Metroid Wiki:Discussion Center

Welcome to the Metroid Wiki Discussion Center! Use this forum to ask the staff and other senior community figures Wiki-related questions, to alert others to major issues, or make suggestions that would affect the Wiki on a large scale. Before posting a new question, please examine the Help Guide to see if your issue is addressed there. To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please: Place your question at the bottom of the list Place the title of your question == between pairs of equals signs == Remember to always sign your posts with name, date and time (by adding: ~~~~)

  Archives

• 2010-2010 (Feb-June)
• 2010-2012 (July-Feb)

Discussions archived

If any questions or issues posted on old archives arrive, do not post on archived talk pages, simply reraise the questions, and refer to the archived material if you wish. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Galleries

I really used to like the gallery's look, but it's been buggin me lately, so I've been messing with it a bit, I only came up with two designs I sorta like. The main difference between the two is the roundedness. Of course if you guys really like the current gallery look, please speak up. Otherwise I think I'll change it to numero uno. The second is not round and has a thicker border on the bottom side (though this can be easily removed and added to the first. The third is, of course, the norm, wast of file space when I could've just made an actual gallery.. but oh well :] --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 00:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Choice 1 looks awesome. Roundiness fits in with our roundification of many things on the wiki. MK 00:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that file one is the most aesthetically pleasing of the three. As long as there's not a whole lot of mental headache or any serious drawbacks to that method, I support it. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Coding wise or anything like that? There are no drawbacks or difficulties to any of the methods. It's all simply a matter of visual preference, I'm simply asking to see which people like best, or if people like the current design. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 07:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I changed galleries to that 1 choice, this is simply to make it more noticeable to people that it is changing ;) and to match up with the new gallery template :D I'll change it back if it's what people want --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks awesome, and since it's apparently just in the MediaWiki files, I see no drawbacks. I support wholeheartedly. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1: File:Galleries 1.png

2: File:Galleries 2.png

3: File:Galleries 3.png

New Skin Issues

I see we've updated to a new skin! I thought I'd start this area for reporting issues (I'm sure many will crop up throughout this transition process). Here are a couple I've found, feel free to add more! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 06:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Outdated Logo (Resolved)

I'm pretty sure we had another logo to replace our old one. Has this logo been rejected or is this a mere oversight? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 06:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the new logo is sitting right above the editing box as I type. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a little troublesome. I wonder what that's all about; I still see the old logo. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Purge your local cache, should fix it. -- Prod 03:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that did it. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Galleries (Resolved)

Our galleries don't function properly anymore, as far as appearance is concerned. Is there a way to fix this? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 06:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Guessing this is a fix that needs to be taken care of in MediaWiki, as the galleries were changed using that. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. I'll try to get in touch with Prod. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably stuff from MediaWiki:Power.css needs to be copied to MediaWiki:Quantumleap.css. -- Prod 03:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no experience with MediaWiki stuff... I'm a little wary of breaking things. Care to take a whack at it? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How's that? -- Prod 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement. Thanks for your help! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Templates, etc

Templates and other things around the wiki (such as the wiki markup box during editing) are still using the old MW background color. Also, previously attractive templates (Template:Scan comes to mind) look sort of funny now. Specifically, the "hide" button is squished against the description, instead of on the far right end, and it looks cluttered. We might need to overhaul our templates. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 06:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. Probably at least part of it can or needs to be taken care of in MediaWiki, but the basic templates we use for all the background colors will need to be changed as well. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, Template:Mw color, Template:Mw color light, and Template:Mw color dark need to be changed to match the new look for sure. Not sure what to do about the rest of the aesthetics. I would like our templates to be more uniform, though, in size and such, so maybe this is an opportunity. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing that should hopefully come out of this: Template:Nav is not the same width as the widths we've had on navs that use Template:Tab. On pages with both kinds of templates, this is a pretty jarring difference. If there was a way to enforce the same width on non-tabbed navs as well, that'd be optimal. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 01:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. I'm not really good with templates, though if I stared at it long enough I could probably figure it out. My original plan was to revamp all the Nav templates to be Tab'd, but I'd also like to set the Tab template to have a default width. That, I'm not sure how to do. If you want to take a whack at it, feel free. Any ghastly mistakes on our part can always be reverted ;) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: The color templates have been adjusted but Template:Nav still isn't working and Template:Tab still doesn't have a default width. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, default width? - J (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As it stands currently, our Tab template either automatically adjusts its width based on content, or you can manually enter a width when using it in a navigation template. We're using 565px on a lot of our navigation templates right now for uniformity. It'd be nice if that was by default, and easily rectified if we change our minds on what that width should be. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New messages box

I believe that the box is currently the MediaWiki default colors for background and text rather than the colors we had that blended well with our skin. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 01:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

...Could someone edit my talk page so I can see this? (Assuming it's that box you're talking about...) - J (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I did. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

External Links

External links are showing up the default blue color instead of the green color they were on the power skin. Probably just one color in the MediaWiki files needs to be changed is all. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 16:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You want interwiki and external links to be the same colour as internal links, with the same hover and visited colours too? - J (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's how we had it before, yeah. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision Diffs

The background colors for the non-edited text on revision diffs make it very difficult to read the non-changed text. Again, this is probably just one thing that needs to be fixed in MediaWiki. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 23:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. It's quite hard on the eyes. I'd love to see this fixed soon. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullet Points

Our bullet points, aka these things,

are a plain white dot right now.

They used to be the purple and green Metroid Wiki image. I'd like to see it back that way again, or updated to something else. The plain white doesn't look right anymore. =P Boy are we spoiled or what? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an image you want to use/know where the one used before is? I'm not sure what skin you saw it with, but the 'power' skin currently has a grey image, which doesn't sound like what you're remembering. - J (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the same one, but file:2D logo.png would work just fine. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 01:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the fixes

To fix everything (including some other stuff not mentioned here), put the following at the bottom of mediawiki:quantumleap.css:

/* collapsible boxes */
.NavHead {position: relative;}
.NavToggle {
    font-size: .8em;
    font-weight: normal;
    position: absolute;
    right: 6px;
    top: 0;
}
/* category bar, new message box , preformatted text, new article box */
div.catlinks, div.usermessage, body pre, body div.noarticletext {
    background-color: #3C0252;
    border: 2px solid #6E3C80;
    color: inherit;
}
div.catlinks, div.usermessage {
    border-radius: 15px;
    -moz-border-radius: 15px;
    -webkit-border-radius: 15px;
    -khtml-border-radius: 15px;
    -icab-border-radius: 15px;
    -o-border-radius: 15px;
}
/* sidebar top padding */
#column-one {padding-top: 5px;}
/* diffs ('body's are to increase priority over main.css) */
body table.diff, body td.diff-otitle, body td.diff-ntitle {background: none;}
body td.diff-deletedline {background-color: #738;}
body td.diff-addedline {background-color: #54a;}
body td.diff-context {background-color: #3c0252;}
.diffchange {color: #93D435}
/* external links */
a.extiw, a.external {color: #6FA028;}
a.extiw:visited, a.external:visited {color: #547A1F;}
a.extiw:active, a.external:active, a.extiw:hover, a.external:hover {color: #93D435;}
/* bullet image */
body ul {list-style-image: url("http://cdn.wikimg.net/metroidwiki/images/7/7a/Bullet.png");}
/* template:icon */
#pageicon {top: 1.5em !important;}

Some notes:

• I kind of fail at colours, so if the diff colours don't look right, tell me.
• I haven't used the proper templates and categories for file:bullet.png because I don't know what they are...
• I wasn't sure if I got the bullet point size right - to change it, just scale file:2D logo.png and upload over bullet.png.
• Should I fix up the preferences page too?

- J (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic!!! Thank you!!!! I GROVEL IN AWE OF YOUR MAGNANIMOUSNESS! =D As for the preferences page, I guess it would be nice if it matched the rest of the site, but I don't think it's urgent. Hyperlinks to other sites still come up in blue, though. O.o —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, apparently I didn't test that properly. You need to replace the three lines under /* external links */ with the following:

#bodyContent a.extiw, #bodyContent a.external {color: #6FA028;}
#bodyContent a.extiw:visited, #bodyContent a.external:visited {color: #547A1F;}
#bodyContent a.extiw:active, #bodyContent a.external:active, #bodyContent a.extiw:hover, #bodyContent a.external:hover {color: #93D435;}

- J (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That did it. Thanks! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser

A recent MediaWiki update created a "Checkuser" user rights group on its own (I can't really speak for sure whether this is absolutely true all over, but it was definitely an accident over on the Super Mario Wiki) that only has "checkuser" and "checkuser-log" and nothing else. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but it's probably not a very difficult fix. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 01:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I enabled the extension here. Until we need it, nobody has the role, but figured we might need it in the future. -- Prod 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work everyone

Hey, it's been a while since I've visited, but I have to say, the wiki has come a long way. The new layout is excellent, and the overall improvement in quality, length and number of articles over the last year is superb. So, just wanted to applaud all of the staff for what you're doing for the wiki. Having founded the wiki I'm really proud to see what your hard efforts have turned MW in to, so you should all be proud of yourselves for the time and effort you've put into the place. Congrats everyone - staff and contributors alike, and all the best going foward. :) -Melchizedek  ^talk 06:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mel! This has been a really fun project, I'm glad you approve of the way things are turning out. :) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1.19 Update

I'm not sure why, but it's causing everything to float left. Infoboxes, our Welcome template, even the header as I'm editing that reads:

"Editing Metroid Wiki:Discussion
Center (new section)"

I'm good with words, not code. Help! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 19:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Heading was a css issue, which was probably there before, but fixed now. The alignment with infoboxes/other stuff is due to 'align=***' no longer working, since it's not valid XHTML 4.01 (or something like that...). The solution is to switch things to "float: right" in the css for right aligned boxes. If something needs to be centered, use <center> tags. -- Prod (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I see. So we'll have to fix them all manually. I was hoping there'd be some overarching single edit to fix it. Oh well. Thanks so much!!! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 17:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes fixed. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it should have been an easy one line fix... if any of those templates used the infobox class for their layout, instead of a bunch of inline css. If you want I can set that up on one of the templates as a demo. -- Prod (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough, but I'm not really the one to ask. Malake and Metroidking had a handle on all that stuff. I don't know if there was some reason they weren't using it, or if it was just an overlooked feature. If the latter, then I'd like to see all of them converted, if for no other reason than for situations like these. Unfortunately, since they haven't been around much recently, it may be up to us to continue without their input. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 05:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Catching up

Anyone care to catch me up on what I've missed? New skin looks awesome... so pretty and purpley. MK 19:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

HI!!!!! =D Well you haven't missed much. Well actually... I guess you have. O_o We got a new skin, got some NIWA help to fix issues, still don't have a new feature rotation, and Bop1996 was promoted. I think that covers the bases. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Navigation Templates

Hello all! I recently set the width of Tabbed templates to 100% (span across the entire page) in the name of aesthetic experimentation. Could I get everyone's opinion on this new look? Did 565px look better or is this more uniform? If we decide to keep the 100% then I'll go ahead and change the heights as well. Thanks! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 15:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

New Affiliation

Dear MetroidWiki,

I just created my account so I could propose a new affiliation. I am here, talking on behalf of Icaruspedia of NIWA. Since it has been claimed that the Metroid and Kid Icarus are sister series, it would only be fitting for us to take on that tradition. Kid Icarus: Uprising in particular mentions the Metroid series quite a lot, especially regarding a certain enemy called a Komayto. With all this similarity, I find it baffling that we aren't affiliated already. I hope you accept,

JORDAN DEBONO (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe we should affiliate with your wiki since both wikis are under the NIWA wiki, not just for the Komayto relationship. IceBlue (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

unfortunately I cannot provide any hyperlinks for you to access. The Captcha is preventing me from continuing and I cannot seem to get the test right. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

An affiliation beside NIWA? I really don't see why not :] --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my slow understanding, but are you positive with the affiliation or not? I can't tell if your against it or not due to the emoticon you entered. Sorry about this,

JORDAN DEBONO (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he's genuinely supporting your suggestion. I'm indifferent myself, but if everyone is for it then that's fine with me. :) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 02:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great! I will inform an active administrator on Icaruspedia so that necessary procedures can be made. JORDAN DEBONO (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about this delay, but could you give us your banner so we can add it to our list of affiliates. Our Public Affairs Director Starphoria will do the rest. Thanks, JORDAN DEBONO (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopeful return

I recently purchased Other M. If I can muster the courage to play the game without going catatonic or something I'll add to our content. MK 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your bravery will be long remembered! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 15:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well past the evil scene. My eyes... they burn. MK 01:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.19.2

We've upgraded to MediaWiki 1.19.2 and upgraded all the extensions to the latest versions. Let us know if you see any bugs or issues. -- Prod (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

NIWA Check in request

Hello, I'm dkpat from Golden Sun Universe/NIWA. I recently made a thread on the NIWA Forums that requests that an admin from each wiki "check-in" and give an update on their wiki activity. I would appreciate it if someone from Metroid wiki could check in. Thank you. (I tried to link directly to the post, however, the Asirra extention prevented me from doing so. Please also check on this and be sure you are using the standalone version, not the version included with Confirm Edit, which is known to have this problem) Dkpat (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Checked in on NIWA. Not sure how to check on the extension you mentioned. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's something that Prod would have to fix. I checked the Special:Version page and you are not using the standalone version. Just try to get him (or someone with server access and mediawiki know how I suppose) to check it and fix it. Dkpat (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Area Articles

This is going to be the start of a somewhat coherent attempt at seriously expanding and improving the content, organization, and overall quality of our articles based on Areas. What I would like to do is outline some of the biggest problems these articles face, some of the potential solutions, ways to improve the categorization of these articles, and other issues for discussion.

Problems

1. Inconsistency in organization. This is a major problem even just among Metroid Prime Areas, which are probably the most organized and consistent of them all. This also is a problem for the Fusion and Other M Areas especially, which are built by the Federation beforehand and therefore are difficult to organize in the same way.
2. Combining story elements, descriptions of the area, and basic in-game facts. This is something most, if not all, Area articles are terribly ineffective with. For instance, Chozo Ruins lumps the backstory, architecture, and then more backstory all into one general section, then goes on to describe the environment and general area by discussing the enemies present and the items in the game without really using either to relay information effectively.
3. Categorization. Category:Locations is simply a mess, and it's got all the Areas just lumped into the parent category, while smaller locations like Glacier One get the nice, easy-to-navigate, specific categories.

Possible Solutions

1. Create a standard that can be adapted to Metroid Prime Hunters planets, Metroid Fusion sectors, Super Metroid areas, and Metroid Prime 2: Echoes areas alike. This would likely have to have a good deal of discussion beforehand, but it would drastically improve how effective our area articles are at actually providing a coherent source of information.
2. Probably one of the biggest parts of the possible organization standard. This should be done so that we place proper emphasis on important elements of the area, source it all well, and make it possible to get whatever kind of information someone would be looking for on an area page.
3. Reorganize Category:Locations. This also impacts things like Category:Aether. What I'd like to do is set it up so that you can find locations by looking through them by game or by where they are in relation to other locations. For instance, Category:Rooms in Agon Wastes would be part of a greater category called Category:Agon Wastes, which would also contain things like Category:Agon Wastes Wildlife. Category:Agon Wastes would be part of Category:Aether, which is part of Category:Locations in Metroid Prime 2: Echoes. This may wind up intersecting with some way of organizing creatures and the like, but that's another project.

Issues to clear up

• Agreeing on a common standard for organization. Should be discussed in detail, and then whatever we decide should be applied soon afterward to area articles.
• Agreeing on a good recategorization system. Needs discussion.
• Sources. This is something I think everyone agrees is something we need more of on these articles, but while there's no end of sources for articles like Phazon Mines or Chozo Ruins, the Fusion or Super Metroid sources would probably take a bit more poking around in dialogue, manual, or website info.

Hopefully, this giant wall of text is comprehensible enough that we can get some serious improvements out of it. I'm entirely open to discussion, suggestions, revisions, and the like, so long as it happens. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 18:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm all for recategorization. But I'm not sure I entirely agree with the idea of a standardized layout for organizing Area articles. For example, certain places, such as the Chozo Ruins you mentioned, are full of backstory, from everything to Chozo architecture to religious significance. On the other hand, areas like Magmoor Caverns or the Impact Crater would need to be organized completely differently because of how different they are as in-game entities. All I'm saying is that standardizing Area articles, which cover things that can be so completely diverse, might be short-sighted, or worse, restricting.

I'm not sure I see the benefits to standardizing the layout of these articles at all. Can you volley an argument for why this is necessary? You often use the phrase "ineffective," but I fail to see exactly to what you are referring. You make it sound as though the Chozo Ruins article, for example, is randomly sorted, whereas, upon closer inspection, it's actually written linearly (Founding -> their architectural legacy aka "What they did after they founded it" [which could conceivably go under the Environment heading] -> the Corruption and Space Pirate arrival, followed by the Environment heading, which covers everything as it is during Samus's arrival). Now that my opinion is way out there, I'd love to hear further evaluation from you. Anything to better the wiki! —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had been hoping that whatever layout we come up with would be flexible enough to compensate for the discrepancies between Areas with massive background history and Areas with no real background at all, for instance. Every Area may not have enough info to form a coherent "History" section, but they should all have at least enough to give a general layout and description of the area. Some articles may require more detail of the way technology is integrated with the Area, while some may need detailed descriptions of the Phazon growths all over the place. At the very least, having some sort of base standard that all area articles should be up to par with seems optimal. Even if this standard can't just be rigidly applied to every article, at least they'd have something in common, and they'd be much easier to read and use for information if that was the case.

As for the Chozo Ruins article, I really like how good a job the article does of describing what the Chozo did there before the Leviathan strike. However, the "Architecture" section, I think, would be better if it was either incorporated with the description of the area or written more like it's part of the entire narrative the "History" section writes. But I digress, since going over it now, it's not horribly disorganized, especially compared with the way other Area articles just stick a few paragraphs in there with both story and gameplay elements there wherever they can fit without really differentiating between any sort of description at all.

So the takeaway from all this, I suppose, is that I'm definitely willing to concede that a rigid standard would be a very bad thing for our Area articles, but I still maintain that having some sort of baseline standard that provides the basics of what an Area article should have and what kind of information goes with what would be very beneficial. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 23:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with all that. You're right, providing at least some sort of requirement skeleton as a baseline, upon which editors may salt and pepper as needed, definitely sounds like something we could use. Did you have a rough draft in mind already? I'm all ears. =) —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have a few basic ideas for a good skeleton. First, if an area can, it should get a section devoted to the background of the Area, organized chronologically, and adapted to fit the needs of the article in question. For instance, Agon Wastes would get a pretty sizable chunk dedicated to the Luminoth settlement there, the history before the Leviathan strike, during the war with the Ing, and after the Space Pirate arrival. Brinstar, on the other hand, would maybe get some details from the game manuals of Metroid and Super Metroid, some manga refs, and that'd be all. Sectors like Sector 1 (SRX) would get brief sections dedicated perhaps to the noteworthy Fusion or Other M plot events that occur there and maybe a mention of how the sector was set up by the Federaton beforehand.

After that, there should be some section(s) devoted to describing the area in detail in terms of its appearance; layout, architecture, general types of terrain, structures, whatever. Again, the sub-headers can be customized to fit whatever the Area is like. Obviously, we aren't going to want detailed descriptions of biological features in Phazon Mines or industrial complexes in Phendrana Drifts.

A bit of a quandary I'm having at the moment is whether to give the inhabitants/mechanoids/military forces in each Area a section of their own, or to incorporate those into the sections about the area's layout and such. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both, so it might be best to work with those on a case-by-case basis for each Area. In either case, it'd be best to give a nice description of the creatures, mechanoids, or things like Space Pirate forces in each Area at some point in the article. Also, somewhere, probably its own section, there should be something about the upgrades, but I'd like details about acquisition kept to a minimum since there's other pages that should go into more detail about that sort of thing.

Also, there should hopefully be a gallery on each page and references for all these sections, as those are fairly important, and other side info like that.

After that, the categories mentioned earlier should be applied so that the Area gets some sort of game-specific category as well as categories based on geographical location. I believe I went into more detail on this earlier in this topic.

I'm entirely open to suggestions, feedback, comments, whatever on this. No matter how you slice it, this is a pretty big project and an equally big set of changes, but I hope this will drastically improve our content in a type of article that is pretty underwhelming as things stand right now. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 23:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)