Wikitroid:Requests for Comment

Archives# Archive 1 # Archive 2

This page is for discussion regarding policies, rules, procedure, guidelines, and the like. All users are welcome and asked to comment, including anonymous users. However, only registered users should create a new topic. Archived sections are surrounded by a thick blue border and should not be edited. If you wish to reopen an archived debate, please ask an active administrator to do so.

Wikitroid:Requests for Comment/Creating a new topic

---

Fansites and Cosplayers

We need a standard. We either say "delete all fansites" or "keep all notable fansites". Thus, I propose a vote here on this specific issue. Personally, I'm leaning towards the former, since I don't see why fansites are needed for a gameplay oriented site like this. Mr. Anon 21:49, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

We also need to think of what to do with cosplayer articles. Do we keep them, or do we delete them? --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Questions:
  1. Should articles about fansites and cosplayers be deleted, or should they be kept? Also, which fansites qualify as notable?
     • Possible Positions: Delete, Keep, and Neutral. If keep, please specify which articles.
     • Default if no consensus: The fansite/cosplayers articles will remain as is.

Fansites vote/discussion

This really needs to be a seperate RfC. At the moment they contain unique information not easily found in outsde sources, so they would be grouped with the vast majority of "good" articles under the current notability doctrine. Anything else would need to be a seperate rule. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 00:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

It is, but I don't think he knows the formatting. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:12, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Um Anon, by that logic you'd have to delete the Smash Back Room and other such pages on SmashWiki. I'd say stick to MG's original idea of individual debates. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 01:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

SmashWiki standards =/= Wikitroid standards. Smash is a fighting game, so competitive matters are important, but the same cannot be said about Metroid. Mr. Anon 18:06, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

There is actually a competitive aspect to Metroid, but not in the normal sense. Metroid is one of the most popular series for speedrunning. Sequence breaks (heck, the term itself has it's roots in the Metroid community), and the like make up some of the appeal The source of most sequence breaks is Metroid2002 (runs are found on Speed Demos Archive, but most Metroid sequence breaking discussion goes on M2K2).

Also, Metroid Database conducts interviews with developers of the Metroid series and is another major site, so they deserve an article too. I'm not sure about any others... Besides, why not reach out to other sites. If we plug them, they could plug us back. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:15, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 21:23, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

• So, I'd just like to bump this up and bring it back to your attention, ppl. My opinion on the matter is that yes, we should keep our article on MDb and maybe even M2K2, but Metroid Metal I am not so sure. The RfC should also concern our four cosplayer articles. My stance on them is that all of the ones who have articles here have only made one or more appearances in Nintendo Power in the Community section, which from time to time will contain fan creations for another game series, like, say, they might cosplay as Fox or Jade or Alex Roivas. As for Jenni Kallberg, she actually appeared in an ad for MPT, so she is like the only valid cosplayer page. Make sense? Also, we need to figure out what the questions will be and we can now start voting/debating/flaming/warring/the usual business. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 14:33, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm going to make a shrewd business-like decision, and say to delete Metroid Metal, but to add metroid recon because they have a link to us. With the exception of m2k2 and mdb which are guaranteed articles, I'd say only create articles for those who link to us, or we have arranged to link to us. Cosplayers are a completely different RfC. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 00:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why cosplayers are different, can't we have them both debated on here? And this isn't Nintendo vs. Sega. We're a wiki, so we're different from other Metroid fansites. We aren't even technically a fansite; we're a wiki, which is a non-social encyclopedia in some cases (like a theoretical Great Lakes Wiki). --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, just keep Metroid Metal. My comment may have come off weird. Also, "A wiki (i/ˈwɪki/ wik-ee) is a website whose users can add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor." Well, we're a website. And it is not official, but fan-made, so we are a fansite. We don't have to seal ourselves off from the internet. If we were to decide cosplayers in this RfC, we should change the title and the description. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:30, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Same reasons as cosplayers. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep See my messages above. Just keep all. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep all articles but Metroid Metal MDb and M2K2 are more notable than Metroid Metal. MDb is known to numerous game developers and such as they have been interviewed, and Metroid 2002 has impacted the gaming community with all their sequence breaks. Shinesparkers would also fit into the same context as MDb; Darren Kerwin has even asked me numerous times to write an article on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Metroid Metal is merely a fan project with no official developer acknowledgement. It is merely a brainchild of the massive OCRemix, the individual composers of which I don't think have articles on other respective wikis. You know, like the composer of that brilliant Animal Crossing theme remix (listen for yourself), who does not have an article on Animal Crossing Wikia or NIWA's Nookipedia. --ROY-BOYX 19:46, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

And just a note, but AS' vote does not officially say "Keep", so for the purposes of this discussion I'm disregarding it. --ROY-BOYX 19:47, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't say that we can't create new articles. I think, actually shinesparkers probably does deserve an article. I don't know if we should really make a distinction between those that do and those that don't. If we have the right. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should maybe just rely on individual debates. --ROY-BOYX 21:05, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

KEEP- i dont like metal but it isnt for me its for everyone. 23:12, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - As a fansite ourselves, there really should be no questioning in regards to whether or not we should have pages for other fansites. I do like the idea of "You link us, we link you," but I also like the "individual debates" idea as well. We are still informing our readers on Metroid topics, are we not? Plus, each site is different from another, whether it is different display of info, a full display of galleries, or developer interviews; if we provide just a quick overview of the site, and then link to that site, we would be providing more knowledge to our visitors. However, in order to prevent ourselves from being flooded with excess fansites, we should be able to control exactly what we present through individual debates. That way, we can still broaden our scope without bursting ourselves. --The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Delete All Metroid, unlike Smash, is a gameplay-oriented series. It is not as competitive in the sense that there are various strategies and game physics you can exploit to win matches (unless you wouldn’t be against creating articles for every single technique, which could become cumbersome). The idea of a “shrewd business-like decision” would make sense, but only in a situation where it does not involve a mainspace article(s) (for example, a list of affiliates on the bottom of the main page). I believe all fansite articles should be deleted. Just because the staff of a fansite knows and has talked to developers and key people involved with Metroid does not give them official status. They would only be official if, say, Nintendo bought the site to use as a resource for fans. Metroid Metal is an article that should be deleted on the spot. I don’t think relaxing restrictions for fanon would not work well in a Metroid wiki’s case. Why doesn’t Wikitroid have an article about itself, then? It did get acknowledged in a magazine. We don’t only cover in-universe subjects, but the out of universe subjects are either the games or the developers of the games. Having articles on fansites would be like having articles on fan games, which, if I’m assuming correctly, once existed here but no longer do as they were voted to be deleted. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:03, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I retract that one really weird post I made above. Well, we do have a page about ourselves at Wikitroid:About. Are you sure you meant "gameplay-oriented" series, because that completely contradicts what you said afterwards. Isn't Smash very gameplay oriented? I'm guessing you mean single player. Anyways, fansites are different from fan games and fanfiction in a major way. Fansites are other resources on canon information on the series, merch, etc. Having articles about them doesn't detract from other articles. Fan games and the like aren't really resources on anything official, and detract from existing articles by confusing what is fan-made and what is official. Also, we DID NOT delete the fan-game articles created long prior to the no fanfiction policy. We kept the articles until Metroid Fanon was created, where they were moved. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 18:59, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I was referring to the fact that the Metroid community is not as large in terms of competitive play. Very few Metroid games (two, if I remember correctly) feature any multiplayer elements, and only one features online play. A website can have scans of magazines and screenshots, fan hacks and applications, fan created stuff, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. There can be plenty of Metroid resources; how will we choose which ones to keep? Metroid Database does have "official", if very weak recognition, but Metroid 2002 and Metroid Metal have no official recognition of any kind (apart from possible brief mentions in Nintendo Power). While they feature techniques and strategies and fan-composed remixes of songs, they don't feature any resources and are ludicrous ideas for articles on a fanon-less wiki. A Metroid Metal article is comparable to a Smash website dedicated solely to fan picks for characters and other elements. --Mr. Anon (talk) 19:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

• 'Comment Three, but the third is metroid prime pinball, so yeah. I guess based off of significance? We know it when we see it? MDB contains interviews with devs, and contains translations of metroid manga, something this site does cover. Metroid2002 is a resource on speed running and sequence breaking (fun fact, the term sequence break came from this community). Speed running in the metroid series is quite popular, with games like Metroid Zero Mission having multiple endings based off of time. Maybe an article for shinesparkers too? Metroid Metal might be grandfathered or deleted. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If I remember correctly, weren't parts of these interviews and entire pages as opposed to panels of comics plaigiarized? Going on a case-by-case basis is not the best decision, as it will likely result in many arguents. I would be against grandfathering; weren't the previously grandfathered fangame pages moved and deleted? --Mr. Anon (talk) 20:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Also, any fan has the potential to meet a dev; but would I deserve an article for interviewing the creator of Metroid? --Mr. Anon (talk) 20:28, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

And yes, we do cover translated manga and interviews with developers. We cover the translations because we are an English wiki, and it would be strange to have the Japanese text on wiki, not properly translated. When you consider interviews, multiple news outlets usually cover the story: if MDb were the first to hear of a new development with Metroid Dread, we would cover it as well since that is information from a developer. Cite the original sources, yes, but that doesn't mean we need articles on the news outlets, in our case, MDb. --Mr. Anon (talk) 20:35, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

Cosplayers vote/discussion

• Neutral: At the moment, I am neutral towards it. Part of me says that if we should keep fansites, we should keep cosplayers. But another part of me isn't sure. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
• Delete (3)/Keep (1) - As I've said above, only Jenni Kallberg would theoretically qualify as a good article, because she was in a German ad for Trilogy. Yuki, Zadra and Junge have only made appearances in the Community section of Nintendo Power, which often contains other fan content from other series. One might dress as Takamaru, another might make a papercraft of Gruntilda, and another might show off his Ezio made of NES cartridges. Therefore it's never really Troid exclusive. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Um why would you treat metroids speedrunning community better then our cosplaying community? Theres a lot of us dedicated to making high-quality samus suits and i think its a shame that you wouldn't even give credit even to the people that got published. I think it shows that NINTENDO POWER cares about metroid a lot if they keep featuring it in that section. Cosplayerchick 19:22, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Same reasons as fansties. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment In response to Cosplayerchick: How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted? Plus, we wouldn't be treating cosplayers any differently from speedrunning. Unlike cosplays, which can be done for Cybersix or Zelda or Hatsune Miku, speedrunning has had a major impact on Metroid and video games, especially considering that our community is where the term sequence breaking originated, and because Metroid is most famous for it. Basically, cosplaying doesn't count. In response to AS, "easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations" sounds to me like you'd want to turn our articles into something like this. It's no longer the case, but Zeldapedia has way better structure. As for fansites... what I've said before. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 20:56, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted?" Roy, that don't make that kind of accusation, please. Assume good faith. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:06, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Did you do that when I used to defend Epidermis and the like? --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:21, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: In fact, no accusations of such were made. Check the archives. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:29, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Anywho, I did say I'd like to keep one cosplayer page, Jenni Kallberg. She actually appeared in an ad for MPT. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:49, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep At least Jenni Kalberg, still not sure on the rest. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

KEEP- these are nice articles with pictures that we should keepBlaze of Fire 23:14, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Cosplayers should also receive recognition; however, as is the case with fansites, we do not want to overload ourselves with articles, so we should allow ourselves to decide exactly what we should keep. Like fansites, they are not part of the official media and artists, but they are still a large part in the Metroid community. I do believe acknowledgement is the least we could provide. --The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Jenni Kallberg, delete the rest Deleting articles on cosplayers does not cause the wiki to sneer at them for their hard work. Nintendo Power cares about video games that appear on Nintendo consoles. They would care for obscure Nintendo games no one has ever heard of so long as they were on a Nintendo system, so it doesn’t mean they are the only people who care about Metroid if they cover the games in their magazine. Nintendo Power’s community section does not make the articles notable, so I’m of the opinion that Jenni Kallberg is the only valid cosplayer article, since she has actually modeled for Metroid merchandise, as Allison Carroll has modeled for Tomb Raider, and Michele Merkin for Perfect Dark. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:03, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Well, Nintendo Power is finally shutting down, does that change anything for anybody? I'm personally sticking with my original vote. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:06, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The neutral one or the keep at least Jenni Kallberg one? --Mr. Anon (talk) 19:18, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Keep at least Jenni Kallberg, not sure on rest. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I say that, as long as they're MAJOR fansites and cosplayers that have been mentioned on official Nintendo published material, it should stay. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 21:17, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Please put your comments in the respective sections, and for the cosplayers, please clarify which ones you'd like to keep. --Mr. Anon (talk) 21:21, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Additionally, to what extent should we cover mentioned fansites and cosplayers? There is no known mention of Metroid 2002 or Metal in any official source, Metroid Database had its watermark present in a strategy guide (most likely a result of an employee accidentally taking it from MDb when Google was still young, therefore, not a concrete "mention"). As for the cosplayers, Jenni Kallberg is the only one of them who has appeared in anything more than the Community section toward the end of Nintendo Power. --Mr. Anon (talk) 21:38, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If we were to allow articles about fansites, we would not use official mention as a determining factor. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:01, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment And why not? Basing our inclusions on depth, information and notability in the fan community's perspective could lead to many unproductive articles. --Mr. Anon (talk) 01:07, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment They don't OFFICIALLY mention fansites for any franchise, that is why. The only times they ever did was through Nintendo Power (I don't know about ONM) and now that is gone. It is kinda redundant. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 10:29, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I should note that most of the arguments presented for keeping these articles are based on a self-desire to grant them recognition, without providing a definite reason why a wiki dedicated to canon information only would cover this real-life fandom. Metroid does not have as large a fandom and cult as Star Wars or the original Beauty and the Beast show, therefore, our fandom is not as notable. Neither fansites nor cosplayers are not memes in the fashion of Smash fangames or fan-made movesets; many of these keep votes simply say keep without providing an explicit analysis into which articles, fansite or cosplayer, would make the least sense. We could not keep these articles and accept new pages for other websites without the issue becoming ridiculous. What if one user decides to create a web page for YouTube, because it's where people post videos of glitches and sequence breaks? If fansites will not use official recognition to denote them, what about cosplayers? Also, please see the points I made in the fansites section. --Mr. Anon (talk) 00:51, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Jenni Kallberg - Jenni's article is the only one part of official media. The others are not, and as our policy on fan-names for articles favours official media, I suggest we do the same here. I know the comparison isn't that great but this is part of a wiki wide thing. If the cosplayers articles got deleted, Kallberg would have to remain as she is technically an actor hired by the company, the others are fanworks. HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 15:41, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
• This has been open for quite a while now. I'd like this to be closed soon, with an assessment of the quality of the arguments presented rather than the ratio of keep votes to delete. Motion for immediate passage. --Mr. Anon (talk) 01:00, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

• This RfC is not getting any younger... --Mr. Anon (talk) 22:05, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

This RfC was closed at 19:03, June 23, 2013 (UTC) by TheMG {talk/contribs} with the final resolution of implementing a ne revert rule. Please do not modifiy it. I've noticed that adminisrators have been enforcing a nonexistent "3 revert rule". I disagree with this, and instead propose a "1 revert rule, similar to SmashWiki's policy on the matter. Mr. Anon 03:15, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should Wikitroid adopt a "Three revert rule" or a "One revert rule"?

Possible positions: Three Revert Rule, in which after three reverts, a user may be banned for edit warring, or One Revert Rule, which prohibits any reverts of reverts, and mandates talk page discussion rather than edit warring.

Default: Wikitroid will adopt a 3 Revert rule based on Wikipedia's policy.

ADDENDUM MAY 30, 2013: I have created the proposal of a prospective 1RR policy here: Wikitroid:Only Revert Once. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 00:22, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

1RR 3RR zzzzz. What if there are more than 3 bad edits? 1RV, while not perfect, is a better policy to implement to prevent edit warring. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 04:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm just going to make this clear to people who may be confused. 1 revert rule does not mean that you will be banned if you revert a revert just once by accident. Users will be warned several times before they get blocked for violating this rule. Mr. Anon 04:57, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment That wasn't the imperfection I was referring to (and that may not be what you're referring to), but that is a good point to add. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 05:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I was not replying to you. Rather, I was clearing up a possible misconception that might arise, since the userbase of this wiki is familiar with the 3 revert rule, where users can be blocked after only one violation. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't it be up to an administrator what counts as edit warring and what doesn't? I can imagine a scenario where two users disagree on something, yet after several edits find something they can both agree on; however, if a strict rule regarding a number of reverts were in place, they would have to be punished for an already resolved situation. Shotrocket6 10:50, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

• Shotrocket, if there is a dispute regarding an article, it should immediately be brought to the talk page. Edit warring refers to any time two users revert each other several times without bringing it to a talk page. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

• I do know what an edit war is, but thank you. I was referring to the fact that if an edit war does take place and it is not discussed by the users involved on the articles talk page, but rather via edit summaries or on their talk pages, it may not be appropriate to block them when the situation has already been resolved. Shotrocket6 07:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what kind of situation you are refering to. If the dispute is settled on the users' talk pages, that's fine. It would be prefered not to have the dispute settled in edit comments. If the edit summary of the second revert (User A reverting User B after User B has reverted User A) seems to settle it, and the issue is minor enough, the users won't necessarily be warned. But for major disputes, especially ones that involve three or more users, should always be brought up on the article's talk page and should not be settled through edit summaries. Mr. Anon 01:57, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

• On that I agree. Shotrocket6 12:09, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I've edited Wikis for a long time now and have seen many times where user(s) will not compromise and will keep making their edit despite being reverted. It happened today on SmashWiki. 1RV is a good rule of thumb that we could link to as a warning when users edit war. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 17:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Neutral. I honestly don't see enough edit wars on wikitroid in the first place to really see if it would affect it or not. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:55, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - You guys go with whatever you think best. Edit wars will undoubtedly go on until someone stops it, which may be 10 or more reverts. Only admins can lock the pages to stop and prevent the wars, and they may not get there in time. Plus, if someone really believes they are right as much as the other person, they will do their best to get their information up on that page. No matter which limit you use, it will surely be exceeded anyway. Also, as already stated, we just don't get that many wars around here. There's really no need to concern ourselves with this subject. The penalty is probably more important, and that's already been established. The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 03:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
• 1RR As the first agree voter on this and as creator of the policy proposal added today to this RfC. You are welcome to suggest changes. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:21, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
• Agree A little skeptical of how well this will actually work, but I guess it wouldn't hurt. Fang³ (talk) 00:22, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
  • What part are you skeptical about? DoctorPain99 02:52, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

• I reiterate my support for 1RR. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:40, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed policy does not currently mention anything about how this would be enforced, or any consequences for starting a revert war. In effect, all it does is make edit wars discouraged. TheMG {talk/contribs} 22:57, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and now the standard block penalties have been added. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 01:24, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Revert war in that section is not well defined. It also does not take into consideration if more than two users are engaged in a revert war. What if one user reverts, then tries to take it to the talk page, then two other users edit war regardless? That was part of the reason people proposed 1RR, correct? TheMG {talk/contribs} 16:00, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

• English, please? --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 16:03, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, now I see what you mean. If two users other than the original warrers edit war? That's not likely. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 16:04, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

• Support Now that the policy can be enforced, I will support. TheMG {talk/contribs} 23:00, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Sign your comments

There are a lot of issues with signatures, and this is one of the issues where Wikipedia policies are used to stop them. I am proposing a policy of our own.

• Question: Should Wikitroid enforce its own regulations on signatures?
• Possible Postitions: Agree (if you would like to implement Wikitroid's own signature policy), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that Wikitroid should have its own signature policy and instead continue to use the Wikipedia one).
• Default (no consensus): Wikitroid will continue to enforce the Wikipedia signature policy.

--ROY-BOYX 02:19, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Agree - As nominator. --ROY-BOYX 02:19, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Agree: Though I don't think signature regulations should be too strict. DoctorPain99 _{ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 03:25, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Agree': At first I was skeptical, because there are some aspects of SmashWiki's signature policy that I don't fully agree with, but I realized that this version was less strict. I do believe that GIFs should be allowed in signatures, but for now this is a significant improvement. Mr. Anon 04:31, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm fine with suggestions for changes to the policy, that was just something to get it started. --ROY-BOYX 21:30, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't approve yet. I personally disagree with the GIFs. Don't want to slow down load times too much. I personally don't like any images in signatures, but I'll deal. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 17:40, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Agree: Well, they already aren't allowed. What do you know? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 17:50, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Hrm, does it HAVE to be 500 characters? What if I have, like, 501? --The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 02:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree Unfortunately, I found a problem with a character limit: 1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujmki89olp0. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:17, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree I don't think we need our whole own sig policy. The one we cribbed from Wikipedia seems to work fine as is. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and you should really read my book." 21:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
• CommentI'm all for whatever let's us use talk bubbles (see below). Every wiki is allowed to use them, so maybe we should stick to the one we have now? TidusTehSacrificer357 01:08, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment THANKS FOR REMOVING MY AND ADMIRAL'S VOTES. >_< The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:20, May 13, 2012 (UTC)
• Comment You're entitled to your opinion MG, free country and all, but I don't really see how the point you made (admittedly a good one) should cause you to vote disagree. Similarly, AS failed to state why Wikipedia's policy, the one we "cribbed" works better than a policy of our own? You have to remember that Wikipedia is far larger than us in content and users and we will never need all the rules they have. Argument evaluations aside, I see several solutions to the problem you raised, MG, but some would only be necessary if 1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujmki89olp0 ever returns. We can either block him for unacceptable username (which you'll probably refuse to do), encourage him to request Wikia shorten his name to 1234567890, or he can use a signature that meets the requirements. Or we could relax the restrictions. RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:14, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: He wouldn't have to get a name change ort anything like that. He could easily use a shorter (but easily identifiable) name for his sig such as just "1qazxsw". DoctorPain99 17:23, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Connections

This RfC was closed at 23:56, July 13, 2013 (UTC) by HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) with the final resolution of oppose, making sensible connections already falls under Use Common Sense policy. Please do not modify it.

Seeing as there isn't an existing policy on connections to to other games and users (myself included) have created literally pages of arguments on the matter that went absolutely nowhere, I thought I'd codify a set of rules. Let's begin with defining what connections to other media are: basically, something in Metroid looks, acts, or plays a role in the plot suspiciously like something in another, unrelated game, movie, etc. (I've never run into “sounds like”, but I guess it's possible). Usually these are given an entry in the Trivia section. This is not something explicitly and iconicly Metroid appearing in another medium, or something explicitly and iconicly “other game” appearing in Metroid. Those are cameos and crossovers, and we already have a policy for those.

Now, obviously we can't allow them all, because that would fill the wiki with meaningless things that vaguely resemble something in Metroid (“Hey everybody! Admiral Dane and Capitain Picard BOTH WEAR UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”). But on the other hand, I think it would be bad to preclude these all together- connections make the wiki interesting, and as the source for all things Metroid we kind of have a responsibility to document possible inspirations. So I propose the following policy:

Basically, a connection is relevant if it is not something that could easily have happened by accident: that is to say, if a connection is strong enough that it is more likely the deliberate work of the developers than it is just a coincidence. Now, usually it's impossible to confirm once-and-for-all that a connection is deliberate. As a wiki, uncertainty is something we naturally have to deal with, and we sometimes just have to select the most probable explanation as the “true” one in the absence of facts, and make some reasonable speculation. However, I am also of the opinion that even if we're wrong, the improbable explanation is true, and it really is just a strange coincidence, then it should still be covered because strange coincidences are interesting and can become a part of a game's fabric. Now, I'll admit it's hard to weight probabilities on something like this, and I expect some debate on the liklihood of individual connections, but I've come up with some angles for adding weight to a connection's unlikeliness:

• Obviously, the more similar something is to something else, the more relevant it is. Once again, this could be physical appearance, role in the plot, or some other characteristic.

• In that same vein, the more similarities something has with something else (usually across multiple characteristics), the more relevant it is. Put another way, multiple similarities together give the subject more weight than jut the sum of the weights of those similarities.

• However, something is less relevant the more common it is in outside media, simply because common things will just be more likely to show up due to their being, well, common.

For obvious reasons, if a developer specifically says that something was based on something else, we cover it, but I think we should also cover the denial if a developer specifically says something isn't related to something else, partly because that means said thing was important enough to warrant a response, and partly because we have the good habit of jut covering everything a developer says.

Obviously, some of the philosophy behind this will be removed in the final policy so that the thing can be condensed into a set of guidelines.

• Question: Should we implement the plicy outlined above (possibly in simplified form).
• Positions: Agree (If you want the ploicy outlined above condensed and implemented), Disagree (If you do not want the policy above condensed and implemented), Neutral (If you are unsure).

Discussion

• Agree- as policy progenitor. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and you should really read my book." 18:13, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Agree- (If I have a handle on this correctly...) Just made a post arguing against an instance of this. I think that if someone wants to put an exception forward on the talk page, they should be allowed to make a fair case, but the fact is that the trivia section of articles are very much abused with things (along these lines and others) like this. An example of a good argument might be a brief section on the history of early powered exoskeletons in reality and fiction in the Power Suit article, with a link to that article on Wikipedia. An example of a bad argument would be to compare recent and unrelated powered exoskeletons. (Fictional or otherwise.) ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 19:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment- All good points, but I'm not sure if I understand the first part of that example. It seems like you're talking about a description of a subject that makes use of out-universe technical or historical information, not a connection to another specific fictional work. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and you should really read my book." 22:09, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- That's correct. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 03:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel like it will be very difficult to decide what is and isn't considered a relevant connection if this proposed policy is put to use. I foresee a lot of conflict between users trying to argue this. I think that a better policy would be to simply disallow these seeminly random coincidences unless it is explicitly defined as a legitimate connection, because allowing all of them will attract a lot of speculation and will clog up the trivia sections of a lot of articles. Joe Copp 00:25, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons as Joe. We don't need a whole other policy for these, and I'd like to think we've smartened up about "references" in other series (OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!! *giddy jumping up and down* SAMUS WEARS A CATSUIT LIKE SCARLETT JOHANNSON AS THE BLACK WIDOW! IT'S GOTTA BE A REFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!). Use Common Sense covers this just fine, so I say we close this and point it to the connection clauses of the guideline. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:12, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
• Things like this don't need their own policy. The policy isn't going to actually serve any sort of purpose because it isn't going to prevent these arguments from happening and it doesn't serve any sort of administrative purpose (arguing isn't a blockable offense), so it's just not really necessary. I agree with Roy that things like this are covered by just simply using common sense, assuming good faith, and coming to a consensus on the wiki. DoctorPain99 17:40, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

This RfC has been closed. Please do not modify it.