Wikitroid:Requests for Comment

Forums: Index → Administrator's Noticeboard → Requests for Comment

This forum 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 (the instructions for doing so can be found here). 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.

---

"Unknown" Naming System

This RfC was closed at 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) by FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of keep, consider suggestions presented by users below. Please do not modify it.

This RFC regards the unknown naming system put in place to name the articles that do not have a canon name. However, I have two problems with this system: First, it is arbitrary (meaning: while the newly named articles are redirected to, the system is absolutely arbitrary; at least, the unofficial names are generally accepted by wide groups of people. The numbers are arbitrarily created and assigned to each article). Secondly, there appears to have been no community consensus for this change (at least, none that I have found). So, I am putting this up to a vote now:

• Question: Should the new naming system be kept or removed?
• Possible positions: Keep (if you support the new naming system), Remove/ Oppose (if you do not support the new naming system), and Neutral.
• Default if no consensus: Keep

Discussion

• Oppose - per reasons I wrote above. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Samusiscool2 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While it wasn't voted on, we do need this system or something similar to name these articles, because we cannot just leave them with unofficial names. Numbers were meant to show differences between articles, and show the order in which these articles were named. As we find them (realize they're there, usually) they get the next number down the line. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 06:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (As opposed to using fan-names.) ChozoBoy 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• keepSamuslovr1 01:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but figure out a better numbering system. I would say a letter to indicate which game and a number for order of appearance. For instance:

Metroid=M, Metroid: Zero Mission=Z, Metroid Prime=P, Metroid Prime Pinball=B, Metroid Prime Hunters=H, Metroid Prime 2: Echoes=E, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption=C, Metroid II: Return of Samus=R, Metroid 3: Super Metroid=S, Metroid IV: Metroid Fusion=F

So, say, the third unknown enemy encountered in Metroid: Zero Mission would be labeled ULF Z3, and the first unknown device in Fusion would be UAM F1.

Still, the “Unknown” Naming System, even as it is now, is a HUGE improvement over fan names. This is a good first step towards this wiki being something people can take seriously. --AMetroidGuy (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Off-Topic Images

This RfC was closed at 05:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) by FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of:

• Off-topic: Delete indiscriminately, no grandfathering.
• On-topic fanart: Keep, must be tagged with {{fanart}} however. Strict limit of 10 (for now) fanart images per person. Recommend that if they have more fanart that they upload it to the Metroid Fanon wiki. No quality requirements, but must not be anything pornographic or otherwise highly inappropriate. Administrators reserve the right to determine what is innapropriate and delete such images at any time. Deleted images and reuploads do not count against a person's limit, meaning that if 4 of the 6 fanart images they uploaded were deleted, then they currently have only 2 uploaded and may upload 8 more.
  

At this point, these policies and all other policies will be moved to Wikitroid:Images for reference. Effective immediately.
Please do not modify it.

It has come to my attention that off-topic images are becoming rampant on the site, and many users do not like this. So, here is a very simply vote - whether off-topic images should be allowed or deleted. However, there are two topics at vote here:

• Questions:
  1. Should off-topic images be allowed (meaning, should we allow users to upload them) or should they only be hotlinked, and will existing off-topic images be grandfathered?
     • Possible Positions: Choose one that most represents your view and leave a comment after your vote. Allow, Delete, and Neutral (if delete, remember to specify whether or not grandfathering should be allowed)
     • Default if no consensus: Allow, or if the consensus is delete and there is no grandfathering consensus, allow grandfathering
  2. Should fanart be allowed, (Note: This is NOT the same as off-topic, as fanart means images relating to Metroid that are not officially Nintendo) and should existing images be grandfathered?
     • Possible Positions: Choose one that most represents your view and leave a comment after your vote. Allow, Delete, or Neutral (if delete, remember to specify whether or not you support grandfathering)
     • Default if no consensus: Delete, with grandfathering
     • Notes: Technically, fanart is forbidden (see the Upload Form for that policy) but has been ignored, hence the default outcome is delete. However, there are so many that it would be hard to delete all, so grandfathering is also the default for delete.
• Submitted by: FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) at 02:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• About Grandfathering: Grandfathering is the process of exempting something that violates a law from that law because it existed before the law was put in place, while making everything that would violate the law after the law has been put in place illegal.

Off-topic vote

• Delete - No grandfathering. ChozoBoy 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No grandfathering. I would gladly remove it all myself. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Blurrr^(Talk) 00:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No grandfathering. Ksabers 08:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No grandfathering. Zeruel21 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No grandfathering. MetVet

Fanart vote

• Allow - I don't think Nintendo-related imagery is too much of a problem, not that I feel a need to upload images, or anything. ChozoBoy 21:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• Allow - I would highly approve of a limit to how much fanart a user can upload, such as ... maybe two images per user. The rest could be hotlinked. Furthermore, I would recommend that all fanart images have the word "fanart" in their title name. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  Would a category and template message on each image suffice? --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 01:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

  I suppose that it would suffice. As long as it had the same effect, that is all that matters. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 22:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Allow - I agree with samusiscool and chozoboy - Blurrr^(Talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Allow This time it is me. Samusiscool3 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC) *EDIT* No pornagraphic,gorey, or highly inapprpriate images. The real Samusiscool3 21:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Allow As long as we have permission by the author. Otherwise, links. - Ksabers 08:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Allow As long as it is of good quality and is relevant. Zeruel21 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Allow* -Only if it clearly labeled as fanart, and only on userpages, not official content pages. MetVet

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

Possessive Nouns

This RfC was closed at 04:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of no consensus; we'll stick with the old "unregulated" system (that is, use whatever you've been taught is correct, although consider making redirects, etc. to accommodate others). Please do not modify it.

It has been brought to my attention that the primary form here of making singular possessive nouns from words ending in "s" is to simply add an apostrophie, as is done with "s"-ending plural nouns.

However, I would suggest that the norm be changed to all singulars getting an "apostrophie-'s'", instead. My reasons are as follows:

1. The Metroid games and materials, to some great degree (research into which all do this would likely be needed), and at least of recent times, use this format. This being the Wikitroid, I feel it should be consistent to its subject matter.
2. Immediate recognition. All readers recognize apostrophie-"s" as a singular (including group words like "children", "people", and once upon a time "Metroid"), but not all may realize that (or may have to focus on) "s"-ending singulars might be handled like most plurals. Applying a singular standard would make things simple to discern, even .
3. Possible confusion. I don't know how many words there are that may act this way, but drawing back to those unaware or untreaded in the current format, the "s"-apostrohpie can make certain words unclear about if they are plural or singular. We know (or soon find out) that there are not more than one Samu, but some of the other, less prominent words may be hazy. Relatedly, in the article that prompted this request, I encountered " Amorbis' "; is the plural for "Amorbis" "Amorbis" (see: "sheep", "deer") or "Amorbises"? This sort of ambiguity is confusing.

TJF588 21:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Essentially, this boils down to whichever variant of English we wish to use. American English dictates that s' is always correct, regardless of whether the noun is singular or plural. Saxon (British) English dictates that singular nouns should be given s's, while plural nouns should be given s'. Note that this only concerns nouns that normally end in "s" (such as Samus and Amorbis).
• Possible positions: American or Saxon (as described above)
• Default if no consensus: American, as it is the primary form of English used on this site.

This information added by an administrator after the RfC was created. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• American - As I noted above, American English is the primary form used on the site, thus we should stick to the American form. As for this making it unclear whether or not the word is is singular or plural, this isn't truly the case, as this can be determined by pronoun forms, subject-verb agreement, and other context clues (is/are, eats/eat, etc.). --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• American This is American english wiki Samus iscool ^talk. 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• American - No comment.Samuslovr1 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• American English - My opinion highly correlates with FastLizard4's reasoning. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• American - Agrees with FastLizard4. To Samusiscool3, both ways are "english", but different types of english. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Saxon - Well, you know my position, as I'm more concerned with the constructs of the source material being properly represented rather than a mold to form (in a language that is constantly evolving? Where does any English teacher side with not quoting a sentence-ending period that's not a punctuation included in a sentence-ending quote?). TJF588 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  I see you don't know very many English teachers. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Saxon - It'll help a lot when plural ammerpossessives start to come into play. - (U • T • C ) 07:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• American English - Ok, ok. Let me just say something. I know for a fact, because I am quite good when it comes to the correct forms of English grammer. When it comes to s-apostrophe and apostrophe-s, here's how things work. When we're dealing with nouns, the correct plural-possessive way end it is with an s-apostrophe. For example: (pirates'), (troops'), (beams'). However, when dealing with proper nouns, the correct plural-possessive form would be in fact, apostrophe-s. For example, even though you would think the corect possessive form of Samus, would be Samus', it isn't. It is and should be written, or posted as, Samus's. Why? That would be because the "s" at the end of Samus, is part of the name, it isn't an expression of the name being plural. Therefore, since there is nothing currently making the name plural or possessive, you must add one. You must add a letter (s), with an apostrophe. Now let's just go back to improving Wikitroid! Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't find anything like that in my grammar book (which is rather new, 2002). --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm just saying what I know personally. Just voicing opinion. Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've checked a few different resources, and it seems that no two sources agree. I have no idea what should be done here. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 07:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought both were acceptable ways. This also brings up the idea about typing in American English. I mean, what about words like gray, armor and defense? In Saxon English we spell them grey armour and defence, so is it still acceptable to spell that way too? If there are more people voting for the American English then i will have to spell in aAmerican English too, as will some other users. I think we should use both. Hellkaiserryo12 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, before this RfC, they were. But, TJF588 brought up the question of consistency, and that's why this is going on. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• American - This is indeed, from my impression, an American English wiki, as Samusiscool said, however, Piratehunter is correct. Wiki and what I've learned say "Samus's" (belonging to Samus) would be correct. (My otherwise unused grammar handbook agrees, in fact.) Now, she should always be singular, or the world has become a very strange place. On the other hand: Amorbis, Amorbis's; Amorbis, Amorbis'; and THEN, sheep, sheep's; sheep, sheep's. ... and I just confused the crap out of myself. No "real" English word exists like Amorbis (singular and plural the same, ends in "s"). AlishaShatogi 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Using "You" and the use of Battle Guides in the Wiki

This RfC was closed at 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of:

• It appears that the general consensus is that all articles should be written in the 3rd person in-universe perspective; that is, all articles (with the exception of those regarding the games themselves and a few others, which will be tagged with a special template marking them as from the "real live" perspective) should be written as if the Metroid universe were real, and as if they were documenting actual events or characters. In short, "you," "I," and "the player" should not be used in favor of "Samus," etc. and all "battle guides" (or guides in general) should be integrated into the body of the article (describe the battle and how the battle is completed rather than detailing how to complete the battle, for example).
  • Templates to be created:
  1. Template:Reallife
  2. Template:Cleanup-oou (that's oou as in "out-of-universe")
  • Policies to be created:
  1. Wikitroid:In-Universe

Please do not modify this RfC.

It has come to my attention that a lot of articles in this wiki use the word "you". This most often happens when the article is advising the reader on a certain part of a game. For example if one were to look at the Zeta Metroid article, there is a section called "Battle Tactics" in which it gives the reader a guide on how to defeat the Zeta Metroid, in this example. Obviously, no article should contain the word "I", (as it refers to the author), unless a quote. In most instances I think that it would be more appropriate to use "The Player" or "Samus" for the battle guide section. I don't really think that this wiki is a player's guide to the games, so articles containing a quide on how to complete an aspect of the game should be merged into the main bio for the creature, instead of being a guide. There are plenty of guides out there, and Wikitroid is not one. Here is what i suggest we do, to sum up.

• Get rid of the Battle quide sections.
• Change all information that was in it that reffered to the reader to "Samus" or "The Player" (depending on the context, although I think using Samus is better).
• Merge that info with the main part of the article, explaining in a fair amount of detail on how the creature was defeated by Samus, not how to defeat it.
• Do the same with the rest of the articles. Bosses and violent creature (ones that take a strategy to kill) are the ones which are mostly using "you".

Hellkaiserryo12 19:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - This has always been discouraged, but I guess it's time to write it into the MoS (or a separate policy page). --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree For the reasons I already wrote about above. Hellkaiserryo12 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree While I've never touched "Battle Guides", "you" is unprofessional, unencyclopedic, and easily avoidable. It shouldn't be an issue, outside of many users simply not being knowledgeable about this type of thing. ChozoBoy 15:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Samusiscool3 ^talk_{ROLLBACKAH} 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Would this also mean that the battle strategies would be taken out of all articles? The "You" problem is a simple fix, if that is all that is desired. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment If the general consensus is in favor of removing the "Battle Guide" sections, I must at least recommend that we continue to outline a creature/entity's combat routines, "battle moves", etc. This is after all a source of information for the Metroid series. Although strategies which are composed primarily of opinion are free to go, it would be unfavorable to remove genuine information from the articles. Armantula513_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Same as Armantula. Wait, I thought "You" already wasn't allowed in articles. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 20:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Per reasons above. Squeemaster 20:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree I (again) agree with everyone here.Sam uslovr101:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree Not only is "you" unprofessional, this isn't really a game guide. Battle strategies don't belong on pages that aren't walkthroughs (Which I don't think we have). Zeruel21 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Agree The third point in particular is spot-on. Wikitroid exists to recount Samus's exploits across the galaxy. There should be no issue concerning how "you" (who?) would go about playing her games. Samus can do her Hunter thing, players can enjoy, spurn, or even expand upon her hunting, but "you" will do NOTHING. --Super Aviator 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Semi Agree I think that the you should go but the battle guids should stay to make the information easier to find. That is after all the point of the wiki. Metroidhunter32 00:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Semi Agree you is highly unprofetional, but if we merge the battle guids into one article it might be effectant User:Clarkmaster

• Someone (or multiple people) that is/are really ambitious could search for instances of "you" within the wiki and edit those pages. ChozoBoy 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral You can do whatever you want i don't care, but i don't think that wikitroid should be a online players guide that is what IGN is for.(EGAD1 16:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

• Semi-Agree "You" is terribly unprofessional, but regarding battleguides, I was thinking that may they could be relegated to a seperate article. Naturally, a ton of people will be looking for advice on how to beat a particularly tough boss when they come, so my view is, rather then get rid of the battle guides, instead it should be put as a related article. for example, one page could be entitled "Ghor", about the character, and for the boss battle, a seperate page could made called "Ghor-Battle Tatics." I think this is a better solution. User:Tuckerscreator 21:28 28 March 2008

• Agree "You" should not appear in any articles, and Battle Guides should be incorporated into the article in other ways; ie: Samus had to destroy the Berserker Lord's armour by reflecting its projectiles. Parts of a Battle Guide subject to opinion; ie: The best way to defeat Ridley is..., should be removed completely. Archibald 83 06:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral Using "you" is not well formatted for any wikis, but another page devoted solely to battle tactics is a waste of time. Editing current articles to use "The Player" or "Samus" seems much more professional and efficient. MetroidfanCNC 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree You/I/Opinion/Speculation + Wiki/Artical = Crappy Wiki I'm ~Crystal_Lucario~ And I approve this message.

• Semi Agree "You" should be removed, but the creatures' weaknesses and attacking patterns should partially remain as they are part of the creatures. They should be shortened and reduced somewhat so that it isn't a battle guide and more of an outline of the creature's characteristics. Omly 19:42, 9 April 2009

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

Sourcing Policy

This RfC was closed (late) at 03:42, October 26, 2009 (UTC) by FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of: After waiting quite some time to see if a clear consensus would crystallize (which hasn't happened) and taking some time to study the response, I have decided that instead of mandating the use of sources, requesting the use of sources alongside information that cannot be easily verified otherwise would be best. A help page will be written by me (within the next few weeks, if not days or hours) detailing how to reference pages, and appropriate notices will be inserted below the edit form and in the site notice.
Please do not modify it.

On this wiki, there are very few pages that make use of sources and references. As a result, vandalism is extremely easy to place here, as well as fanon, if it weren't for the watchful eye of our administrators right now. Far too many pages tend to use statements such as "as seen in Echoes" or "according to the manga" rather than making use of the sources section. A sourcing policy needs to be enacted.

Conditions:

1. All references to in-game information, such as lore and statements by characters, need to cite the game it appeared in, the publishing date, the developing team, the publisher, and the area the event took place in.

2. All references to books such as game manuals, game guides, and manga need to cite the name of the book it appeared in, the publishing date, the publisher, the author (and illustrator for a manga), and the page and chapter the information appeared in.

3. All references to statements by important real-life individuals need to cite the name of the person, the location that they said their statement at, and the date of the statement. If it was in a publication, then one needs to cite the publication the same as one would cite a book or manga.

However, the reason why it looks like this hasn't been done yet is because there is no page on this wiki detailing how to add sources. I myself had to teach myself from scratch. So my fourth condition is:

4. That this wiki create a page in the Help:Editing section detailing how to create sources for any type of source.

So now the rest.

Question 1: Should Wikitroid enact a sourcing policy for articles, that when making a significant edit referring to the above criteria, that one should write the references to the source for the concrete statment?

Question 2: Should Wikitroid create a page in the Help:Editing section explaining how to create sources for books, games, people, and any other not covered here?

Possible Positions: Agree(if user agrees with above conditions), Neutral(if user is unsure of conditions), Disagree(if user disagrees with above policy and conditions)

Default if no consensus: Sourcing Policy will not be enacted and no Help:Sourcing page will be added to the Help:Editing section.

--Tuckerscreator 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree: Check out this page on the Pikmin Wiki. They have the text they are quoting from the game separate to the article. The same thing is done with creatures and pages that include all of the text (like Lore). I'd like to see this done here, as well. ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 20:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree This is a definite must for our users to work on. It's nice to say where something comes from, but real source citations are much better and cleaner. It also contributes to ensuring accurate information, given that people won't just put something up that they vaguely remember. Some may think this is a hassle and a waste of time, but it really is an important part of being a encyclopedic source of Metroid information. Zeruel21 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - Agree with sourcing policy, but with a few changes:
  1. Documentation on citing would be on the policy page itself; the help pages are "shared"
  2. Sourcing Policy would be renamed Citation Policy. Articles are already sourced (they say "from the manga" or similar); this RFC discusses the use of In-Line Citations (which point to a specific document).
  3. Documenation for the cite templates needs to be written (the templates themselves already exist)
  4. A verify template already exists, as well as a category for pages marked with that template.

  And, of course, I'll probably start drafting the policy in private along the lines proposed above as the RFC progresses and put a final version of the policy in the project NS when the RFC is closed. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Reply - FastLizard, I accept your conditions.--Tuckerscreator 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree policy is too spesific. Most editers will not reemember that much info, and thus it would stump the grouth of the wiki. Would also result in irtating anouts of info that most people wouldnt care about (like who made the game. if they want to know that they will go the page on that game). JosephK19 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  Rebuttal - Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this problem. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - I don't seem to understand, because all we need to do is make an effort to use sources. Addition of an easy to find Help page for how to use sourcing would be helpful, but apart from that I agree with the above opinion. Hellkaiserryo12 20:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - AlishaShatogi 05:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - I remember this being an issue the last time I logged on (around Sept. 2008) and trying to source many pages on my own. Without proper guidelines, my attempts were rather feeble. Wikitroid needs this if it is to be considered "credentialed" (in a sense of course). Remember, Wikipedia does not allow (or, rather, prefer) articles without citations that are incredibly specific because otherwise their information will (and has been) taken to be unreliable. Bob Chao 01:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - There's no reason to have in-text citations if we're going to have them at the end of the article. Most articles would just refer to the same things multiple times, and having in-text citations would only cause extra trouble in making so many notes, and possibly discourage people from making articles. ConstantCabbage 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal - Again, no Wikipedia articles seem to have this problem. --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 05:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Slight Disagree - More (detailed) citations will just make things more cluttered, and as long as some reference is given to a game, comic book, or video, readers will know how to verify the information they read should they so choose. Dogman15 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree-I agree if there is one thing insured. When posting, editing, revising, etc. something non-canon, it will have a note or something saying "Be warned. This is non-canon." next to the source. --DekutullaZM 17:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Response That is a good idea, DekutullaZM, but the problem with it is that much of the non-game media, such as the many Metroid mangas, are disputed as to their canonicity, and Nintendo has not said anything about their status, so nothing definetive can be said by us.--Tuckerscreator 18:40 29 June 2009

• Re:ResponseNo, no, no. I'm saying, if it's obviously non-canon, we should tag it or whatever it's called. For example, Metroidguide.com is obviously non-canon, but some of it's info seems very good for theories and images and whatnot. --DekutullaZM 00:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• We don't have a page about Metroidguide.com anyway. And even still, it's always debated what is and isn't canon. Metroidguide.com is largely plausible but so are the Nintendo Comics System comics. So we can't really tag anything. I wish we could but it's only going to get people argueing.--Tuckerscreator 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - ƁLƱƦƦƦ^{(If victory is too high to climb, take the elevator.)} 21:05, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

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

Rich Text Editor

This RfC was closed at 21:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC) by RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions • logbook) with the final resolution of: As a result of the discovery that the RTE does not, indeed, have the &nsbp; problem anymore, it would be sheerly pointless to disable the RTE. Additionally, all of the reasoning for the support comments is now practically invalid. Thereby, I am closing the RfC with a withdrawal of the request.
Please do not modify it.

It seems that many of us have taken note of Wikia's Rich Text Editor (RTE), which allows users to edit documents without having to deal with using the code that I, along with some other users, use in our plain text editors. However, the RTE has been known to have some flaws from the beginning, namely the mass adding of &nsbp; (non-breaking spaces) in between words in place of normal spaces, which is quite a pain for those of us who do use the plain text editor (This is one example). This problem becomes ever-apparent when users such as IPs unknowingly edit using the RTE, causing this to appear on every page they edit on. The RTE cannot be set to a default due to all Wikia accounts being global, so the only good way to prevent use of the RTE is to disable its extension entirely. So, here's the question:

• Question: Should the RTE be kept, or the extension deactivated?
• Possible Positions: Keep (if you would like to keep the RTE on), Neutral (if you are neutral about the matter), or Remove (if you want the RTE deactivated).
• Default if no consensus: Leave the RTE active.

Submitted by: RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 01:31, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: Is it possible? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 02:54, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Reply: The Rich Text Editor was installed using an extension (located in the "Other" section). Like all extensions, it can be enabled and disabled, but it does have to go through Wikia Support. To be straight to the point: Yes, it can be turned off. RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 02:58, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Remove - I say destroy the pest. To MG: yes it is possible, SmashWiki has it disabled. --RoyboyX_{ADMIN} 03:00, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The problem removing it creates is that people who are used to it will have to learn the old way. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 03:06, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Reply: That's what the RfC is for, isn't it? RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions) 03:09, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral: I prefer the normal editing method, but the RTE is much better for new and unregistered users. I really dislike having to remove all that rubbish from pages though. It would be a good tool if it didn't create so many annoying things in the wiki code, and with the normal method one can edit more specifically. However, I would like to see these problems fixed instead of removing the program altogehter. HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 14:57, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Neutral: I don't really care either way, or to be more precise, I support each side to some extent. On one side, it'd be nice to edit normally while anon, but on the othr hand, if you can't deal with the &nsp's, then you shouldn't be an Admin (b/cause no one besides admins care, to my knowledge...). Don't eat me, admins.--DekutullaZM 01:11, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Remove: Destruction FTW! TerrorDactyl (Talk • Contribs) 04:00, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Remove - There'd be far less stuff to fix if it was disabled! DarkSamus⁸⁹ 16:26, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - HALT! I got an email back from Wikia saying that they fixed the whole nbsp thing. So, now what do we do? --RoyboyX_{ADMIN} 21:00, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

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

Room lists and templates

This RfC was closed at 20:01, April 10, 2010 (UTC) by Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) with the final resolution of: Keeping both the Room Lists and Room Templates.
Please do not modify it.

New room templates were made a long time ago for the various rooms in the Trilogy. Before that, room lists existed instead, which were quite disorganized and was missing some rooms, as well as having some nonexistant rooms as well (Artifact Chamber?!). But I have also noticed that some templates miss rooms the lists have.

So, the votes can be:

• Keep - If you want to keep the room lists and templates.
• Delete - If you want to delete the room lists in favor of the templates.
• Neutral - If you are neutral about the matter.

Submitted by: --RoyboyX_{ADMIN} 21:06, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Maybe some additional element can be worked into those articles to distinguish them from the templates? ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:17, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: Whats the point in deleting hard work? --Metroid101 21:57, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I agree with ChozoBoy. There are a lot more ways to use the list; it's best if we wait to figure that out. RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions • logbook) 23:20, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Merge: I say we merge 'em. Best of both worlds, right?--DekutullaZM 23:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: The templates are just handy tools to put a lot of stuff on a page without taking up much room. The room lists are the official pages. To organize, all you need to do is have someone go over the complete map, write every room down, and make sure that there are no other rooms with the same name (Save Stations, for example). The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 02:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

Talkheaders

It has come to my attention that Talkheaders are being considered, in a manner of speaking, redundant, on Wikitroid Talk/Discussion pages (the pages they were created with intent for). The current arguments for them being "unneeded", are that:

1.) They add unneeded changes to Wikitroid RC.

2.) Creating a page simply to give it a Talkheader gives the illusion that a conversation regarding said page, is ongoing.

Be that as it may, Talkheaders are meant to be present on Talk Pages for the purpose of providing a set of pre-editorial notes and rules, regarding preferred etiquette during discussions. They are meant to provide a user with guidelines, before they edit/post on the Talk page. Leaving a Talk page blank (without a Talkheader) until a conversation actually begins, would be like waiting to put a Stop Sign up at a 4-way intersection until an accident actually occurs. Which is highly irresponsible (obviously). I call this Request for Comment, so that we can hopefully make it a necessity for Talkheaders to be present on every Talk page, not just the ones with an already ongoing conversation. In other words, make it a necessity that every Talk page has a Talkheader, even if it is blank (so that future conversation starters will be correctly and undoubtedly informed). Also, if a supporting consensus is in fact met, keep in mind that we may eventually employ the help of a bot for to assist in adding the needed Talkheaders. So, all-in-all:

• Question: Should the presence of a Talkheader on a Talk/Discussion page, be a priority, regardless of conversational activity.

• Possible Positions: Agree (If you agree that Talkheaders should unconditionally be required on Talk pages), Neutral (If you are not sure), or Disagree (If you disagree that Talkheaders should unconditionally be required on Talk pages).

• Default (no consensus): A Talkheader's status as a necessity is left unmodified.

Submitted by: Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 12:25, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Agree: Okay, as PH said above, talkheaders are supposed to be guidelines for editors. Now, how are they supposed to do that when a page is blank? What are you going to do when someone doesn't follow them, because not every anon is going to know the talkheader by heart. Are you going to scold them, or block them? It wasn't their fault. It was ours because we, especially admins, should make sure that they know what to do and what not to do. It will be our fault for their mess-up, so we'll get the blame and that will put us in a bad position. We need talkheaders on every talkpage, conversation or not. The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 21:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Agree Same as Ex. Only next time I'll have AWB hooked up and I can finish the job with that. --RoyboyX_{ADMIN} 21:28, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Semi Disagree - I agree with the idea behind it, that Talkheaders should already be on pages to help new users, promote civilised conversations etc. But I think that creating lots of talkpages will take a long time, waste time on other things that could be done around the wikia, and (as you said) clog up the recent edits page. Employing a bot may solve the problem, but that would also add more changes to the recent edits (unless you hid them somehow). There are too many pages without talk pages that I don't think it's necessary. I also think that this idea sort of insults the intelligence of new users. If they decide to swear and make rude comments on talk pages, it's their own fault. They shouldn't really have to look at talk headers to know how to behave when having a conversation with another human being. HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 21:38, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss: Obviously, people should know not to swear, but I'm talking more about signing, new topics, and that other stuff. That is mainly what a talkheader is for. The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 00:12, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss: Try making a new Talk page. You'll be greeted with "This is a talk page. Remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes." along with Help links before the text box. ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 23:24, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Maybe I'm just crazy but I really like reading discussion pages even if not to comment, and seeing every single minor one with a whitelink makes it impossible to tell which pages actually have a legitimate discussion going on. It also makes it a lot harder to find issues that need addressing--I'll ask a question in a talkpage and it gets ignored for months or even a year because no one knows that talkpage has content. No exaggeration there, by the way, it's happened. I understand why they're there, but isn't there some way to automate the process, maybe with a button saying "this page has no content, click here to add a talkheader" and then penalize users/anons who ignore creating the banner/following its guidelines? To say nothing of the RC spam, of course... Dazuro 01:27, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Essentially agreeing with HK and Dazuro here. I don't think we need to have a talkheader for how people should act on the talk page. True, the talkheaders should be on every talk page, but they should only be added on an as-needed basis, in my opinion. Anyways, we don't need a reminder of how to sign on every talk page; that's as useless as the Monaco sidebar to registered users. New users learn in time, and it isn't that hard to learn such a simple thing as adding ~~~~ to each post you make. As an after-note, you guys need to set up a bot account if you're going to do this. You guys not only managed to flood RC with those talkheaders, such activity that I'd normally see from a spambot, but also tried to hide other activity that other contributors would find questionable, which is not fine by me. RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions • logbook) 02:56, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Piratehunter compared an unused Talk page to a 4-way intersection without a stop-sign. Anyone see the problem with this? How often do you guys see fights breaking out on a Talk page before someone gets the chance to stick a talkheader up? ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 23:19, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss: Just to clarify ChozoBoy's above statement, I was referring to it as though it were a real world, civil/legal issue. If there is no Stop Sign (talkheader) at the intersection (talkpage) when a wreck occurs, the State Dept. of Transportation (Admins) will completely and legitimately be held responsible for said accident. But doing the latter, of adding a stop sign (talkheader) in advance, before the accident occurs, will remove all potential for the Highway Dept. (Admins) to be blamed. It's basically a disclaimer, saying that, "We're warning you ahead of time, so if you get into an accident, it's your fault because we did our part to warn you." Disclaimers are here to prevent lawsuits, not literally on Wikia of course, it's just a figure of speech, but my point remains. Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 16:27, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

The way you present it seems like this is being done to "save our own skins". I notice the majority of voters here are admins, too. Is this for the new user's best interests or the admins? HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 16:34, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Both. The new user gets informed on what to do and what not to do, and we admins can irrefutably say that "we tried" or "we warned you", basically. It's the best for both sides in my opinion. Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 16:42, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss: Note that requesting a bot flag would hide any edits from the Recent Changes. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 22:28, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, so we would be making talkheaders a necessity, but by employing AWB we would not have to actually add them, or watch them being added. Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 23:23, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: It can cause confusion about the existence of a Talkpage. Reminding users to create talk headers can be done through a MediaWiki page. (The one that controls the editing a talk page message) The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 23:47, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agree: - Wasn't this solved already? Anyways, I think it should be done not by hand, but by the thingamajig the Beuros use to automatically do it to every page. It's important, because I've seen so many things irrelevant to the talk subject, that it's just not even funny. Talkheaders might fix this. TerrorDactyl (Talk • Contribs) 00:47, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Metroid Answers

This RfC was closed at 03:48, May 23, 2010 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} with the final resolution of making a Metroid Answers Wiki to complement Wikitroid. The site will be at metroid.answers.wikia.com. Please do not modify it. I've only thought about this for a short time, but I think this should be put into and RfC regardless: I realize now that anything like Metroid Answers does not exist here on Wikia, and could be of great help. This Metroid Answers would be similar to Wikianswers (and now a bunch of other sites): it would only be composed of questions and answers to said question. In the case that someone happens to Google a question, if we happen to have the question for it on an Answer Wiki, the first page they would see is something like that. By linking over to Wikitroid, we get better chances of drawing more readers and potential contributors over here, which is a plus for us. As a result, I think of it as an extension to Wikitroid. Of course, that's just my opinion, and that's why we have RfCs, no? ;).

• Question: Should we create a new Metroid Answers to complement Wikitroid?
• Possible positions: Support (if you agree to creating Metroid Answers), Oppose (if you disagree to creating Metroid Answers), and Neutral.
• Default if no consensus: The Answers Wiki will not be created.

So, let's discuss. RAN1_{ADMIN} (talk • contributions • logbook) 03:00, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support: I wouldn't be around much for that area, but it sounds like a good idea. ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 02:35, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Excellent Idea --Metroid101 13:17, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Yeah I'll say yes (RAN told me to). But I probably can't run it as I have too many things to do. --RoyboyX_{ADMIN} 01:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Semi Support: People seem to be in favour, but will anyone actually edit there? HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 21:30, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Yes. We could change the answers widget to direct you to Metroid Answers instead of the main answers. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 02:01, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Sounds like something a long time coming.--DekutullaZM 15:46, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

Cameos and Crossovers

It appears that the Cameos and Crossovers section of the wiki has been rather controversial: that is, some users seem to think that any game that has one or more references to the Metroid series should get a page. This includes games such as Kid Icarus.

Many users, however, are against this idea. Because of this, they are repeatedly disregarded for their opinion on the matter, and thus we still have red links for most of these games. These users, however are against these games think that any game that has more references to the Metroid series than one or have a playable character from the Metroid series (i.e. Super Smash Bros. series), or the reference in the game itself (i.e. Komayto from Kid Icarus) as well as playable characters from the Super Smash Bros. series

Now, here's the question:

• Question: Should these game pages be made, or deleted in favor of keeping the following pages (including categories):

• Chozo Blood Rights (to represent Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, which was originally to have Samus in it though she was later removed)
• Cosmic (to represent Galactic Pinball, which had Samus' ship in this table)
• List of cameos and crossovers (which we need anyway :P)
• Nintendo Monopoly (which has Metroid-based properties)
• All Animal Crossing-related articles excluding games
• All Captain N: The Game Master-related articles
• Komayto and Pit to represent Kid Icarus and Kid Icarus: Of Myths and Monsters (but not the games themselves)
• All Super Mario Bros.-related articles except games
• All Super Smash Bros. series-related articles (but not characters, who become a list)
• Catch Mode, Marathon Mode and Tetris DS (an example of a game with more than one reference to the Metroid series)
• All Zelda-related articles except for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Master Quest and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
• All WarioWare-related articles except for the games themselves (but microgames will be kept)

• Possible Positions: Keep (if you would like the game pages to be made and what we have so far kept), Neutral (if you are neutral about the matter) or Remove (if you want all pages and links except for all

mentioned above removed)

• Default if no consensus: Leave the games and links as they are.

Submitted by: --RoyboyX 14:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete - Seeing as I'm not an active editor, I don't expect anyone to take what I'm saying here overly seriously. But as an admin on Zeldapedia, Wikitroid's ally, I have seen many issues like this on our wiki in the past. I don't want to become anyone's enemy here or act like I dictate this wiki's policies. All I am saying is that I think having articles for every cameo may be a tad too much. I understand, providing info is the key goal here and buffering your edit count is always good. I also realize you have competition you need to stay ahead of and for many of you, new/more articles creates a thrill. But this just seems a bit odd to me personally. A Metroid reference on Zeldapedia would generally just be added to the cameo page, which I see you guys have, and then we would generally link to this wiki. This is done because if we made a page for every cameo, things would get too stretched out from our primary objective (of providing info on the Zelda series) and overly convoluted. Again, I expect many of you to disagree with me (as well as many who agree), but this is just my opinion here. Take it or leave it. --EveryDayJoe45 14:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel the policy is too "pick and choose". Why should character articles be kept if their respective games are not? HellKaiserryo12_[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 14:58, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - I'm still pondering whether or not to merge them into a list. Mario, Wario, Link, Kirby and Pit have more interactions with the series outside of Smash Bros. --RoyboyX 15:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Personnaly, I agree with EveryDayJoe, since I have been saying that since Wikitroid decided to step out providing information on the Metroid series. Every game or character should just appear in a list that link to their respectinve wikis, but should not have an individual page for each of them. If people want to find out about Pit, they'll go to his home wiki. If they want to know about Mario and his green bro, they'll go to Mariopedia. If they want to know about Samus, they go here. Seriously, would you go searching for F-1 Race on Wikitroid? The Exterminator _{ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 15:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with EveryDayJoe45 and The Exterminator. I'd say something insightful to further support the position, but it's pretty much all been said. -Isdrakthül 15:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss IMO, a better RFC would be to define the "Scope of the Wiki". Like how related an article has to be. This RFC is too "pick and choose" as HK put it and doesn't take into account future cameos, etc. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 15:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, this is still very poorly conducted. It still sounds like you are picking and choosing personal issues instead of trying to look at or define what the core of the wiki should be (our "scope"). In regard to the articles, as long as they focus almost entirely on their relation to the Metroid series, then I think that type of article is well written.

Take a look at the Pit article, for example. It is very nearly 100% about his connections to the Metroid series and does not delve into unrelated areas of the character. You won't find that at the Kid Icarus wiki. The one criticism of the article, in this regard, would be that it does not currently link to KIWiki and/or Wikipedia's article for the character. The same could be said for many of these articles, and that would certainly be a better way to improve them. ChozoBoy _[ADMIN] (Talk/Contribs) 21:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - Wikipedia doesn't even have a Pit article. They've all been merged. We should have the cameos and crossovers list and some cameos themselves. Nothing more. Unless the game is like Smash Bros. and has a playable character (Ultimate Alliance doesn't count as Sam never showed up in the final version) or like Tetris DS and has a lot of references. Really. No other wiki does this. Just cameos and nothing more. A list, and cameos, but nothing more. --RoyboyX 00:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Reply You still didn't respond to me. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 01:08, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - Screw the characters now. I'll make their list. --RoyboyX 01:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge to list - I broadly believe that crossovers and cameos of all sorts should be merged to their own page, but at the most, put on very broad pages. For example, on Memory Alpha, they have a page called "Doctor Who" that contains a list of all Doctor Who references in Star Trek and Star Trek references in Doctor Who, but for other series with less (notable) references, they have broad non-specific lists. (I hope this makes sense, if not, poke me to clarify. :P.) --FastLizard4_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 02:16, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - In my honest opinion, those articles are way too unrelated to play that big role in this Wiki. That just makes Wikitroid go beside the its main purpose. DarkSamus⁸⁹ 09:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I've no problem nuking those pages, so long as, as FastLizard4 said, they all be merged into a single list or perhaps multiple broader lists. Now let me just ask something, if I support, am I going to regret it because I fueled a potential barrage of personal attacks? Piratehunter_{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 15:03, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - Nuking what pages? The cameos like Catch Mode? And who would attack you? That was a stupid question, I know exactly... I was saying we keep those pages but not the games or the characters (the latter are merged into a list). Most wikis have a list and pages for actual cameos (in our case, the Komayto, the Chozo Blood Rights and such). The cameo lists have brief summaries while the actual page foir the cameos go more in depth with info on the cameo (such as descriptions of features in the WarioWare microgames). --RoyboyX 15:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - (Sorry it isn't on the very left of the page... my Mac won't let me type there >:| ...) I believe all those articles like Pikachu, Pit, Peach, Zelda, etc. need to be deleted and the sticker articles like TP should be merged with the Sticker article instead of TP having its own article itself. Because Lostpedia didn't make an article for Half-life or Cloverfield but instead made an article featuring ALL of the cameos/crossovers (with the exception of Fringe) Metroid101 18:53, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Discuss : I still am sticking to the fact that this RfC is unflexible. You state that only the following articles will stay and don't take the future into account. Maybe there will be a huge cameo in this one game in the future. However, according to the RfC, the article technically couldn't be made because it isn't on the list. A BETTER RFC WOULD BE TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE WIKI. I refuse to vote on this matter unless the RfC is done right. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs/Logs} 23:15, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete: I've always been something of a purist when it comes to cameos and things, as well as a page minimalist who prefers to keep information in a few dense articles as opposed to small stand-alone articles.(Did that make any sense? I hope it did......) I also am a big stickler for keeping the site's intangible "Metroid identity" as a largely in-universe reference source. The plethora of out-of-universe crossover articles severely detracts from that, in my opinion.--AdmiralSakai 13:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I'm having a little trouble understanding exactly what the conditions are, but my stance is: merge into lists. Remeber when "Ice Climbers" had their own page? Much of them are simply unnecessary. Still, I'm going to need more research to determine exactly what I think the conditions should be and mostly likely I'll end up piggy-backing off one of our more experienced users here!Tuckerscreator 19:42, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Reply - What do you mean "conditions"? And people, how flawless do you want this? --RoyboyX 20:18, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Pages, keep list of cameos/crossovers with brief descriptions - I say delete the pages, but keep the cameo/crossover related information on the cameo/crossover page. I also say, ALL the pages are deleted not pertaining to Metroid Canon, because it may confuse people searching for Metroid related things. TerrorDactyl (Talk • Contribs) 00:44, May 27, 2010 (UTC)