Metrics are not something I take into consideration when I write pages, because this is a wiki, where our goal is to cover the Metroid series and its history for reader's knowledge. For my work on Shinesparkers, I would consider viewer metrics, and plan content releases carefully, but not here.

I've stated that I oppose room lists like Madax is suggesting, because I strongly believe that it will lead to loss of information present on separate pages, and do nothing more than remove half of our content and place it on an overly large and potentially clunky list. Peabody and I have already made that belief heard. We can discuss renaming the room pages with "descriptive" names, but I strongly oppose removing them outright. I've also said that in my opinion, room articles can cover the room and its layout, appearance etc., and some, but not all objects can be given their own pages, provided there's enough to share. That would continue to be on a case by case basis. If they appear in more than one room (such as Power cables, Thorned roots, Piston, Turbine and Metal panels, and while it's not a room object, Chest plate), then they should get a page. Even if they don't, if there is enough info on the object itself to warrant a separate page (for example, if it's an obstacle involving a puzzle, such as Door lock system), then it could still get a page. An example of a room object I wouldn't give a page is the pair of floor vents in Scrapvault, and I've documented them on that page. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:47, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

I can see Phazon grass going. Part of why I wrote that one is because Metroidover had a similar page, and it made sense to me at the time, although now that I look at it it does go against guideline 2. I don't want to reduce it to a footnote however. I'd make it a section on the general Phazon page. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:45, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

"If something is deserving of an article, it shouldn't be that difficult to add a few sentences and have a paragraph or two of relevant context or background information. If that can be added, great; if not, though, it probably won't bring any more use to readers to have it on its own article, and it can be kept in a list page for better organization." - FastLizard4

This brings me back to my earlier argument, which you essentially restated: "If I can sum it all up in just a paragraph, it doesn't deserve an article. If I have enough info that I can write a decent article, then why shouldn't I write that article?"

While the articles I write may lean more on the obscure side of Metroid subjects (e.g. unnamed rooms in 2D games), they are relevant to the series and I make sure that they're well-written and fleshed-out with detailed information. As such, I still firmly believe that the majority of articles I've contributed to Wikitroid meets the quality standards, as established by the old guidelines. This also includes every article draft currently in my sandbox; for the record, the only reason I'm holding off on publishing them is not because I think they have a problem (because I don't), but because I'm concerned that Madax may think they have a problem. Perhaps I do suffer a bit from the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but I'll be honest: I've had fun researching and writing these articles (I even replayed the entirety of Return of Samus just to see the stalactite barrier that prevents sequence breaking, since there wasn't any footage on the internet), and I'd hope that the hard work I put into it would produce a article worth keeping... even if the article's title happens to use a descriptive phrase taken from a guide in the absence of anything better.

However, I will concede on one article, and that's Lava Tides (which was recently mentioned by Dr. Anonymous as a candidate for merging). I was admittedly deliberating over whether to write a separate article or just make it a section of Lava, and while I ultimately went with the former when I realized how much I could write about it, I can still see why it could be merged. That being said... I would actually argue for giving Scalding-hot lava its own separate article and merging Lava Tides into that instead. My reasoning is the same reason why Lava (SR388) existed as a separate article from Lava: despite being called "lava", it's a unique substance with different properties and official sources dispute on whether this substance is lava or acid.

----

Now, for a side note that isn't really the focus of this RfC but has been brought up in this discussion. I don't agree with the recent "on principle" deletion of disambigs that only have two articles. These disambigs serve a purpose when both articles are roughly equal in relevancy. For example, one that I strongly disagree with deleting is "Hyper Beam (Disambiguation)"; after the disambig was deleted, Hyper Beam was redirected to Hyper Beam (Metroid Prime 3: Corruption), but it doesn't make sense why it should only redirect to one Hyper Beam article when the other one is just as likely to be what a fan will be searching for. Similarly, while it fortunately hasn't been deleted yet, I would also be very strongly opposed to deleting Phase 8 (Disambiguation), since it doesn't make sense to redirect Phase 8 to just Area 6 or Area 7; it fully encompasses both areas.

From my own experience, hatnotes should be kept as short as possible. Regardless of what Wikipedia does, long hatnotes for 3+ articles do not look professional. Additionally, if we're citing what Wikipedia does, then Wikipedia does indeed have disambig pages with only two articles. This is also done by Zelda Wiki and SmashWiki, so it's a practice used in other well-known game wikis.

Sure, some "two article disambigs" can be redundant and unnecessary, and could be better summarized as a hatnote. However, that's why I said I don't agree with deleting them purely "on principle", i.e. "This disambig is good but only has two articles, so I'm deleting it." Please consider the disambig's contents and purpose before jumping right to deletion. --PeabodySam (talk) 02:21, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

I figure you could avoid making a separate article and simply convert Lava Tides into your proposed Scalding-hot lava one (like I did with Chiton armor -> Chest plate). Regarding the Hyper Beam disambig, thank you! I brought that one up on Discord with Madax as one that should be retained. He dismissed my concerns. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:42, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

In addition to Hyper Beam, I strongly contest the deletions of the Fortress Transport Access, Docking Bay 5, Agon Transport Access, Main Docking Bay, Temple Transport A, Temple Transport B, Temple Transport C, Torvus Transport Access and Lava Lake disambigs, for the same reasons. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:11, April 6, 2019 (UTC)

(UNDENT) "...trying to clear the list of red links. That sort of "metrics-based" justification for creating articles, if you will,..." --FastLizard4 @ 09:52, March 22, 2019 (UTC)

He's not talking viewer metrics, Roy. Take statements in context. To put his wording more bluntly and in my own terms, creating articles simply for the sake of lengthening your creation log and trying to reach abstract page count milestones for the wiki is not good practice.

And you're not losing on information by moving rooms into a list. Let's have another go at Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level) and see how much would be lost on it. Since there will be two different lists for RoS and SR, let's see what information would be carried over for one of them, SR just as an example.

"For the most part, the water-filled room appears to be a natural cavern with a jungle habitat, populated by magenta trees, pink mushrooms, and large green vines, branches, and roots. However, there are a few artificial structures visible in the room, most notably including a Teleport Station. As the name indicates, it is also flooded with water, with several small waterfalls pooling at the bottom of the cave.

The water-filled room is also heavily expanded. While it is largely a linear path from one door to the other, it winds left and right as it ascends. At one point, Samus is forced to pass a Fleech Swarm and run quickly to the next pool of water. Samus can also use her Grapple Beam on a Pull Block, revealing a shortcut to the purple liquid tunnels."

Wow, that's a nice short description and all the information relevant besides adding an image that shows the main area/layout and adding links to connecting rooms and mentioning missile expansion. There's no loss of content if it's moved into a list. It's simply better presented and accessible in the context of regions and games since we can only use arbitrary names to title these things out of a lack of official ones. They're not going to be clunky, because the existing format in the Fusion room list is neat, compact, and transmits everything it needs to.

Btw, every single one of those room objects you mention are at issue with 2) and 3) of existing notability guidelines. They're mostly scenery or flavor text and better covered in their primary topic, the room(s) they appear in, if some even need that.

Regarding disambigs, I'll first move my reasonings for hyper beam from Discord onto here -- there are currently only two weapons titled hyper beam, one from Super and the other from Corruption. In Super, you wield the weapon for a grand total of five minutes, whereas the Corruption variant is gained at the very beginning of the game and lasts until the very end. Therefore, I reasoned that the more prominent variant was a suitable primary topic to redirect to and then have the only other variant be listed in a hatnote on the redirected page to allow those searching for it to reorient themselves. A disambig would have done the exact same thing, let others redirect themselves to find the topic they were specifically looking for, but when there's only two options to choose from, there's no inherent reason to make an entire separate page to list the disambiguation. Also, it's important to bear in mind that a disambiguation is not a replacement for a search index.

So in hopes to lift your concerns about what I do, I take every action into consideration, not simply "'on principle', i.e. 'This disambig is good but only has two articles, so I'm deleting it'". I've left many disambigs untouched already. And "dismissed my concerns" is a bit much considering I explained the same to you, Roy, and didn't just ignore you. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 23:49, April 11, 2019 (UTC)

We might as well call this RfC Brexit, because it's taking far too long, and no agreement can be reached. I'll go through your response point by point.

"creating articles simply for the sake of lengthening your creation log and trying to reach abstract page count milestones for the wiki is not good practice."

This has nothing to do with my creations log, or our article count. The former is already very big, and I'm not writing pages solely to make it big. No one's ever criticized for it until now, although I'm sure the log may come across to some people as a symbol of narcissism on my part. As such, I've considered moving it off site and keeping it going privately. This is not about redlinks either. You know I hate them, but this isn't 2010. I'm not OCD about ensuring there are never any at a given time. There's a bunch in existence right now, I'm fine with them there. I can't act on some of them because you've decided we're not to create such pages anymore.

Now I have to be careful with what I contribute. Why should I bother making redirects (Seal/Good luck, Samus/Pollen), disambigs (Hyper Beam/the room ones I mentioned/others you've removed) or simple edits (Arbor Chamber), if you're going to delete them?

"They're not going to be clunky, because the existing format in the Fusion room list is neat, compact, and transmits everything it needs to."

Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level) is a perfectly fine page already and reducing it to two paragraphs like you've used here as an example is counter-productive. It is a data loss. How would you explain rooms that serve as junctions, like, well... Junction? Does it explain the number of inhabitants? Is there space for a trivia section if necessary? As I've indicated repeatedly, I'm happy to discuss renaming them, but I'm stating once and for all I will not stand for them being crammed into an enormous list when the format we've been using with Prime room pages for years has worked. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixing.

"Btw, every single one of those room objects you mention are at issue with 2) and 3) of existing notability guidelines. They're mostly scenery or flavor text and better covered in their primary topic, the room(s) they appear in, if some even need that."

Every single one? I think guideline 2 needs an adjustment. Stuff like the red puffy flowers in green Brinstar, where they're tiles and have no printed data about them, shouldn't have a page. Stuff like the metal panels and power cables, which have scan data and some in-game tangibility (however minor) should be allowed. Room pages can delve into the architecture, while some room objects (not all of them) could be given more information on pages of their own. Here's the kicker though. You want room objects merged into room pages, but you don't even want those. You've said even Prime rooms can be put on gigantic lists. I'm not going to repeat myself, again, in saying why lists such as these are a terrible idea.

"Also, it's important to bear in mind that a disambiguation is not a replacement for a search index."

Given how Wikia/FANDOM's search engine is the equivalent of horse piss in terms of effectively delivering relevant results, disambigs, at least as I've been creating them, have acted as such. You appear to have completely ignored what Peabody said about SmashWiki and Zeldapedia having two-page disambigs and getting along fine.

It is clear that you are not willing to compromise on any of these articles, so I will not continue to waste my time trying to convince you. Instead, I will focus on majority rules. I am very against room lists and I don't need to repeat why. Nobody here so far has voiced support for larger room lists like you've proposed, therefore, you are in the minority and if it stays that way by the time this RfC ends, then it won't happen.

What I have hated most about this RfC is your lack of engagement with it despite being the creator, not answering my questions, not answering certain points, ensuring it's your way or the highway. Your last comments here were on March 23, almost three weeks ago. I understand you might be busy with a job or other offline obligations, but you should have considered that before you started it. RfDs and RfCs on Wikitroid take far longer to bring to a resolution than they should. Once I've published this response, it might take you as long to respond back. Meanwhile, I am unable to make the edits or pages - for rooms - that I want to because in February you decided, without consulting anyone else, that I am not to write them anymore or I will be indefinitely blocked again, and for good this time. I said at the very beginning of this now two month-long RfC that I do not want to have this debate, I only want to edit freely as I had been until this started. I will be more careful with what I write in the future, but I'm sick and tired of having a sword hanging over my head all the time. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:34, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously in the belief that edits like this one in Arbor Chamber is debilitating to you as an editor? You were under the impression that pollen is a species and that it's entirely only found in tile data for that room. Why don't you test out the "horse piss" search engine for pollen and see that it works just fine.

I'm not sure where your misunderstanding started, whether it's always been there and it's been ignored or this is a recent development, but you're not considering where and when redirects or disambigs are proper. Wikitroid has always modeled after Wikipedia, the primary Wikimedia project, and then specialize as needed for Wikitroid's own needs. "Seal" and "Good luck, Samus" are not good redirects; please look at the purpose of redirects.

And christ you can't look into things I provide at all without misconstruing the entire thing. Peabody has combined two rooms into one with water-filled room, one from return of samus the and other from the remake. I took the entire two paragraphs dedicated specifically to the room in the remake for my example. The information for the original would go in the list for rooms in the original. I repeat, there will be no loss of information. It will simply be better organized and presented for people who don't know what we've arbitrarily called these unnamed rooms. The format that worked for prime rooms does not benefit the 2D ones as much as you're insisting.

And no, guideline that's looking to become policy 2 is fine as is, because a scan mentioning metal panels is perfectly suited to remain mentioned on topic. ~~Ripping a panel off a wall~~ Blowing up a panel covering a tunnel is a lazy excuse to say an article is worthy.

"I understand you might be busy with a job or other offline obligations, but you should have considered that before you started it...Once I've published this response, it might take you as long to respond back."

I don't think you understand what kind of picture this paints over you, Roy. I don't think you realize what kind of a person you're making yourself out to be. To still be.

"Meanwhile, I am unable to make the edits or pages - for rooms - that I want to because in February you decided, without consulting anyone else, that I am not to write them anymore or I will be indefinitely blocked again, and for good this time."

Peabody was actually the one who initially suggested it, Roy, on Talk:Arachnus' room, to which you expressed no objections in Talk:Dessgeega-infested hall. I also never warned or threatened blocking you over creating articles. FL came in on the live chat to warn you over your behavior towards this RfC and other site issues. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:38, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

I was mistaken about pollen being a species and freely admitted it. When you reverted my calling it a species I didn't contest. I was referring to your deletion of the redirect, but I'm less bothered about that than the disambigs.

I know our policies are modeled after Wikipedia, but I've always opined that we need to create our own. If you feel this is a problem, then I suggest you create a separate RfC to establish a disambig and redirect policy, so this one doesn't stray off scope.

The water-filled room is in the same place between Metroid 2 and Samus Returns, so it's arguably the same room. The difference is the makeover with the higher graphical power. Once a barren shaft, it's now a marsh environment. If the different versions of the room need to be differentiated more clearly, then they can be via section headers and/or a discussion of how to better format the page. Assuming we go with your list idea, would there be links to the counterpart room on the opposite list, similar to Aether room pages linking to their Dark Aether counterparts?

This is semantics and not important, but the metal panels page you reference focuses on two objects specifically, neither of which are ripped with the Grapple Lasso.

"I don't think you realize what kind of a person you're making yourself out to be. To still be." To still be? I really wish that when you think of me, you would stop seeing my past actions and "behavior" over what I bring to this wiki. Attitude, while unpleasant, should not be equated with rule-breaking offenses unless I personally attack you. Speaking of personal attacks, our policy on the matter says that even users who have been subjected to disciplinary action, like myself, should not be attacked. As to the comment you were responding to, I only said that out of impatience. In my various pursuits (on wiki and off), I sometimes have to chase people to get things done, and it incredibly frustrates me. Lizard calls this canvassing and doesn't like when I do it, but I often don't have a choice. I don't want to still be arguing this RfC come September, and I'm sure you don't either.

True, you didn't warn or threaten to block me over these pages, but you never assured me you wouldn't either. However, Lizard very nearly banned me forever simply because I cut him off - unintentionally - while he was typing on Discord. That was an inappropriate, and unnecessary threat. He later said he hoped not to do it and that it would give him no pleasure. Regardless, such an action, even the implication he would take such steps, would be overkill. I'm not saying I'll defy you and make these pages, but I want to be assured that I won't be blocked if I make one.

I have two final questions for you: 1) do you want every single article you've listed as "of concern" to be removed from the wiki? Do you really think none of them be salvaged? 2) if the RfC doesn't end in your favor, will you accept the outcome? (If it doesn't go my way I'll be unhappy, but I'll learn to accept it, if I can copy the pages to my sandbox before their removal) RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:29, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you're even slightly bothered about the deletion of a redirect is concerning to me. My position as admin means that I have a responsibility to look over wiki changes and verify they align with policies, manual of style, and general wiki design and, if needed, utilize the tools I have access to in order to enforce them. If I'm going to have to fight you on every single action I take that encroaches upon your edits because you can't stand the idea that they're being reverted, you are making the maintenance of this wiki far harder than it has any need to be. Also, it's far easier to refer to general wikipedia policies and then customize the ones we absolutely need to here than to transfer everything in general. While not everything should be referred to, the main structure of a wikimedia foundation is setup on Wikipedia.

The attitude you bring to the table is just as impacting as the actions you take. After all, the attitude you have affects those actions. If just about every person on the admin team has to go over your behavior with you multiple times and yet you still continue to keep an aggressive and nonconstructive attitude to any kind of policy review, you need to seriously take a step back and reflect on why you feel you always have a sword hanging over your head.

Also, FL wasn't going to ban you for interrupting him. Again, you are not at all considering what's being said, misinterpreting intentions, and generally not listening to anyone properly. To directly quote him from the chat: "I haven't finished yet[.] Please wait until I have, otherwise I'm going to assume that your "I would agree" is you consenting to me banning you permanently [b]ecause you agree with my assessment of your behavior[.]" This is getting old really fast. If you can't take the time to not just speak your own comments but also properly listen to others', you're going to lessen the impact of your opinions to others.

I stand corrected on metal panels. Fixed. Back to water-filled room, once again you keep misinterpreting the issues I'm trying to present to you. The descriptions of each are in different paragraphs each with a notifying introductory sentence; there's no problems discerning the two. However, once again, these rooms aren't named and yet we're separating them into their own individual pages and giving them arbitrary names that no one's going to intuitively know or search for. Keeping them in a list minimizes that problem because they're all together by game and then by region, which then boils down to finding the image or arbitrary name of a room you want. (That is now easier to find thanks to being contained within a region list instead of a global scale.)

And for your final concerns, 1) I won't block you if you create a page out of good faith, but I will take action if you start doing so out of spite (or take advantage of this comment). 2) I personally listed the articles as concerning because I personally saw issues with them conflicting with the deletion policy. Once again, I believe that they're better suited remaining on their source topic or, in the case of rooms, in a list. 3) As an admin I am supposed to enforce rules, so yes, I will abide by whatever the outcome is. 4) I don't see any problems linking rooms between lists, particularly because the structure of the remakes are similar. However, they don't have the connection on the same level as Dark Aether, so it's not important either. Basically, I don't mind it going either way. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:45, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

You and the others know how I feel about this. I rest my case. I want to hear from Lizard, Bearborg, Peabody and Doc now. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:07, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I’m against the idea of deleting articles for any named rooms, regardless of their length. So pages like “Transport C” should remain. That said, I think it’s a little silly to have separate articles for “Lava Tides” and “Scalding Hot Lava” - let’s be real, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be merged into the “Lava” article. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 05:30, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

You were of the previous disposition that leaving the unnamed room articles was fine as well, albeit with better naming conventions. Are you still following that belief, or do you think we should create a standard to exempt named rooms from lists, even 2D ones like Habitation Deck, and consolidate the rest to the region lists? The latter is something I wouldn't have any complaints to, personally. And yeah, I glossed over the lava tides in your reply Peabody, but I personally don't see problems just having the entire thing under Lava. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 05:41, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don’t have strong feelings either way, but I’m more inclined to go with the latter option. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 05:48, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this answer: you don't feel strongly for either separate room pages or room lists, but you're more inclined toward lists? Rather than giving the existing pages new names? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:17, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'll be honest. Nowadays, I hardly have much free time to spend. Therefore, I've needed to reevaluate my hobbies, and that includes contributing to Wikitroid. Spending so much time in this RfC is a luxury that I can no longer afford. It's gone on so long already, but I feel that we're still no closer to reaching a resolution. In the meantime, seeing Wikitroid's activity drop so sharply is rather disheartening, especially when RoyboyX (who is one of our most passionate editors here) feels discouraged to edit because of this RfC.

Re: Room lists and the water-filled room: Maybe I'm missing something, but I still fail to see how taking a neatly-organized article, cutting it into pieces, and spreading those pieces across different pages is considered "better organization". It seems counter-intuitive to me.

Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level) (I'm going to be focusing on this one room article as an example, since it keeps coming up in this discussion) covers a single room in two games, and due to the room having various differences between the two games, the current article is organized so that each game has its own section. Okay, sure, that's true. But how does that justify splitting it into two separate pages?

Many, many articles on Wikitroid are organized by paragraphs and sections for each game. This is because subjects are rarely kept the same in every single appearance; more often than not, they change over time, and sometimes drastically so.

Kraid is one such example of a page about a single subject where most information is presented in distinct paragraphs about different games: Metroid, Zero Mission, Nintendo Land, etc. That would not justify splitting up Kraid's article and dividing the information between hypothetical articles like "List of bosses in Metroid", "List of bosses in Super Metroid", "List of background characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee", etc. even though they're all very different.

Is the room notably different between games? Yes. But, it is the same room, serving either the same role or a homologous purpose. You can't claim it's "combining two rooms into one" any more than you can say that Kraid's article is "combining three bosses into one". Therefore, having all the information on this one room on one page is better organization.

I must echo something I had said earlier on Talk:Arachnus' room: the issue with these pages is not the article's actual content, but instead the article's name. I still feel that there would be no dispute if these articles had definitive official names.

What does an room like Ruins Entrance have that water-filled room doesn't have? An official proper name and three scans (technically two, with the latter changing between NTSC and PAL). Other than that, Ruins Entrance is notable only for the same reasons as the water-filled room: it's the entrance to an area, introduces new aesthetics and music, etc. But, the water-filled room is currently a much more comprehensive article with much more information. You can't seriously tell me that the water-filled room's article is a blemish on Wikitroid's professional standards but Ruins Entrance is okay just because it has an official name and a couple sentences of scan data.

Much like RoyboyX, I would prefer using official Nintendo-published or Nintendo-licensed media over conjectural fan names, when available and appropriate. If it is a deal-breaking issue, then fine, we can discuss renaming these articles. But, when subjects in certain games (e.g. rooms in 2D games) are at a natural disadvantage when it comes to having official media, I think it's unfair to discriminate against their worth as Wikitroid articles. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet", after all... or, in this case, "A room article by any other name would have just as much info."

The one fair point I've seen is that esoteric names make these articles more difficult to locate via searches. But, as I've said before, this can be rectified by providing more inbound links across the wiki where it is appropriate and relevant. As an example, if the water-filled room is considered significant (i.e. the reason why a Wikitroid reader would be looking for it in the first place) because it is where Area Indefinite starts playing for the first time, then Area Indefinite's article provides a link to it; if it is significant because it contains a Teleport Station, then Category:Teleport Stations will list it; and so on and so forth. Perhaps readers won't be as likely to search for it, but they will still be able to find it; besides, "wiki walking" is one of the great joys of reading wikis.

Your proposed solution is to make room lists, and then let the community decide which rooms are deserving of having their own separate pages. If this was just to take care of all the small and insignificant "Wallfire hall" type rooms, then I would have agreed that this is a good idea. And yet, if we can't even agree on the notability of a room like the water-filled room (while most editors, like Dr. Anonymous and FastLizard4, are largely indifferent), then I'm concerned that it doesn't bode well for the future of this idealized "deserving by democracy" policy.

Once again, I'd much rather we just keep the articles that are already written, even if we make the room lists. As I've explained before, the room articles that I've written have already been mentally vetted through standards of notability, and as such I still firmly believe that each one is significant enough to warrant their own pages (yes, even the water-filled room). Then, if we make the room lists, we can just link to these preexisting articles using Template:Main alongside an image, making it easy to for a reader to find and identify. Honestly, it's the best of both worlds: you get to make your organized lists for navigation, and we get to keep our detailed individual articles.

However, this is an important question to ask... who would be willing to write these room lists? Even writing a paragraph or two for each room turns into a pretty big task when, as I've said before, a small area like Area 1 in Samus Returns has over thirty rooms. Perhaps I would've been more willing and eager to volunteer for the job a year ago, but nowadays I just don't have the time to spare. I'd hate to think that we begin this big project of room lists for every game, only for it to fall by the wayside and remain incomplete and neglected, like the Fusion room list has been for the past couple years. That would hurt Wikitroid's professionalism more than a couple of fully-written well-developed room articles with esoteric titles.

Re: Hyper Beam: Counterpoint. The climax of Super Metroid, especially the baby's sacrifice giving Samus the Hyper Beam, is one of the most well-recognized moments of the series. It's even revisited in the intro of Other M, technically giving the Super Hyper Beam more appearances than the Corruption Hyper Beam. Ask many Metroid fans what they think of when they hear "Hyper Beam", and they'll likely tell you Super Metroid.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the significance of the Corruption Hyper Beam. In fact, neither of us are wrong. Instead, the fact that we can have a valid debate about which one is more significant is exactly why "Hyper Beam" should redirect to a disambig, not to either one of the two pages.

Re: Scalding-hot lava: I repeat, my justification for proposing splitting scalding-hot lava onto a separate page is the same as why Lava (SR388) was its own separate page (and still is, albeit with a new name thanks to Prima). It is a separate substance from normal lava with its own unique properties, and there is equal significant evidence for it being lava and acid depending on where you look and whom you ask. It's an amalgamation of different substances: it has the location of lava, the appearance of acid, and the gameplay properties of Beta Acid, and as a result it doesn't truly fit on any one of these three pages. It would make sense for "Acid (Super Metroid)" and "Hydrochloric acid" to redirect to it, but it would be strange for these to redirect to the page for normal lava. Add in the fact that this proposed page will cover Lava Tides, and the Smash version of Lava Tides has indeed been represented with both acid and lava...

Plus, the Japanese and Spanish wikis give this substance its own article as well. I know we're the English wiki and we don't do everything they do, but I just felt it might be worth mentioning just for the record.

Additionally, even if it is considered a variant of lava by English canon, that shouldn't automatically mean that it doesn't warrant a separate article. Beta Acid is separate from acid, Dark Water is separate from water, etc. due to being unique substances with differing properties from the "normal" substance.

--PeabodySam (talk) 02:06, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

You're right. We're not anywhere closer to a resolution. Neither of us can hardly agree to anything, and yet the vast majority of the conversation is contributed by us. Honestly, I don't see any point in debating that ends up just constant repeating of what's already said. I will, however, point out a couple things that need to be corrected or simply reinformed. It's understable you missed or misunderstood some points with this discussion being as large as it is.

First being you seem think I want water-filled room separated because it covers both games on one article in different paragraphs. I don't know what exactly caused you to believe that; it isn't the justification nor was it an issue to begin with. Since the games aren't exactly the same, there would be two different groups of room lists for each game. One for the original, one for the remake. That would be the justification for their split.

Second, I've since reconsidered letting the community decide what rooms would be given an article separate from the list or not. Instead, the deciding factor would be whether the games themselves name the room. I've thought long enough about the problems I find with these rooms as their own articles, and most if not all of them stem from the fact that they don't have definitive official names. You were spot on in that regard. So, to make things easier, if the devs gave it a publicly viewable definitive name in the game, it would get a proper article.

Oh and one more thing: like you mentioned, this is volunteer work. You wouldn't have to fill out the lists if you didn't want. You wouldn't even have to touch them if you so choose. If anyone comes along and wants to, they can. I probably will work on them in some degree or another. And don't worry about a big project taking time to complete. We're getting close to fifteen years for the site as a whole, and 2D rooms is barely a fraction of work that still needs to be done. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 23:41, April 22, 2019 (UTC)

If that's the logic you're going with, take Chozo Tower off the concern list. That's a proper name. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:18, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

"This next room is what we're terming the 'Chozo Tower,'" says page 178 of a strategy guide. I believe my logic was "if the devs gave it a publicly viewable definitive name in the game." I believe Chozo Tower comes neither from the devs nor from the game itself. I will not remove it, Roy. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:45, April 23, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Peabody! I really appreciate that. It's nice that at least one person here sees me as something other than an "incredulous problem". I'm in agreement with him on what you've said here. My positions, as I am stating them once and for all:

Guidelines: I support keeping the existing guidelines as is. I won't object to them becoming rules, but exceptions can and must be made for some "scenery" objects with tangibility. I will only concede the Phazon grass article at this stage.
Room lists: I strongly oppose them for reasons I do not need to repeat. When I asked who would write them Madax, you answered by kicking me off the Discord server. If they do get created, will you write them? There's no point in starting the lists if they won't be finished. Also, I call for the Fusion room list to be scrapped, and whatever rooms were added to it be split into their own pages.
Hyper Beam disambig: I oppose its deletion and call for Madax to restore it at once. I am not the only user calling for it to be restored anymore.
Scalding-hot lava: I support Peabody's idea of a separate page for Scalding-hot lava, with Lava Tides merged into it.

I will add my thoughts on other articles upon request. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:02, April 22, 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if I misread something, Madax; as you said, it's been a long discussion. However, I was referring specifically to your rebuttal (April 12, 02:38) to RoyboyX, who was saying that the water-filled room is a complete and well-organized article that doesn't need to split up for the sake of organization; you justified your proposal by saying that the current article is combining two rooms into one and already splits the info up into different paragraphs for different games. I never implied that this was the reason you wanted to delete the article; I said it was your justification for splitting it for the sake of organization, and I was simply pointing out that it doesn't hold much water when most Wikitroid articles are already formatted that way, since the same argument could be used for splitting up so many other well-organized articles while claiming that there wouldn't be a loss of information or organization.

There are also instances where a room article wouldn't be so cleanly split between separate room lists. For example, Queen's nest covers the egg chamber's appearances in Super Metroid and Other M; it isn't a room in either game, so that info couldn't be placed on a "List of rooms in Super Metroid" or "List of rooms in Other M" article.

I'm exhausted and I don't want to continue debating either. If I'm spending so much of my little free time on Wikitroid, I want to be spending that time having fun editing the wiki. Trust me, there are so many other things I'd much rather be doing than dragging out this RfC. But I feel obliged to comment here because I'm partly to blame for this mess and so I feel responsible for cleaning it up.

Therefore, after I proposed a viable compromise (making the lists AND keeping the individual articles) that I hoped would satisfy both sides of the debate, I'm disappointed to see that you have instead taken a firmer, harder, more extreme stance against any room article that is not explicitly named in-game.

It flies in the face of the point that I've been advocating: that the 2D games, which are naturally at a disadvantage when it comes to content that is named in-game, have content that is just as worth covering as the Prime games. I had just said in my last comment that it would be unfair to discriminate against them. What's in a name, after all? We have two categories (three, if you count internal data as not "publicly viewable") of articles without explicit in-game names. Why are these rooms such an issue that they need to be singled out as an exception? I'd much rather have a well-written article for an unnamed room with something special instead of a short article for a named room with nothing interesting.

Additionally, I still disagree with disqualifying Prima as an official source. You don't put a lot of merit in it, but being licensed and endorsed by Nintendo is the reason why Wikitroid covers Prima guides. It's why we don't cover GamePro guides, IGN guides, or even Prima's "unauthorized" (i.e. unlicensed) Super Metroid guide. Prima guides were even "sold" by Nintendo like any other official Nintendo product; MyNintendo points could be spent on Prima's starter guide for Samus Returns. And if Prima guides contain a few lore errors... as I said before, Nintendo themselves make errors all the time, so it's not a big deal as long as we carefully address errors as such. I could go on a lot more about this, but I'm guessing you've probably already heard enough about Prima in this RfC and don't want me wasting our time any longer... so my point is that if a product approved and endorsed by Nintendo names a room "Chozo Tower" and it doesn't contradict anything from Nintendo themselves, then why shouldn't we use that name? Heck, the Spanish wiki gave it an article long before we did.

Finally, it shows a lack of faith in your fellow editors to have a good sense of judgment. I understand you may be frustrated by the fact that we won't see eye-to-eye on this issue, and I already voiced my concern about the previous "deserving by democracy" solution, but I do not think this is the right answer either. This RfC started as proposing guidelines and policies to ensure editors think critically about potential articles (an idea that I fully agreed with, even if I disagreed with the execution); now, it's elevated to completely stripping editors of the ability to decide for themselves?

As you said, we're all volunteers here. If some of us are eager to write more content for Wikitroid, why discourage that enthusiasm? Don't drive us away.

Please keep in mind that I have never been asking for free reign to write whatever we want. Of course not. I'm just asking that you trust our judgment; RoyboyX and I have already stated that we have never intended to write articles for every single room, just a select few that we find noteworthy. I'm just asking that you keep an open mind; you might not find this content notable or interesting, but some of us do.

That's why, again, I have proposed my above compromise: we create the room lists, but we still keep the individual room articles. Having the room lists will ease your concerns about navigation and esoteric article titles. Keeping the individual articles will satisfy myself and RoyboyX and ease our own misgivings about converting everything into the lists. It provides an outlet to avoid the creation of insignificant "Wallfire hall" room articles, but doesn't prohibit the creation of an article for a room if we think there's something noteworthy about it and there's enough substantial info. This will also give us the opportunity to see, over time, if one method proves to be more effective than the other. Couldn't we at least agree on this?

And if we can't agree, then I hope at least FastLizard4 or Dr. Anonymous1 will be willing to lend me an ear.

Please consider this. I want to be constructive to Wikitroid just as much as you do. I want us to be able to wrap up this RfC soon and be able to move on, spending our time and energy in making Wikitroid better. For now, I think I've said all that I can possibly say. --PeabodySam (talk) 22:11, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you're still misunderstanding the part about water-filled room. That or I'm doing the misunderstanding. Maybe both. Roy said the two paragraphs were a data loss from the original article, but I was then showing him that the article covered two rooms and that I took everything in the article concerning only one for an example of what that particular one would like on its list. I was trying to show him that there wouldn't be a loss of information.

No, Queen's nest definitely wouldn't be in a Super or Other M list. But the only thing about it in those games is that it's shown in a flashback? So why exactly wouldn't this be a clean split? There would only need to be a link to the rooms where a relevant link is necessary, like on the baby's article.

"RoyboyX and I have already stated that we have never intended to write articles for every single room, just a select few that we find noteworthy." What's noteworthy about Dessgeega-infested hall? What about Crooked corridor, or Vertical chamber? If those exist, why shouldn't wallfire hall? I don't trust Roy's judgement to make these calls, nor do I want to open complications for future editors who question why Long hall gets its own article while the hall to the Main Deck in Fusion wouldn't. I'd rather make the call here and now to create a standard for rooms, the largest group of topics in those unnamed categories. And for a site that accesses its topics by their name, a name means a lot.

The people who work at Prima don't work on the game. They're not the creative designers, the concept artists, the program developers, or the script writers. They're an outside party who write a walkthrough, which means any names they come up with are as much official as something that you or I would. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 22:28, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

No, I said that reducing the page to two paragraphs about its physiology, without including inhabitants, items (in larger rooms when there's a complicated puzzle to get them) in the room, or any trivia about the room was a loss of info. I can get behind Peabody's list idea, and I can live with some of those corridor rooms going onto it.

Assuming this RfC ends in our favor, I would only write pages in the future for large rooms, or rooms with significant story or action events, such as: the Lava cavern one you deleted, the Biosphere room with the huge spiraling tree, the shaft where you drop an elevator on a Ghalmanian, or the room where you fight the Rhedogian with Anthony. No more short corridors. You can't tell me that these are not constructively written pages, you simply can't see past their unofficial names. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 23:57, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Do you trust Peabody's judgment? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:11, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Your initial response was "Water-filled room (Area 5 lower level) is a perfectly fine page already and reducing it to two paragraphs like you've used here as an example is counter-productive. It is a data loss." Again, I told you I had taken everything in that article specific to the remake's half. There's a whole other half for the original that I didn't use because the example was only for the one.

"such as: the Lava cavern one you deleted." You mean the one you created the moment you thought you found an opening? I gave an example of what that one would be like too, which included inhabitants, items (we're not a walkthrough, doesn't need to be super detailed on where they are), and there can even be room for trivia. It's not a hard limit of two paragraphs, that's just the average of what most will need.

This is a large room that is open to the superheated environment of the Pyrosphere, and connects to two indoor rooms. The room is first entered through a large glass tube which is soon split in half by the Vorash, and can only be crossed using a Grapple Point.

Outdoors, the room is filled with lava, with a number of flat rock platforms usable for traversal. Numerous stalagmites and rock spires protrude from the lava as well, extending into the background. Here Samus is chased by the Vorash and must dodge many of its attacks until she gets into safety. This room leads into a desert area, which loops around to the other side of the cavern, and another set of platforms with Magdollites standing in the way. Off to the side are four rock platforms of increasing height; on the highest one, Samus can access a series of Grapple Points taking her towards another door.

At the base of a protruding cliff in the outdoor section, Samus must enter a secret tunnel in Morph Ball form and use a Bomb to destroy a grate to find an Energy Part. In the glass tube, Samus must shoot a sensor outside with the Wave Beam to open a hatch in the floor, leading into a Morph Ball tunnel with a Missile Tank tank at the end. In the northeast area of the room, Samus must deploy a Power Bomb to destroy a group of stalagmites (indicated by a trio of Pow) to uncover another Missile Tank.

Most of that was initially your writing btw, so yes they're constructed well enough for what a room needs. The issue remains that the vast majority of them don't need more than what's above and there hasn't been a standard to determine limits. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:51, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I think Peabody has made better calls, but I initially got involved with this on a question of judgement for Water-filled room "and others like it".

We're meeting you halfway here, why can't you do the same? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:19, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

If y'all are going to use the same logic that was used to create long corridor and vertical chamber, nothing is going to change. Peabody has said many times that he considers what he's going to make before he does so, but there's nothing of note in vertical chamber. I don't see the logic for an entire separate article just because an elevator is dropped on a chameleon. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:30, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

I put Vertical chamber in the "Ruins Entrance class of rooms" (i.e. notable for introducing a brand new area's aesthetics and music), and it also introduces the very first instances of multiple creatures (Needler, Electric Moheek, Insect0701) and a new gameplay element (superheated Charge Door). I cannot vouch for the notability of RoyboyX's Other M rooms, but only because I have never played Other M and therefore I legitimately do not know if there is anything significant about these particular rooms.

"If those exist, why shouldn't wallfire hall?" Because we can write more information about more notable rooms. If we make the room list and then afterward we can see that a particular room in the list has enough substantial information to justify splitting off a separate article, then we should have the freedom to make that article, hence my proposal. Wallfire hall and other similar rooms covered by the list simply won't have enough content to justify sliding down that slippery slope.

"And for a site that accesses its topics by their name, a name means a lot." So, again, if this issue is more about wiki navigation than it is about content, then we can make the lists for ease of navigation and access without needing to explicitly remove all "unnamed room" articles, hence my proposal.

"... any names they come up with are as much official as something that you or I would." No, that's a false equivalency. The important difference between Prima's names and Wikitroid's conjectural names is, again, Prima is endorsed by Nintendo while Wikitroid is an unofficial fansite. It's right there on the front cover: "Official Nintendo Licensed Product". They're professional writers selling a product approved by Nintendo. It's actually more akin to Nintendo letting third-party developers such as Retro Studios, Team Ninja, and MercurySteam make official Metroid games... it's not a perfect analogy, since Nintendo presumably has a bigger hand in the third-party games than in strategy guides, but Nintendo also clearly provided art and other game assets to Prima in order to make a book ready for release the same day as the game itself, so it's not like Prima is working alone in a vacuum without Nintendo's involvement either.

"... nothing is going to change." I've said I'm willing to compromise, and RoyboyX said he's willing to get behind the idea. With all due respect, the one who isn't yielding here is you. If you keep insisting that you are the "be-all and end-all" judge of article notability (something that is far more nuanced than just whether or not it has a name), then we'll clearly never agree on this issue, we won't get anywhere with this RfC, and nothing is going to change.

That's why I keep hoping that the compromise could be something we can agree upon, at least for the short term (i.e. if you can prove to us that the lists are fantastic and completely negate the need for individual articles, but at this point that would be something that only time could tell). It is essentially your own idea, after all; it's just modified to give a little more freedom to editors such as myself and RoyboyX to justifiably expand upon certain topics as full-fledged articles. --PeabodySam (talk) 21:08, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Aesthetics are already covered by region articles and can be noted as it appears on the list, there'd be no need for a separate room article just because of that. We'll never see Prima eye-to-eye. I'll always consider them nothing more than a fan's walkthrough allowed to make money. But if you want to use them and derive names from them, use the same professional voice as a proper noun if you have nothing to go on except a descriptive name. "T-shaped corridor" is a prime example of a bad naming scheme, among others. There's still going to be conflicts with the lack of a proper definable standard for creating rooms, but if it works then it works. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:48, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

I’m just going to say this: As far as rooms are concerned, I personally think that we should reserve separate articles exclusively for rooms and locations that have official, in-game names. That’s my stance, and I stand by it. If we just make up names, or even use one-off conjectural ones from Prima guides, there’s no way Wikitroid visitors, especially ones who haven’t read the guides, are going to know what to search for.

As for superheated lava, lava tides and ordinary lava, I still think they should all be consolidated to a single article; regardless of what similarities scalding-hot lava may share with acid, if it’s referred to as lava by official material, then it’s lava. It doesn’t really matter whom you talk to, if they aren’t official. And while we’re on the subject, we really need to merge Flaahgra and Flaahgra Tentacle into one article; the fact that we haven’t already done so baffles me. Unless we want to make separate articles for Quadraxis’ various forms now, too.

I do think we should keep the disambig for Hyper Beam. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 03:12, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

"In-game names" - does this mean Observation Room and Swamp Zone have to go? Their names occur in Japanese concept art, found in the game. Such strict adherence to use of in-game names is dangerous. Not everything is named in-game. Some things (rooms or otherwise) are named only in guides, manga or other print. If you're going with the logic that readers won't know to look for them, none of the pages we currently have that use conjectural names should exist. Again, this is an article cull. But I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm completely sick of this. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:08, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

I meant more in terms of official material, but then I suppose I worded it poorly. Still, I agree with Madax: I don’t think we should not count room names made up by the writers of Prima guides, since 9 times out of 10 those are purely conjectural on the authors’ parts. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 05:46, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

I meant more in terms of official material, but then I suppose I worded it poorly. Still, I agree with Madax: I don’t think we should count room names made up by the writers of Prima guides, since 9 times out of 10 those are purely conjectural on the authors’ parts. --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 05:49, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

"It doesn’t really matter whom you talk to, if they aren’t official." It seems that you may have missed my point: the "who" in this instance isn't unofficial fan websites, but official Nintendo guidebooks. Or, if guidebooks are no longer considered "official" sources, then calling it "lava" would be as equally "unofficial" as calling it "acid". It's true that this is an English wiki and all (known) English media refers to it as lava, but it's often important to factor in the other languages, especially Japanese; for example, if we didn't, then we'd be erroneously calling these PYR creatures "Skree" instead of Geruta. Since it isn't clear-cut whether it's acid or lava (i.e. which official source is more canonical), it's better to separate it from both articles.

Frankly, if we want to be cynical about Prima's official guides, then we must also regard names like Nettori and Proteus Ridley to be unofficial, since we have no way of validating that they are actually from Nintendo and not just made up on the spot by Prima writers to sound cool. Madax even suggested citogenesis earlier in this RfC when he said that Prima used "our" name for Rock Icicle. However, this cynicism opens up a whole can of worms that we really don't want to open. What's wrong with using the guide's names and just making sure it's properly cited and labeled with Template:Sourced name? It's what we've been doing for many years, and I still do not see the problem with it. Why do rooms need to be an absolute exception? --PeabodySam (talk) 23:37, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

If you're saying it should be separate because it's not clear whether it's acid or lava, then why are you calling it lava? And I just looked at the Fusion strategy guide and the amount of naming issues within it and wow, yeah I'm concerned. These guides should not be taken with just a grain of salt, they're actually trash. You should be looking to the guides for a walkthrough, not an official medium for naming things. I'd say we probably need to look into Nettori and such for actual names, but they've been ingrained into the Metroid community for so long. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 14:02, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

He explained above why he calls it lava. Stop projecting the Fusion and Prime guide onto the whole of Prima's guides. I've never said we should take these names as gospel. We have the sourced name template for a reason. What would you have us do, delete all pages using Prima names and disregard it completely? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 15:34, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

I just said we should look into finding actual names instead of going off an unreliable guide. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 16:13, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Well as you said, Nettori has been ingrained into the community for so long, that we can let that one slide. I've long said that we can look for better names or come up with our own rather than getting rid of everything. If you're concerned about people not being able to find such pages, then we'll double up the amount of links to each one. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 16:16, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Let that one slide? You mean if we find a name from a more reliable source to just ignore it? What? Anyway, I don't know how many times I have say this in different ways until you get it, but I'm not trying to get rid of anything. I'm trying to move things out of respect for readers. No amount of links to long dirt tunnel will change the fact that it's isolated out of connecting rooms. There's absolutely no reason to create an entire article for an unnamed room object when the room description can take care of documentation just fine (there's an entire notability clause for that, too). --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 16:28, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

If you find something better (i.e. Power Bomb Cannon > Spider Boost), then by all means use that. Until that happens, Nettori is fine. How do we judge what room objects are and are not notable? You said Ship-upgrade system was fine, what about Energy Generator? That's a multi-room object involved in a planet-wide puzzle. That's notable, yet it's a page of high concern. Why? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 16:40, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

Because the generator is only a small part of that puzzle? Samus is literally just using her ship grapple to move it from point A to point B; the generator is not a complicated system or process unlike the ship upgrade one. Also the ship upgrade system is more than just a giant door within a room or few cables that subtlety direct the player. It's an upgrade mechanic that has a tangible impact to Samus' equipment and progress outside of just the single location it's in. There is no need for articles for each individual piece ("missile racks", "energy generator", "door lock system") when the entire system, item, or room covers all of its parts and they have no relevancy elsewhere. Or, in other terms already defined, "topics whose articles ... could be discussed in other articles without leaving the primary topic".

You know I'm now curious as to why there is as much if not more detail about the process to get the energy cell on the generator page than the actual relevant energy cell article. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 22:22, May 16, 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, I will look at adjusting the page to focus more on the generator, but I doubt that will satisfy you. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Probably because there's so little about the generator? It's just repeating itself from the rooms it's in and the energy cell it's for. My point for that last paragraph was showing that you're having to artificially fluff these objects by repeating parent subjects because there's nothing else about them. That's a bad case for an article even before this RFC. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:24, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

If we can't agree on anything, the RfC will never end. I gave a little (with partial room lists), why don't you give a little? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:57, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

(UNDENT) Have I not been changing views and giving in a little during this RFC? The room lists in the style of Fusion's weren't brought up until after the discussion started, and I was immediately trying to draw up plans for them so every room could be documented, not just the "notable" ones so I could satisfy everyone's desire for complete coverage. I changed from trying to consolidate small rooms like Prime save stations or determine "notability" for rooms at the behest of whoever's active at the time to saying that any room with a name, no matter how small or insignificant, would be eligible for a separate article. I've retracted my initial proposal for new guidelines in favor of what FL suggested with just making our current guidelines into proper policy. I've even showed you that I'm not against all unnamed room objects having their own articles and why, since there are some that are "notable". I've been giving ever since TPO was first brought up. Is all of this stonewalling to you? --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:40, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

I changed from trying to consolidate small rooms like Prime save stations or determine "notability" for rooms at the behest of whoever's active at the time to saying that any room with a name, no matter how small or insignificant, would be eligible for a separate article.

In doing so, you seek to remove my ability to decide what is notable, you have questioned my judgment, and you've called me an "incredulous problem". Maybe some of the corridor pages can go on a list. I made that concession. But an editor of ten years is not a problem.

I've retracted my initial proposal for new guidelines in favor of what FL suggested with just making our current guidelines into proper policy.

The new guidelines would have been too broad and restrictive, so yes, you have conceded there. All right.

I've even showed you that I'm not against all unnamed room objects having their own articles and why, since there are some that are "notable".

Which ones? You mean the ones of low or no concern? Do any of the high concern ones carry weight with you? No. You still want to get rid of everything that's of high concern. When I say get rid of, I'm referring to the pages themselves. You might copy some information to one page, but remove some more, and now you want to completely disregard Prima as a source.

You lumped Soldiers, Cargo-bay doors, Tall Chozo structure and Power node in with the room objects. The Soldiers page could certainly use images and a cleanup, but your arguments against room object pages don't apply to that one. What would that page be merged into? What would the other three be merged into? Those are doors in multiple rooms and should not be removed. The structure makes a cameo in other media and is an important element that teaches use of the Power Grip, so it is not scenery. The power nodes are a plot object and hazard. Again, what would you merge these with?

Speaking of using only names from Nintendo publications, these rooms you tagged as high concern have names/descriptions originating from official or officially licensed (and not trash), non-Prima publications:

Rocky cave
Multiviola Nest
Zebbo Nest
Croc's pit
Zebbo Nest
Grapple Crossing
Lava room
Flooded cavern
Path of Destruction
Blue-bubble shaft
Hopping-Mad Corridor
Vertical chamber
Golden Torizo's chamber

Are they still invalid to you? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:54, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Your apparent goal to me throughout this entire RFC hasn't been to prevent "throwing out hours of work". From day one, before I even published this thing, you have detested this for being an "article cull" according to your words and have loathed the very idea of article deletion. This hasn't been about considering organization and grouping common items together for you, this has been solely a fight to keep your creation log from losing bullet points and to prevent the wiki's page number from going lower. I'm tired of pretending like this is a minor complaint on my part, this is actually affecting wiki structure at this point and I'm not the only one with this grievance. You have demanded, note demanded, I remove items from the lists in the original post numerous times in an effort to secure as much as possible. It doesn't matter how much I explain that information isn't being lost, the very fact that a page could be deleted regardless of its content being kept has been your sole purpose to prevent. You've been through three bans and have fought tooth and nail against people legitimately trying to make this wiki better throughout your ten years. You are a problem user.

Point as an example above: "Which ones? You mean the ones of low or no concern? Do any of the high concern ones carry weight with you? No. You still want to get rid of everything that's of high concern." Why do you still ask me this question. I gave examples of ones that I didn't think conflicted with notability. Those were placed in the low concern category, where the ones I did and still do think conflict with future policy were placed in the high concern category. This isn't about keeping in check with guidelines and policies for you, though; this is about article count.

Soldiers: Galactic Federation Army redirects to 07th Platoon, a small subset of the army. Why? Why isn't this expanded upon in broader terms, with Samus' times with the "other soldiers" part of the article? Why did you instead think it was a better idea to create an entire article about a group of nine people you see in a flashback or two.
Cargo-bay doors: They're only relevant for progression within their rooms of Docking Bay 5 (Olympus/Valhalla) and Repair Bay A which already talk about them. Yes, they should be removed.
Tall Chozo structure: Again, it's only relevant for progression within the single room it's in. It doesn't need an entire article for that when the room will cover it. Remind me again why it's impossible to make note of stage design on the stage itself?
Power node: Why is Sector 4 (AQA) inadequate for talking about these? These don't need an entire article to discuss them (or the one in a scan in Turbine Chamber).

Oh and yes the bullet list you provided has the following issues. Most of them are not proper nouns and therefore aren't names. They're derived from descriptors within guides ("Watch for creatures that crawl along the ledges of this vertical chamber as you make your way up.") The ones that seem to be using proper nouns, like "PATH OF DESTRUCTION", are section headers within the guide for each room; here's a few of the other section headers in them: "X-CELLENT", "TAKE YOUR SWEET TIME", "NOT HOT", and "NO BOUNDARIES". So yes, they're invalid names. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:52, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

This hasn't been about considering organization and grouping common items together for you, this has been solely a fight to keep your creation log from losing bullet points and to prevent the wiki's page number from going lower.

I said earlier on that this is not true. The rooms have a purpose. Some of the objects have a purpose. A few smaller pages of their nature will not do us harm.

You've been through three bans and have fought tooth and nail against people legitimately trying to make this wiki better throughout your ten years. You are a problem user.

The first two bans were over reactive. They went too far, blocking me indefinitely for "misbehavior". You'll have to clarify the "tooth and nail" remark. When have I fought against "legitimate" edits? C&C? As you'll recall, that was to prevent ridiculous pages for games with minor cameos (not on the level of Smash or WarioWare and the like), and I was arguing for their deletion. I could've handled it better, but let's not flog that long-dead horse.

As for the four articles, Galactic Federation Army should redirect to Galactic Federation Marine Corps, not 07th Platoon. If it's going there, that's an error. I didn't add those soldiers to the 07th Platoon page, because we don't know for a fact that that is the same platoon Samus allies with in Other M. Adam could've commanded multiple platoons. If it's really a problem, how about we create a list of unnamed background characters, which can include people that Samus passes by in the "young and naive" scene, the Mario lookalike from the manga, people on K-2L, Liberty and other human settlements, and other characters without names. These soldiers could go on that list.

It doesn't need an entire article for that when the room will cover it.

Except you won't let me write a page for that room. What you really mean is its section on a list of Chozodia rooms.

If you cannot look beyond past events, and you continue to ignore my many constructive edits (article creation or not), then I won't keep contributing here. Is that what you want? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:30, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Do you hear yourself? "Except you won't let me write a page for that room. What you really mean is its section on a list of Chozodia rooms." You come to me, saying "will you give a little" and you still have this mindset? I'm actually reeling.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim it isn't about article count; that comment above, your approach to this RFC, and your editing patterns from knowing you for ten years all point otherwise. This never will be about documenting purpose to you. If it was, you'd see that everything I've been telling you allows you to still write about their purpose. This is entirely about inflating article count for you.

You've fought for no reason other than spite against a user in descriptive names RFC. You drove Memory to retirement due to your constant drama throughout the years, including using alt accounts to sabotage votes and even attempting to demote FL at one point. There has always been a constant battle with you, and it's growing rather tiring. Stop telling me ignore the "long-dead horse" that's still kicking the place down.

No, the soldiers don't belong on the 07th platoon. Neither do they belong on the marine corps. Marines are not army, just like army isn't navy. The soldiers would go on a Galactic Federation Army page. And background characters? Really? Keep the background characters where they're relevant, on their proper subjects (like what I'm trying to do with everything else). --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 05:59, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Then let's make a page for the Galactic Federation Army, and the soldiers can go there. I'm astonished, honestly, that we didn't write a page for the army. I didn't tell Memory to quit, she chose to retire on her own. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 06:17, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Drove, not told. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 06:20, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

If you want to disregard Prima as a source, then what do we do about our purple liquid page? We can't get rid of that. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:36, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

[UNDENT] Wow. Just when I had the slightest hope that this RfC could reach a compromise, it's instead escalated. And grown ugly. Very ugly. Whatever grievances we've had with one another should not matter here, especially since I am a (relatively) new member with no such controversial history. For example, if you believe that Royboy's motivations are compromised because of his creations log, then know that I have no such creations log; you can't so easily dismiss my argument by attacking my character. Let's keep this focused on the task at hand, not on each other.

"If you're saying it should be separate because it's not clear whether it's acid or lava, then why are you calling it lava?" I'm tired of constantly having to repeat myself regarding the scalding-hot lava/hydrochloric acid debate. I've said it multiple times in this RfC, and it's also thoroughly laid out in the sandbox draft.

"You should be looking to the guides for a walkthrough, not an official medium for naming things." No. This is not a viable solution at all. This is creating a problem where there wasn't one before.

We are a Metroid wiki. It is our job to represent the Metroid series as given to us by Nintendo. That includes the material in books (guides or otherwise) that Nintendo has published, licensed, or endorsed as official products. This should not be an issue at all, as long as sources are cited properly and any errors are treated as such, as we've been doing for years; I've repeatedly asked why this long-held practice is suddenly no longer acceptable, and still have not received a direct answer.

Other game wikis, like Super Mario Wiki (e.g. Cluckboom) and Zelda Wiki (e.g. Yuga Ganon), have likewise cited Prima guides as a source for years. And this isn't just the case with Prima; The Legend of Zelda: Encyclopedia is a Dark Horse (i.e. third-party) book that outright admits to taking creative liberties with interpreting canon, yet Zelda Wiki still regards it and cites it as an official source because it is licensed by Nintendo.

You say we should look for "actual names". The thing is... that's more or less what has already been done. From what I can tell, Wikitroid tends to follow a basic hierarchy for determining names and other information, which I imagine looks something like this:

Games
Manuals and websites
Guidebooks (Nintendo Power, Prima, etc.)
Other media (soundtracks, manga, etc.)
Internal game data

Basically, if a name is not available in-game, then one should move down the hierarchy until a good specific name can be found. The Prime games have it easy, since the Logbook means that nearly everything is given a unique name in-game, but (and this is the point I've been repeatedly stressing) the non-Prime games aren't so fortunate, which is why it is often necessary to turn to guidebooks for names since no "better" source is available. This is the entire reason Category:Pages with sourced titles exists in the first place; it's Wikitroid's disclaimer that the article's title is not from the games themselves.

In this case, let's take Nettori as an example. Is it named in-game? No, moving on. Is it named in manuals or websites? No, moving on. Is it named in guidebooks? Yes, and that's where the name "Nettori" comes from. So, what would be this ideal "actual name" that we're looking for if guidebooks are disqualified? It simply does not exist. The only other known name is on the Japanese soundtrack, which gives it the same Japanese name used for Chozo/Torizo Statues.

However, even this hierarchy isn't an absolute. One exception I can think of is Kihunter; according to this suggested hierarchy, "Keyhunter" would be the best name since the Super Metroid manual would rank higher than any source that uses the "Kihunter" spelling, but "Kihunter" has become the more accepted spelling since it's been used in many more sources over the years.

I'm guessing that Super Smash Bros. would be placed higher than guidebooks because Smash would be a more direct source from Nintendo. Therefore, "Mecha Ridley" is more official than the guidebook's "Ridley Robot", while other names like "King Kihunter" and "RB176 Ferrocrusher" (both of which made their debut in the Prima guide) are corroborated and confirmed by their use in Smash. However, since Smash tends to contain lore errors (such as Dark Suit's location being misattributed to the Dark Torvus Temple), its information should be carefully and critically evaluated instead of taken as gospel, just like any other source (including guidebooks).

Another gray area is Japanese vs. English, since we use a little of both on this wiki (e.g. Zazabi is Japanese while Yakuza is English). Since Wikitroid is an English wiki, I think it's more important to prioritize official English names where available; when a specific name is not available in English, then its Japanese name should be used instead. This is why Charge Beam Beast, Acid Worm, Imago, and Ruins Test use their English guidebook names while Kiru Giru uses its Japanese website name.

Internal game data would be at the bottom of the list because, while it does come directly from the game developers themselves, these are names that were never "meant" to be seen by the public. Even the game developers' own words shouldn't be taken as absolute fact; Mike Sneath reportedly referred to Meta Ridley as female.

Conjectural names made up by fans and Wikitroid editors should be an absolute last resort. The fact that we use them at all demonstrates that a subject doesn't always need an official name to be considered notable enough for an article.

Of course, this has strayed considerably from the RfC's initial goal of establishing more concrete notability guidelines. But, I feel I've said everything I could about rooms, and Royboy is making the stronger case for objects than I would (however, I will say that I created Tall Chozo structure because I strongly felt that the Chozodia and Norfair "parent articles" were referring to a "missing" child article that needed to be made). Now that the RfC has escalated to a windmill crusade against guidebooks in a well-meaning but misguided attempt to enforce professionalism, I felt I needed to say my piece. --PeabodySam (talk) 17:24, May 19, 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Peabody. I've responded to his personal attacks on his talk page and stressed that this is not the place for them. I also said that if he is concerned about my creations log he is welcome to delete it. As you have made clear, every source has errors and is never 100% accurate. To discount one source of information - Prima Games guides - as "trash" is irresponsible, especially when we already have a disclaimer that a name originates from a guide (name, description, whatever). Madax, will you answer Peabody's question? Why is it that our long practice of using manuals, guides and other sources, citing them properly and treating any errors as they are, is no longer acceptable? Why is it that a subject must now have an official, in-game name to receive an article? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:18, May 20, 2019 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly disappointed by the direction it's taken, but I suppose we all are. I find it ironic you're calling me out as being misguided when you've been using unreliable outside sources for identifications. You keep saying we can simply mark them with the 'sourced' template and such, but you also tried to argue that they should be receiving help from Nintendo themselves to make it. If that's the case, there should be no reason there are as many prominent errors in their creature names, backstory lore, and even equipment descriptions as there are. The guides' sole purpose is to be exactly that: a walkthrough guide. These people have no affiliation with Nintendo other than approval to make profit; it's pretty clear that if a Nintendo representative even looks over the product before it hits the shelves, it's only to ensure the strategies live up to expectations and not anything else. Pretending it's anything else is folly. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 19:00, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Technically, Idzuki Kouji, the author of Samus and Joey and Metroid EX, had "no affiliation with Nintendo other than approval to make profit", yet those articles are not in question. Nintendo doesn't micromanage the guides, but they do provide some background information. They wouldn't license the guides if they didn't feel they were up to scratch. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 20:38, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

"[I]f a Nintendo representative even looks over the product before it hits the shelves, it's only to ensure the strategies live up to expectations and not anything else." I don't own any of the mangas nor looked into them. I don't have enough information to form a proper opinion on that matter. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 20:45, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

"You keep saying we can simply mark them with the 'sourced' template and such, but you also tried to argue that they should be receiving help from Nintendo themselves to make it." You seem to have misconstrued my arguments as some sort of hypocritical "they're not reliable except they totally are".

I stand by what I said earlier: Prima has received input from Nintendo. If Prima is working in a vacuum and just making up whatever they want, then how did they come up with names such as Vorash, King Kihunter, Joulion, etc. (none of which have any basis in Other M itself nor any of its associated media) which would then be used by Nintendo themselves in Super Smash Bros.? Even if that input is minimal, it shouldn't be ignored.

But, the "sourced name" template still serves its purpose. If we agree that in-game content (e.g. the Logbook) takes precedence over other media, then the "sourced name" template harmlessly and easily indicates that the name used by this article is not from the game itself and may be superseded in the future (as is the recent case with Mecha Ridley superseding Ridley Robot), but in the meantime does not contradict anything in-game and serves as the "most official" name that we currently have. This disclaimer is a grain of salt, not a declaration of unofficial status.

In contrast, your entire argument boils down to "These guides aren't officially written by Nintendo and contain mistakes, and therefore are completely unreliable." I've presented evidence that they were made with Nintendo's input and have been approved as official licensed products. I've shown that no source, even Nintendo or Retro Studios themselves, is completely infallible. I've explained that Wikitroid, Super Mario Wiki, Zelda Wiki, and so many others have relied on these guides for years and with good reason. And yet, you still aren't convinced. I don't know what else I can say at this point.

If we're going to disregard Prima for these reasons, then we might as well disregard Nintendo Power, since they've made plenty of mistakes. Soon enough, we're throwing out everything in Category:Pages with sourced titles. While we're at it, we should ignore Japanese guidebooks too, since we can't truly validate their reliability either... that throws out a good chunk of Category:Translated Name as well.

(For clarification, when I say "throwing out", I don't mean actually deleting these articles, but declaring that their names are all invalidated and must be promptly replaced with "official" names... but said "official" names do not exist in any known capacity!)

Tell me, where are we going to find over 200 "official" names for these articles? What do you want us to do? Call up Nintendo of America and ask them to confirm every single English name ever used in Metroid guides?

This brings me back to something I said before: this cynicism opens up a whole can of worms that we really don't want to open. I said this when I was trying to rhetorically explain why your argument against Prima as a source would cause more problems than it would solve, and unfortunately your response was to eagerly grab the nearest can-opener.

"I find it ironic you're calling me out as being misguided when you've been using unreliable outside sources for identifications." If you want to claim that my sourcing names is "misguided", that defeats the entire purpose of sourcing names in the first place.

During my time here on Wikitroid, I cracked down hard on names such as "King Worm" and "Arachnus-X" precisely because (despite being well-used by the fandom) they actually have little to no basis in any known Metroid media, and were only based on unofficial fan websites. I've combed through the scanned pages of Metroid guidebooks on MDb in order to make sure everything can be backed up with a quote and a page number. I've scoured through Japanese text that I can't even read, just so I could confirm where various translated names came from. All this, so that we can cite our sources and prove that our names came from official media either created or approved by Nintendo.

But I guess that apparently makes my work misguided and unreliable? That's a shame. I guess all that work was for nothing when a name like "Nettori" is literally just as official as "ULF314" in the end, according to your argument. --PeabodySam (talk) 23:33, May 29, 2019 (UTC)

Madax, I've written a Galactic Federation Army page and moved most of the text from Soldiers there. I think this is what you had in mind. Are you comfortable with how it is, and shall we merge the Soldiers page into it? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 07:04, June 3, 2019 (UTC)

Yep, nice work on it, Roy. And Peabody, I'll admit that they're probably given big names like Diggernaut or Vorash. But some cases like Nettori are only found in one source despite there being multiple books. There's also cases like Chozo Tower where they explicitly state they made up the name, not Nintendo. That along with the atrocious amount of content that wasn't proofread has given me good reason to not trust them. Yes, like you've said before, even the games aren't infallible, but they're our primary source. I don't expect the guides to be perfectly infallible either, but if we're going to heavily rely on them I'd expect them to be far more reliable. Their lack of effort to properly cross-check information has made me very concerned you want to rely on them so much. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 16:05, June 3, 2019 (UTC)

We have never wanted to treat Prima guides' information as gospel, but they are an officially licensed source that is as reliable yet flawed as any other source mentioned, including the games themselves. To address your concern, I've added a disclaimer to the name citation on Chozo Tower which makes clear that the author explicitly wrote that they made up the name. Our practice of citing page titles as being sourced has worked fine and I fail to see why that will stop being the case. Our approach is simple: we use whatever name we can find, translating it if necessary, and if we can't, as an absolute last resort we come up with our own. If a name eventually surfaces, like the previously mentioned Spider Boost and Mecha Ridley examples, then we would use that. If you'd prefer, we can even tighten the language on the sourced name template. ("The current title is from a guide or other published source from Nintendo or other parties.") RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:47, June 4, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this? It ensures that "other parties" are limited to only those licensed and approved by Nintendo. This would include Prima but not GamePro, for example.

"No matches found in flora and fauna databank"
----

The subject of this article is not named in-game.
The current title is from a guide or other published source written or licensed by Nintendo.

--PeabodySam (talk) 18:56, June 8, 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. Madax, can you get behind this? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 19:03, June 8, 2019 (UTC)

In regards to rooms, would everyone be okay with limiting full articles to only those with publicly viewable, proper definitive names from licensed media? This would not include unofficial/conjectural names like "Bubble Mountain", descriptive phrases like "vertical chamber", or section headers that aren't titled with room names in mind like "Path of Destruction". Those without proper names would still be documented under their respective region-by-game list, and those with them could get a main article as well. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:47, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

How is that any different from what you've been pushing ever since you first proposed room lists? It still gets rid of most of the "high concern" rooms. Which rooms specifically would not affected by your new idea if it was implemented? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:03, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Really? You've been asking for me to include the books. "Chozo Tower" and any others that are given proper names are exempted. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:32, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

No deal. That's still only one out of all of them. In the case of the Super Metroid rooms, most of them are better known to fans by their conjectural names, such as the n00b bridge and Bubble Mountain. If you're concerned about people being confused and not knowing where to look, assigning those ones different names or putting them on a list would be the worse option. It's like if you were editing the Doom Wiki and you renamed the Doomguy page "The Soldier" because Doomguy isn't an official name.

These are the room pages I will concede to lists: Dessgeega-infested hall, Long hall, Long pathway, Crooked corridor, Underground cavern, T-shaped corridor, Experiment Floor Access, Restroom and Long passageway. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:49, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

This is hopeless. They're still going to be named n00b bridge and all that on the region-by-game list. Redirect and all. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:04, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

You didn't respond to our suggestion of tightening the language on the Sourced name template. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:11, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what this was supporting. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 02:12, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Fine. Another question you still haven't answered is why room pages with conjectural names are unacceptable, but other non-room subjects (like Murder Beam, Space Dragon, Ending Outfit or Unnamed Suit) seem to be fine? Or should those be removed too? I'll remind you that Space Dragon and Unnamed Suit are former Unknown Name System pages, and you supported scrapping that system. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:22, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

"I'd rather make the call here and now to create a standard for rooms, the largest group of topics in those unnamed categories." --22:28, April 30, 2019 (UTC) Also see: "Curating Content". --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 03:41, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

Chozo Tower should be exempted now anyway. It has a proper name, and the page now makes abundantly clear that the author made the name up. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:14, June 20, 2019 (UTC)

I still oppose enforcing a hard limit on creating articles for rooms only with "proper definitive names". As I've said before, significance is more nuanced than just a name, and this sets an insurmountable barrier for the majority of significant 2D Metroid rooms. Section headers are not so black-and-white, since these titles could easily qualify as room names if the section is referring to a specific room. And then there are cases such as the three tower corridors, which do not have proper names but the guide repeatedly refers to these rooms by a unique phrase that is not repeated for any other room.

If names are still the major issue, then once again I am open to discussing renaming articles such as vertical chamber; while I would prefer terms (even generic ones) from official guides over conjectural fan names whenever possible, I will concede if this is an absolute must. And once again, I am still open to creating room lists, but only as long as most of the currently-existing room articles are not deleted and future room articles can still be created as editors see fit, since I still fail to see an objective reason why these room articles are hurting Wikitroid as a wiki.

Unfortunately, I think this is where Madax and I come to a stalemate, since I don't think anything either of us can say can or will change the other's mind at this point. Royboy is the only other one who feels strongly about this issue, while the other admins (FastLizard4 and Dr. Anonymous1) don't feel strongly but seem to be siding with Madax, and nobody else on Wikitroid has voiced any input on this matter. I don't know what else can be said or done at this point. --PeabodySam (talk) 02:21, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

The ultimate outcome of the Descriptive Names RfC was that, yes, new guidelines were implemented, but it was also stipulated that users would use their best judgment when it came to names. Only allowing pages for rooms with "proper names" only restricts the creativity of our editors. I think at this point we have a consensus that the new guidelines will not be implemented, rather the old ones will become rules. Now it's a case of continuing to bicker about which pages should remain, and which should be scrapped. Lots of them can be kept and reworked, rather than scrapping them all. I've already said which ones I want to stay, and which ones I won't fight for. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:26, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of finally putting at least part of this months-long gridlock to an end, I've taken a page out of Piratehunter's book and drafted a policy including a point/criteria system specifically for rooms. I hate to give him credit for anything, but his 3-Point System solved the C&C RfC.

You can read it here. If we agree on this proposal, it can become policy and the room aspect of this RfC will be over. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 05:11, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll support this. --PeabodySam (talk) 02:53, July 9, 2019 (UTC)

I like the direction, but there's a couple items that I think need to be modified. In judging notability, point 1 is moot; the entire purpose of the policy draft is to judge if there's special significance for notability, so it shouldn't be there. If you're meaning something else, be more specific. Point 3 is too weak; there's not much significance in doors simply locking when the enemies are fodder. The previous point for bosses applies better in that regards. I think point 4 needs a special note that game progression does not equal plot progression. For point 5, I'm going to take the approach of aether/dark aether rooms and point out that differences between alternate versions of rooms don't warrant a merge of them. A change in overall game design (assets used, physics engine, new graphical abilities) will always create differences in rooms carried over, such as enemies used, placement of platforms, and scenery. I think point 6 is weak as well, point 7 even more so, considering that we've had projects such as Norfair/Items in place for a long time now to cover items. In the spirit of curating content, I do think those item pages would function better under games (Super Metroid/Items) rather than regions spanning multiple games. Finally, point 0 needs to be bumped up. You can write a paragraph easily for every single room. I would recommend setting that as three minimum with information that doesn't involve room location or stating what a picture can tell you. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 16:13, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

In judging notability, point 1 is moot; the entire purpose of the policy draft is to judge if there's special significance for notability, so it shouldn't be there. If you're meaning something else, be more specific.

Clarified. This question will now refer to "landmark" rooms, i.e. you think of this area, you think of that room.

Point 3 is too weak; there's not much significance in doors simply locking when the enemies are fodder.

That point is specifically referring to rooms such as the ones where the Ice Beam and Wave Beams are authorized; both of these rooms meet other criteria (the Ice Beam one has items and, if you make a mistake, is the event horizon for a game-breaking glitch). There might be other rooms with fights or other action events that do not meet other criteria and therefore don't qualify for pages.

I think point 4 needs a special note that game progression does not equal plot progression.

Clarified. By plot, I meant if a cutscene happens there or if Samus has a monologue in that room.

For point 5, I'm going to take the approach of aether/dark aether rooms and point out that differences between alternate versions of rooms don't warrant a merge of them. A change in overall game design (assets used, physics engine, new graphical abilities) will always create differences in rooms carried over, such as enemies used, placement of platforms, and scenery.

There is no comparison between M2ROS-MSR rooms and Aether/Dark Aether rooms. Those rooms are generally identical, but intended to be separate, while the SR388 rooms are nearly the same between the two games. That would be like splitting any Metroid-Metroid: Zero Mission rooms, such as Corridor No. 1 (do not remove that one - that name comes from a manual), into separate articles for each version.

I think point 6 is weak as well, point 7 even more so, considering that we've had projects such as Norfair/Items in place for a long time now to cover items.

The area item lists can evolve to accommodate, we don't need to get rid of them, and they can still serve to document items in rooms that won't get pages. We could even make Prime area item lists if we felt like it to make it fair. Almost like area checklists. (not forgetting to avoid being oou of course)

In the spirit of curating content, I do think those item pages would function better under games (Super Metroid/Items) rather than regions spanning multiple games.

No, they wouldn't. What did I say about enormous lists? We don't need to make those any bigger than they already are. If you mean Brinstar/Items (Metroid), Brinstar/Items (Super Metroid), Brinstar/Items (Metroid: Zero Mission), then maybe. But not for an entire game.

Finally, point 0 needs to be bumped up.

Bumped.

You can write a paragraph easily for every single room. I would recommend setting that as three minimum with information that doesn't involve room location or stating what a picture can tell you.

For a room like "long passageway", no, you wouldn't need much more than a paragraph for it. But a single paragraph to cover the lava cavern, or the fight-Rhedogian-with-Anthony room, or other big ones I've cited won't cut it. One picture won't cut it either. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 23:43, July 10, 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see the issue with the length of a list if it helps with ease of use for a new reader, especially in terms of items. I don't think I've ever seen an item list for any game series organized the way we have right now. Keep in mind that almost all of the games have 100 items or less. I still think the minor upgrades makes for too weak a point; major upgrades have more significance in that regards, at least. Landmark-by-thought is still a vague and very grey direction for that to take, but it's better. For point 3, again, there's no significance in a lock-down. If it's specifically for item upgrades, then the significance comes from the upgrade itself.

I don't know why you separated my entire statement about point 0, because you missed the cohesive point I was trying to make. I'd like to reiterate and emphasize the bumping of one paragraph minimum to three paragraphs minimum for a page. Like I said, you can easily write a single paragraph about any room, but that's not enough readable prose (main body text) for a single article. However, if those three paragraphs are mostly about what a still image can convey, there's not enough information to hold it's own. Moving point 0's location within the draft was a good change as well, but not at all what I was referring to. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 14:29, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see the issue with the length of a list if it helps with ease of use for a new reader, especially in terms of items. [...] Keep in mind that almost all of the games have 100 items or less.

You assume that long lists are easier for a reader to read, which is not necessarily true. Think of the Mueller Report. How many people have actually read that, front to back, every word? Most people probably haven't. I haven't, not because I don't care, but because it's too long and I can get the gist of it from articles that break it down. If you added every single room onto a list like you're suggesting, or merged item lists by area into lists by game, then it'd be too long.

I still think the minor upgrades makes for too weak a point; major upgrades have more significance in that regards, at least.

Let me further niche this: rooms with more than one minor upgrade. There are some rooms with an Energy Tank and Power Bomb Tank, two Missile Tanks, a Missile and Aeion Tank, etc. A room with only one expansion, like the small corridor leading to the Main Elevator that has a Desbrachian shield? (This one) No page for that.

Landmark-by-thought is still a vague and very grey direction for that to take, but it's better.

I misspoke here. This is what I wrote on the policy: "Is the room a "landmark" of the area, such as a Landing Site? Does it connect to multiple rooms?" Landmark means large most of the time, and more precisely connecting to more than two rooms (i.e. entrance and exit, think Training Chamber Access) would strengthen a room's candidacy for a page. I'll have to go through each MOM room to determine which ones would meet criteria, and Peabody can do the same with M2/MSR rooms.

For point 3, again, there's no significance in a lock-down. If it's specifically for item upgrades, then the significance comes from the upgrade itself.

You've made your thoughts on this clause clear. I'll wait for others to agree or disagree before I strike it from the proposal.

I don't know why you separated my entire statement about point 0, because you missed the cohesive point I was trying to make. I'd like to reiterate and emphasize the bumping of one paragraph minimum to three paragraphs minimum for a page. Like I said, you can easily write a single paragraph about any room, but that's not enough readable prose (main body text) for a single article.

No it isn't, which is why those that don't meet criteria or are otherwise a paragraph long would go on a list. Let's start with upping the paragraph requirement to two, if others want it raised to three, then up it goes. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 22:48, July 11, 2019 (UTC)

If you thought there was no comparison between aether rooms and remake rooms, then item and room lists have no chance of being compared to the Mueller report. In particular, since each individual topic is sectioned off in addition to being written as concisely as possible, you're not being overwhelmed with information. Oh, and it was evident from the beginning that the point for minor upgrades was indicating more than one. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 20:04, July 13, 2019 (UTC)

If section headings are so helpful, why, when I tried to put one on this RfC discussion, did you remove it and say not to do that? Other users probably haven't voted because it is so long and hard to follow. I know for a fact that's why Bearborg hasn't said anything. Let's break it up a little, or even continue this on the "part 2" page DarkraiShadowXZ created. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 20:22, July 13, 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Signed: DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 21:31, July 13, 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want to know or are you just wanting to agitate me since you seem to not have any other response. Getting quite fed up with that, to be honest. Let's start with you introducing a second-level header underneath a fourth-level despite nothing within your response warranting such (you also used the ==editable headers== rather than <h2>those not editable</h2> in accordance with what's been used elsewhere in the RFC to help prevent editing confusions during transclusion). Let's continue with the fact that you were creating a section for a personal response to a group of my own, and not actually dividing the discussion in any meaningful or helpful manner such as a broader idea or goal. Should we also look at the fact that I had already planned proper sections for this RFC to help contain and organize it five months ago? "...after the first stage closes and the second begins, where we'll have a large-scale "requests for deletion" discussion." All of this has been under #Guidelines discussion but we've only just now seem to finally be coming to a close on both objects and rooms policies, meanwhile you've been constantly interjecting with responses more suitable for the requests for deletion discussion which was intended to occur after we had solidified an understanding of policies/guidelines. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 00:24, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

We've pretty much come to a consensus on the first stage. I'm suggesting that for the second stage, we move it to the part 2 page. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:32, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

We could, but the discussions are still going to need to be combined together for the RFC as a whole. We could also use <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags to hide the full comments and provide summaries unless viewing the talk page itself. Would keep the entire discussion of the RFC as a whole together while removing the bulk of the completed sections. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:16, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

Can I also suggest, as opposed to deleting articles and therefore having to remove red links, they be merged instead? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:32, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean leave redirects behind, since everything deleted under the scope of the RFC would be merged with something else. There's not a single answer for that question, as it's dependent on what's being merged to where and if a redirect is appropriate (Wikipedia:Purposes of redirects/Wikitroid:Deletion policy). --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:44, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

I do believe that point 1 has good potential, but let's use the proper definition of landmark rather than using it as just another word for "large" or a way to say it connects to multiple rooms. In particular, landmarks are defined as easily recognizable objects that enable someone to establish location. Also, I'm fairly certain that around half the rooms in all the games connect to more than two others, but that doesn't necessarily make them proper landmarks. How about this for helping to specify point 1:

1. Is the room a landmark of the area? A landmark may be a central hub or other such room designed to help ground Samus' location within a region. Depending on the region, there may be multiple, only one, or no landmark rooms at all.

--Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 03:24, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:31, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry if I upset anyone (non-intentionally of course), but I am merely trying to help. I want to help this company with my discoveries. I want to provide this site with rich, powerful, knowledgeable and scientific information that the readers can understand, especially for non-Metroid fans and future generations alike. It is up to my superiors to ultimately decide what to do with this information. But Madax does make a point. (if I read this correctly, that is. Feel free to correct me if I was wrong.) I won't interfere unless I have come to a consensus concerning the situation at hand, or important information occurs that (hopefully) leads to a solution. Thank you. DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 21:16, July 14, 2019 (UTC)

[Glad I could help.] By this I meant I am glad I helped out by placing a Page 2 "suggestion" (which by the way, I think I messed up the link/redirect. Sorry...) But I see now my place isn't here (on this page). I have voiced my opinion. I won't interfere unless necessary. Thank you. DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 02:24, July 16, 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the name a while back, it's fine. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:27, July 16, 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to have their say on my proposed policy? Here is another link. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:10, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

No one's mad at you, Darkrai. I would like others' inputs on the room policy draft, as well. Honestly, I would like to refine it to where only one criteria needs to be met, but it's not at that point yet. Currently, I'm of the position that the points for landmark and plot are the strongest candidates to lead into that realm, but the others aren't strong enough to support articles. For example, if a room has a boss that drops a major upgrade on death, but said room is only a box and the article is mostly talking about the bossfight or item, then the relevancy doesn't lie with the room itself. At that point, such a room wouldn't meet point 0 qualifications and I don't think a lot of the rooms relying on the other points could.

Regardless, two item expansions is pushing being called "significant", let alone a single expansion. EDIT: Also, I thought you said you misspoke when you said "you think of this area, you think of that room". So why is "recognizable" some of your qualifications despite not even initially being in the draft in the first place? --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:14, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the rooms you attached "landmark" to aren't actually landmarks according to the definition of the qualifier we agreed with. Neither tall room nor tall elevator shaft is a central hub or assists with establishing Samus' location within the Main Deck. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 21:32, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

I changed "significant number of" to "multiple". You mention a "box" room with a boss and upgrade, but the only example of such a room is Phantoon in Super Metroid. The criteria in this policy, much like the guidelines that are set to become rules, need to not be so absolute that editors cannot use their best judgment. A small box like Phantoon's room probably doesn't qualify for a page. As for the =criteria in the policy besides landmark and plot, those are meant to support the candidacy of such rooms for articles, while also giving a lifeline to those that aren't.

I said I misspoke because I wasn't clear with my intention for that criteria in this discussion. On the list, I called the "Catwalk" and "Lobby room" recognizable (changed that to say landmark), because I consider them to be landmark rooms. I also consider Tall room to be a landmark. When you think of where you are in the Main Sector, if you're in one of those rooms you have an idea. "Okay, this is the catwalk, so I'm close to Samus's ship."

Back to that list, a breakdown for you: 15/34 meet no criteria and would go on a list of Main Sector rooms, including 3 existing room pages, (I was never going to write pages for those empty connecting corridors anyway) while the other 16 would get or remain as pages, and 7 of those articles would be kept regardless because they're named in game or in concept art. Only 6 new pages would be created, at least as the policy stands now. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 21:43, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

There's more than Phantoon's room that fits that description, but that was just an example scenario and I'm not delving into that right now. But Roy, you're contradicting yourself now. Can you please take more than moment's rest before you start responding?

In judging notability, point 1 is moot; the entire purpose of the policy draft is to judge if there's special significance for notability, so it shouldn't be there. If you're meaning something else, be more specific. --Madax 16:13, July 10, 2019 (UTC)
Clarified. This question will now refer to "landmark" rooms, i.e. you think of this area, you think of that room. --Roy 23:43, July 10, 2019 (UTC)
Landmark-by-thought is still a vague and very grey direction for that to take, but it's better. --Madax 14:29, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
I misspoke here. This is what I wrote on the policy: "Is the room a "landmark" of the area, such as a Landing Site? Does it connect to multiple rooms?" Landmark means large most of the time, and more precisely connecting to more than two rooms (i.e. entrance and exit, think Training Chamber Access) would strengthen a room's candidacy for a page. --Roy 22:48, July 11, 2019 (UTC)
I do believe that point 1 has good potential, but let's use the proper definition of landmark rather than using it as just another word for "large" or a way to say it connects to multiple rooms. In particular, landmarks are defined as easily recognizable objects that enable someone to establish location. --Madax 03:24, July 14, 2019 (UTC)
That's fair. --Roy 03:31, July 14, 2019 (UTC)
Also, I thought you said you misspoke when you said "you think of this area, you think of that room". So why is "recognizable" some of your qualifications despite not even initially being in the draft in the first place? --Madax 21:14, July 20, 2019 (UTC)
I said I misspoke because I wasn't clear with my intention for that criteria in this discussion...When you think of where you are in the Main Sector, if you're in one of those rooms you have an idea. "Okay, this is the catwalk, so I'm close to Samus's ship." --Roy 21:43, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

Just take some time to actually reflect on things before you respond. It is incredibly hard to talk to you when you're like this. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 22:43, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

Seems that the meaning of a landmark room was misinterpreted somehow. "A landmark may be a central hub or other such room designed to help ground Samus's location within a region." Keypoint being "central hub or other such room". Some rooms aren't necessarily utilized like a central hub of an entire region, but nevertheless serve as a smaller hub of sorts to connect different subregions of an area. A good example of a central hub would be Power Up Cavern, while the other kind of landmark would fall along the lines of Landing Sites or Bubble Mountain. Landmark-by-thought is a very grey area, whereas you can pinpoint where different subregions, if any, converge (landing sites) or serve as hubs for their own subregions (bubble mountain). --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:13, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I was focusing on "other such rooms", which serve to bridge two different parts of an area. Examples of this are the "Lobby room", the Biosphere room with the spiralling tree, the jungle room where Samus encounters Little Birdie, and the room where you fight Ghalmanians when you first enter the Biosphere, all of which I referred to in our conversation on the Discord server. These rooms are not hubs but still connect two parts of an area. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:20, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

It's important to use common sense in that case as well, if the converging point is a simple corridor, it's not a landmark. Like was established, depending on the region there may be multiple, only one, or no landmark rooms at all. Main Sector does have it's own subregions of sorts, but the split doesn't happen at "Lobby room" (the room directly next to System Management Room for context) which is within the first and most prominent subregion of main sector [1]. The same goes for the ghalmanian room, as right after it is an actual landmark room where the spiraling tree acts as a subregion hub [2]. The little birdie room is still within that same subregion of sector 1, iirc. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 01:48, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

I'm putting together a list of Biosphere rooms now. The Little Birdie room is, if you look to the left of the map, a square room with the shape of a "slope" on top, "Griptian x3" is overlapping the room. It has paths branching off toward the spiraling tree room, the Breeding Room and the Observation Room. I'd say it's another hub. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:43, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of Biosphere rooms are going to be on a list. I'd like to amend criteria 4, for plot: if a room has some plot element, i.e. a cutscene, it can have an article as long as it meets the minimum length of two paragraphs, even if it doesn't meet other criteria. For example, both circular rooms in the Exam Center, where in the first Samus finds a dead Cyborg Zebesian, seeing the GF symbol on it, and the second one where there's a battle with them. If those rooms can be written to receive an article, then they will, if not, they won't. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:37, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

I've made lists of the Pyrosphere and Cryosphere rooms too, and made a case for separate pages for some of them. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:16, July 26, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution lies in our ability to expand [pre-existing] articles with low info by adding more detailed information? Surely there are some articles (such as rooms) that have more than meets the eye. As for characters, well I had this idea a while back before I offically signed on. The idea was to add a Damage Weapons Chart to enemies so that way readers know exactly what works on said creatures. Naturally, little details matter. The way I see it, the more information we supply, the better. DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 21:07, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to argue. To Madax, most of the "high concern" pages will never achieve that and must be merged. He's right about some of them, but not all of them. If you've got ideas for expanding any of the concern articles, I'm all ears. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 23:24, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the trick is to find out when to merge. Some pages might also be better off merging with (possibly) other low-info pages? (think of two small Yameba merging together to create a larger Yameba. How big do we want our Yameba?) [Yameba=page] Balance is key. I will continue to help find any discoveries that may help add info and/or pages. Thank you. DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 02:11, July 23, 2019 (UTC)

Presenting my own draft for the room policy, with specifics to make only one qualifier necessary. Link. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 05:04, July 26, 2019 (UTC)

I've had a look and I have questions and comments:

My policy addresses the name issue, yours does not. How will room articles with "descriptive" names, regardless of their length be treated? Will we be allowed to use descriptive names or not, and if not, does the use of a "descriptive" name preclude it from receiving a page?
Is the 1KB minimum length clause a hard limit? If, say, a paragraph or sentence on a room page is removed and it dips below 1kb, is it eligible for removal? Most of the room pages I want to make should meet this quotient. Some of the articles of high concern that I wrote and have conceded to go on lists, will. Remember that the deletion policy says stubs are not eligible for deletion simply because they're stubs.
Interesting that you choose Sequence Breaking as a criteria, I presume you had Super Metroid in mind. I'm not against that clause, yet I still don't understand what the problem is with the criteria (besides landmark/plot) in mine. I've tightened the language of the enemy fight and multiple items clauses. The enemy one was written with two MOM rooms in mind, where the Ice and Wave Beams are authorized, as those rooms meet other criteria too. Mandatory (non-boss or miniboss) enemy fights are less common in the 2D games, and it wouldn't include short corridors with enemy fights, like some in the Bio and Pyrospheres that don't have upgrades authorized or additional items.
You pointed out that we have the item lists for criteria 7 in my policy. I stated that we do not need to and I do not want to scrap the item lists. They can evolve to accommodate the (small number of) articles that will be created as a result of either of our policies going into effect. However, if we find that only a couple of rooms in all the 2D games would be spared by this criteria, I'm prepared to remove it.
I haven't looked through all of the 2D rooms but I have some future ones in mind: those 3 that Peabody's written on his sandbox, the SR388 Landing Site, the second and third rooms of "old" Brinstar, the Torizo's room and the Diggernaut chase cavern. These in addition to the rooms I've marked for pages on my sandbox, each have the potential for articles.

Whichever of our policies we implement (or even a combined policy) must leave us with the freedom to try and see if some rooms can receive articles even without criteria, if they're long enough. If they're not, onto a list. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 02:48, July 27, 2019 (UTC)

Naming guidelines/policies/hierarchies are not exclusive to rooms, so I didn't include it. I think lax naming, like calling an article "long passageway", is a bad use of the descriptive name system; at that point, creating a well-thought conjectural title would be preferable. And yes, the 1 kB is a hard limit; that's not a lot of text, and if it can't show growth beyond that after some time, it'll be brought under review.

I don't necessarily have Super in mind for the hidden world/sequence break one. I'm looking for criteria that's "outside the box", if you will. To me, what makes a room notable enough to have its own article is what can be said beyond "shoot block for missile tank" or "Samus is locked in place until the wave beam is authorized". How does the room affect the game beyond just being another spot for Samus to get to the other side? Like I said before for bosses and major items, the significance lies with that and not with the room, so that's where the focus is redirected. What is the room itself able to contribute? That's what I'm looking for in criteria for a notable article. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 04:12, July 27, 2019 (UTC)

That's what my policy seeks to clarify. Use of something generic like long passageway is discouraged, while something like "Queen's nest" is all right, because, well, what else would you call that? Most of the rooms I want to write articles for should go well over 1KB. It will touch on any boss fights, enemy fights, items etc. that are in there, but those will never be the focus of the article. As with Prime rooms, the pages will delve into the appearance of the room and its importance to the area. That was always my intention with these pages. That's the direction I took when I wrote Lava cavern, which I can't wait to see restored regardless of whose policy is ratified.

Now for the love of Chozo, will other people please weigh in on our policies? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:15, July 28, 2019 (UTC)

Bump. Anyone else? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:50, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to assume, because it's been a month, that since no one has opposed a room policy, that one can go ahead. However, we now come to yet another stalemate: whose proposal will be ratified? Mine, or Madax's. Peabody supported mine, and no one spoke up for Madax's, but he built his off of mine and I've made changes to mine as a result. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 04:34, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, given some thought...We believe in Roy's support of expansion of pages. However, we also find Madax's viewpoint of detailing enough information important as well. In personal viewpoint(s), we believe in keeping our readers reading. Our purpose here is just that. We must find noteworthy information for our pages (in more or less the same way Samus searches for power-ups). DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 22:33, September 11, 2019 (UTC)

...Right. Something like that. 2 week bump. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:49, September 17, 2019 (UTC)

Bump again. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:49, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I needed some time to properly review both proposals and offer my own thoughts... and "some time" isn't exactly something I've had a lot of recently.

Overall, I find myself more inclined towards Royboy's proposal, but I do think that Madax's version offers some good ideas as well. Perhaps if we can condense some of Royboy's points (without losing them), we can add them to Madax's list and then only need the "meet one criteria to pass" notability.

I'm not too concerned about the 1 KB prose minimum, since I'm fairly certain that most if not all of room articles already meet that requirement, so it's something I'd readily support. I do agree with Madax that three paragraphs is a good measure of a room's content and information.

I agree with Royboy that "mandatory enemy fights" could be considered notable. The vast majority of rooms contain enemies, but only a select few actually force the player to fight them. So, I do like Royboy's points #2 and #4, but they could be condensed into a single point.

However, I do think that the room itself should ideally factor into the encounter in some way, or at least have something more than just the fight. For example, this is why I think the boss rooms for Kraid, Draygon, Crocomire, and Ridley are more significant than the boss room for Phantoon. This also means that, for example, an Alpha Metroid room with a hazard affecting the battle circumstances (red plants, water, etc.) is more significant than an otherwise-empty room with an Alpha Metroid. This isn't a problem at all for "action sequence" rooms, since that's already based on the room itself.

Since major upgrades are often found in boss rooms, perhaps Royboy's point #6 could also be condensed into points #2/4. Boss battles and major upgrades serve more of a "gameplay narrative" than a "story narrative", but I think that's just as significant.

As someone who loves writing these room articles to analyze the differences between various games, it shouldn't come as a surprise that I'm inclined towards Royboy's point #5. Perhaps elaborating on it, a room that has multiple appearances (especially across different media) would be considered notable. For example, the unofficially-named "Fire-Sea Room" is not especially significant in the games themselves, but it does appear in the Captain N comics.

As for Madax's point #3, I think the inverse may also be significant. Currently in my sandbox, I have a draft written for a room that, in Return of Samus, is designed specifically to prevent sequence breaking. Typically, sequence breaking is either through developmental oversights (especially in the Prime series) or deliberately encouraged by programmers (especially in Zero Mission); an instance where the developers had the foresight to prevent a potential sequence break in a specific room would be just as notable.

This may be exclusive to Samus Returns, but I do think that Teleport Stations could also factor into room criteria. These are rooms that the player would naturally revisit more frequently while exploring the area, which make these rooms stand out more. This may be covered by point #1 (i.e. "hub rooms") in both proposals, but I just thought I'd bring it up.

I would also suggest that rooms that introduce new elements could be significant. For example, I've previously defended the vertical chamber article by pointing out the things that it introduces, most significantly the superheated charge door but also including aesthetics, music, and enemies. These are rooms that can teach the players, serving a gameplay purpose if not necessarily a story purpose.

So, that's where I currently stand. I'm still more inclined towards Royboy's proposal, but I do like Madax's suggestions. --PeabodySam (talk) 19:14, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

I believe that we can condense the points in my policy. Here is a quick, new criteria #2 that combines 2, 4 and 6 of my version. We can tweak its wording but this is mostly what it would be:

Does Samus receive authorization for/obtain a major upgrade in this room, and/or does a boss fight (i.e. Ridley), "mandatory" enemy fight (i.e. you are locked in the room until all enemies are killed) or action sequence take place here? An example includes the Zebesian battles in the rooms where the Ice and Wave Beams are authorized.

The policy that we implement after this should combine what we like about both proposals. Rooms that advance the story, have major combat or items or otherwise introduce new mechanics will take precedence, while rooms that do not are either relegated to a list or still get articles if they have over 1KB of prose and at least three paragraphs. I stand by the multiple appearances/versions criteria. I'm about to write a draft for the second room of old Brinstar (the shaft you would descend to get to Kraid's Lair), which would be supported by that criteria. The next room over, with the Energy Tank in the ceiling too. If everyone is in agreement with Peabody's ideas and my now condensed criteria, then we can finally resolve this part of the discussion.

This RfC has gone on for far, far too long. Rooms in the 2D Metroid series are, at this point, the last frontier for new articles, and this year we were supposed to explore that frontier. It's time to pass a room policy to outline a clear vision for this and break the deadlock we've been engaged in for eight months. It's time to get Wikitroid working again. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:22, October 13, 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back, Peabody. Thank you for being the intermediary between the policies. I've merged them together and added points as you've specified into the following draft: Wikitroid:Room policy. If there are any further suggestions for policy revision, I'd like to ask everyone to do so on its talk page and not here. I'll be closing this RFC in a week if no further discussion needs to take place here. --Madax the Shadow _{ADMIN} (talk • logs • contribs) 20:14, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

Beta Content

Starting to understand this a bit more. I believe it depends on the importancy of the article? (Sinmilar to scans.) Or does it apply only to main basis topics? (Hard to tell. Seriously can't find the right words at the moment...thinking and processing...)

However, concerning the expansion/impansion of certain articles, how does beta content fit into play? Surely there are a few subjects that readers could gain/obtain knowledge from (ourselves included). Examplers include but not limited to:

Beta Annihilator Beam + Disruptor/Imploder
Magmoor Caverns Echoes Multiplayer
Echoes Bonus Disc boss data and enemies
Minor enemies such as Stoke, Reflec, or Fake Ridley
Corruption's massive unused content. Clearly this adventure was much bigger than initally thought!

(Note: Enemy vulnerability data may play a huge part in at least half of these articles.)

Is it possible to re-hack some of these beta features in and study them ourselves?? Signed: DarkraiShadowXZ (talk) 19:45, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean reprogramming them into the game? (Like how you can swap a Ripper in for a Glider or there are ROM hacks to make Crocomire function in Zero Mission) That would require someone with hacking knowledge for sure. Some of the examples you cited have pages and can stay pages if they don't go against the notability guidelines, and cannot be brought into compliance with said guidelines. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:00, August 23, 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{#vardefine:rfc|Curating content}}{{#vardefine:talk|Wikitroid talk:Requests for Comment/Curating content}}{{#vardefine:status|closed}}
+{{#vardefine:status|closed}}
-{{Close request/comment
+<div style="border: 4px solid #00f; padding: 4px;">
-|statement=Implement [[Wikitroid:Room policy]], create "List of rooms in [Game]/[Region]" pages, and solidify [[Wikitroid:Deletion policy|Notability RFC]] guidelines into proper policy/ruling.
+<big><font color="skyblue">This {{BASEPAGENAME}} was closed on 00:30, October 30, 2019 (UTC) by [[User:Madax the Shadow|Madax the Shadow]]. Implement [[Wikitroid:Room policy]], create "List of rooms in [Game]/[Region]" pages, and solidify [[Wikitroid:Deletion policy|Notability RFC]] guidelines into proper policy/ruling. '''Please do not modifiy it.'''</font></big>
-|content=<h3>[[Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Curating content|Curating content]]</h3>
+----
+<h3>[[Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Curating content|Curating content]]</h3>
 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 fledge 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.
@@ Line 91: / Line 93: @@
 '''List of non-room articles'''
 <div class="mw-collapsible-content">
-<!-- *{{#ifexist:pagetitle|[[pagetitle]]|pagetitle}} -->
 '''High-concern articles'''<br/>
@@ Line 150: / Line 151: @@
 '''List of rooms'''
 <div class="mw-collapsible-content">
-<!-- *{{#ifexist:pagetitle|[[pagetitle]]|pagetitle}} -->
 *{{#ifexist:Dessgeega-infested hall|[[Dessgeega-infested hall]]|Dessgeega-infested hall}}
@@ Line 202: / Line 202: @@
 '''List of older articles and rooms'''
 <div class="mw-collapsible-content">
-<!-- *{{#ifexist:pagetitle|[[pagetitle]]|pagetitle}} -->
 ''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.''
@@ Line 233: / Line 232: @@
 {{Wikitroid talk:Requests for Comment/Curating content}}
-<!-- Please use the talk page for all discussion. -->
 {{#ifeq:{{#var:status}}|open|<inputbox>
@@ Line 245: / Line 243: @@
 </inputbox>
 <center>''Looking to respond inline to a particular comment? [[Wikitroid talk:Requests for Comment/Curating content|Click here]]''</center>|}}
+</div>
-}}