Metroid Wiki:Discussion Center/Archive02

I've got a question,

Why is this on the most viewed pages? --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Because It's been viewed 8,228 times :P _ZeldaMan ^{(PostboxStatus)} 02:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering,

Is there some way to browse images that have already been uploaded? Like, for example, if I wanted a picture of a Hunter Metroid, is there a way to tell if someone has already uploaded such a picture without knowing the specific file name? If this is somehow obvious and I am missing something, just let me know, but the Help only tells how to upload new images, not browse ones already there. If there are images that can be used, I'd rather use them than uploading brand new ones. --Nintendbob 15:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go to the category to which a Hunter Metroid would fall under. Usually, such an image would already be added to the page, but occasionally people upload images before the page is created and an unused image just sits there. Head on over to Special:SpecialPages to find an array of lists that may be useful. More specifically, go here to look at uncategorized files which you wouldn't find under any category. There to go to files that are unused, that is, they don't appear on any page. And there to view all categories. The enemies category or Metroids category would be where an image of a Hunter Metroid would be if it existed. Hope some of that helped! --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to tell me all this, it really helps --Nintendbob 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Justin BAILEY

So, Justin Bailey or JUSTIN BAILEY. Same with Bottle Ship. Both are referred to in game as ALL CAPS. But otherwise, they're simply known as lowercase. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 06:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy First Birthday Metroid Wiki

We've officially been online for one year now, so let the celebrations begin. A huge thanks goes to all of our contributors, our staff and to NIWA for their support. Be sure to check out our statistics page for all the stats of what we've achieved in our first year. Here's to a great year and many more to come. Thanks again everyone. -Melchizedek  ^talk 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello there!

I'm Fawful117, a newcomer to this wiki, but very good on the Mario wiki! I need to edit my userpage a bit... anyway, what's there to do on this wiki? I assume it's just like the Mario wiki, right?

Fawful117 Look who's come from the Mario Wiki! ME!!! ;) I HAVE CHORTLES! 21:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We have some different policies, but the basic premise is the same. As for what you can do, you can edit any particular areas that you are knowledgeable in or just make small corrections like spelling and grammar. MK 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

New bureaucrats

After the move, our admin and bcrats got a bit rearranged. I'd like to give one of our current sysops bcrat permissions as well, and would like the community's feedback. We currently have the following sysops:

• Embyr 75 (talk - contribs)
• Malake256 (talk - contribs)
• Melchizedek (talk - contribs)
• Metroidking (talk - contribs)
• Nathanial Rumphol-Janc (talk - contribs)
• Neo (talk - contribs)
• TheSuperZeldaMan (talk - contribs)

What are everyone's thoughts on who should be our new bcrat? -- Prod 18:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In terms of who helps out and edits for the wiki, I feel that Metroidking does the most to help out and improve. --Nintendbob 21:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Metroidking definitely for the win on this one, extremely active (unlike how I've been), and a highly valuable and necessary editor to keep Metroid Wiki going round. More thoughts from me are certainly to come, particularly since I'm just now getting back. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 23:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, its Metroidking for many of the same reasons Malake256 posted.Transdimensionalflux 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Metroidking devotes himself to this wiki. When in the position of nearly permanent hiatus, you're sure to think that "Well, Metroidking's there, he'll work things out." He primarily serves as the backbone of what keeps this wiki going, making sure that everything is precise and perfect to the smallest detail. Considering the small amount of helpers in this wiki, it's clear that Josh will always do the job, because he really cares about it. It doesn't matter if someone's been slacking for months when you have someone like Metroidking around. - _ZeldaMan ^{(PostboxStatus)} 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So it is written, so it is done :). -- Prod 07:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Search Bar

White on white on chrome. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's actually kind of annoying me too... Maybe it's a plot against chrome users... Geekiness is an end, not a means - Bop1996 00:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're all trying to push people to use FireFox. MK 00:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Diabolical fiends.... Metroid4Ever 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way... --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, we thought we fixed this problem. Not really sure why it is occurring. MK 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be re-re-fixed. -- Prod 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki junk

This story may be long and overly detailed. While I was editing in MarioWiki, I happened to look at their article on Link, and even though he's not a Mario character, I fixed up inaccuracies referring to the Zelda series and went on my way. Logged in again last night, one user was fixing MarioWiki's article on Samus for inaccuracy within the Metroid series, apparently because he noticed me doing it, and he was linking to Wikitroid for further info. Another user got in an edit war over whether to link here or Wikitroid, an admin stopped all the action and said that the MarioWiki admins would discuss this. I asked for a list of articles that were specifically not detailed enough to provide good info, and I got an explanation about the whole thing. Regardless of the MarioWiki admins decide, I agree that our articles on the pages that would provide basic background info on Samus are woefully poor; almost all, if not all are stubs, and most don't have complete write-ups for just the in-game sections. This seems to be impairing our ability to provide a source of information for people who are more interested in those topics. I think that I, personally, would like to focus on certain articles that would help provide background information on Samus so that we can be a better source to link to than Wikipedia or Wikitroid. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not overly detailed. We've known about the need to expand the more important articles that would be linked to from other NIWA wikis for a while. Unfortunately those said articles are also amongst the hardest to write. Take the Samus article for example, it has to cover every game in the series but also can't seem like a rephrasing of the content that will later be on Metroid (series). Would you mind getting a list of the pages that MarioWiki is much more likely to link to? It will help us get a much better idea of which articles to prioritized with expansion. MK 20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what happened on Mario Wiki. Yeah, unfortunately it's been a constant problem on Metroid Wiki, we have detailed information when it comes to less significant articles like Vaccine "Metroid" or Paralyzer but somehow leave the most important articles naked of info. The only real solution of course is to have better info on our pages. This edit and following edits show what articles we'd really, really need work on. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That particular edit war was the epicenter, as for other links out there, there is no set policy on how MarioWiki links to affiliates, apparently, according to one of the admins I asked regarding such a policy, there was a debate about it that ended with an unfinished template being added to a bunch of articles. I believe that most of the articles that seriously need work are in that edit, although almost anything Smash Bros. could possibly be linked here. I believe some trivia references out there link to here, since the Mario series doesn't take itself as seriously as the others... In particular, some WarioWare games link here due to them being based off Metroid stuffs. The edits from the edit history Malaka256 posted are the most important as far as links, as a lot of other wikis probably link there as well. The fact the Vaccine "Metroid" article is better than Samus Aran or Morph Ball is not much of an in-wiki problem so much as a problem where we aren't able to provide further reading for users of other wikis. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 12:29 20 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, would you mind doing some work on the Corruption section of the Samus article (references and such)? MK 19:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind, I saw a bunch of stuff in there I wanted to fix anyway, I'll try and get to it later tonight, kinda busy right now... Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. MK 19:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

After seeing this page, I was just wondering if the proposal concerning it was neglected or if it has actually been dragging on for seven months. Is there a page that describes how proposals work here (other than the fact that someone proposes something, and people can support, oppose, and/or comment)? Just in case clarification is necessary, I'm wondering if this wiki has anything like this. Metroid4Ever 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that since the community is still getting off the ground, the system for resolving arguments is similar to the one Xzelion, Plumber, and Master Crash proposed at MarioWiki. I believe the TPPs are just waiting for someone with the time to get to them (that has happened a few times on MarioWiki as well). This may be better answered by an admin like MetroidKing or Malake, but since you're trying to find something here comparable to what the system is on MarioWiki, I figured I'd answer the MarioWiki related portions. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 11:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea, after we see what Malake thinks we might just implement something like it. MK 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What we implementing? MW isn't very organized when it comes to technical details like that to be honest, there's no set number of oppositions or supports needed for anything to happen, usually stuff happens on a majority consensus. Whenever something comes up, we try to discuss it, but I guess Trooper Pirate didn't pick up enough interest. So it does seem to have been neglected. --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe what the problem being brought to attention is would be the fact that there really is no rules for proposals whatsoever. The page Metroid4Ever linked to on MarioWiki clearly specifies the rules needed in order to create a TPP, and it is a general page where proposals on larger topics can be created. What my issue is is that since we have under ten users that edit weekly or daily, and participate in these types of discussions, a good deal of any proposals that we may propose here would likely be marked "No Quorum" on MarioWiki; you can simply bring up a problem on an admin's talk page or the article's talk page and most likely some sort of consensus will be reached, so a proposals page or a really concise list of rules on TPPs may not be necessary. I suggest that we implement this one rule: the proposer must take action if the proposal passes. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right on that "No Quorum" thing. In the case of the Trooper Pirate, it's been too long to have that notice template up. But for future cases, really simply making a talk page post would be enough. A lot of things on the wiki are changing though, like our category and image systems, the Help section and Quality sections will be receiving a makeover. Of course that's going to take some time along with the rest of this stuff :/ --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 15:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that this is what's best for our current userbase. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Logbook Referencing

Has anyone else noticed how inconsistent we are with our format for referencing logbook entries? We generally follow this pattern when referencing Lore entries: {{Cite|entry|[[Data Type]] "Entry name"|game the entry came from}}. This format is working fine currently, but there is really no pattern for Creature type entries. Check Blogg, Grenchler, and Grapple Guardian to see what I mean. I suggest going to this format for Creature logbook references: {{Cite|entry|[[Link to the Logbook the entry is from]] "Entry name(link if necessary)"|game the entry is from}}. This should be consistent with referencing lore entries, and more consistent generally. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

By link to the Logbook the entry is from did you mean link to a page like Metroid Prime Logbook or actually linking to the Logbook subsection of the article if say the Grapple Guardian article referenced the Grenchler article? MK 17:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant the former, in order to be more consistent with the way we've been referencing lore. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there's a way I can make it so that you can link to lets say [[Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Logbook#Gandrayda]] without having a visible header in the page. In other words, linking to the actual logbook info on the Logbook page with no ugly header. And fixing each logbook entry should be quicker with my auto-ref placed inside the template ;) --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be optimal... If we can pull it off in a consistent, easy to use fashion, then I'll be satisfied. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 18:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow metroid wikier's.

I'm Gold metroid756, I'm new to this Wiki and i look foward to making friends and learning more about this Wiki. Thanks and see ya later! :) --Gold metroid756 03:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hola! How did this go unnoticed lol, HELLO! --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy in references

I'm all for linking to the logbook pages, however things like "Metroid Prime Hunters Logbook "Sealing Gorea 01" (Metroid Prime Hunters)" seem a little redundant. I really don't see the need to state the game it's from twice. Anyone have any opinions on this matter? MK 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I think the game parameter (the parenthetical statement at the end of the reference) needs to stay. As for saying it's from the Logbook, well, that's just the source. We could technically say [[Metroid Prime Hunters Logbook|Logbook]] "Sealing Gorea 01" (Metroid Prime Hunters), instead, and all the information would still be there. I'm not bothered either way. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 21:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I could see the link as piped; however, then we lose the fact that the Logbook is the most basic source (aside from the game itself, which gets a parameter all to itself in this case), and just citing it as "Logbook" loses the specificity of linking to the specific Logbook the entry originates from. I'd also like to note that I was meaning to try and talk through all of these and come up with the best solution, but I've been postponing it until I get the rest of the Missile Expansion locations up. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 21:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about losing the specificity. If it's from the "Logbook" and the game it's from is "Metroid Prime," one can extrapolate that it's the Metroid Prime Logbook to which we are referring. Or is that not what you meant? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I have no objections to piping the link from now on, or going around and changing the entries to have a piped link to the Logbook. I'd also like to bring to attention the fact that we can link to specific entries with {{anchor}}, and so if we're already stuck changing every entry on the face of the wiki, I think linking to the entry would be helpful. Also, as for Lore, there's a reason why the Lore is on a separate page; however, if we're piping the links already again, we might want to link to the specific Lore entry on the Lore pages (should be possible; I remember adding anchor to all those entries when I stuck them in tables), thus linking to every Logbook entry in existence specifically under the title "Logbook". I'm getting ahead of myself again... Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 22:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that whatever consensus we may reach here should be written into the Citation policy; I'd do it myself if I could, but someone needs to do it. Also, does anyone have a preference about whether to link to the game in the parentheses at the end of cite? Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Two things I have beef with (at the moment)

1. There is a word that's been getting on my nerves around here lately, believe it or not, that one word is the word "the". Now here's the thing, what I lean towards believing is once something is named, that name then becomes a proper noun. For example, "Malake256 went to the store" not "The Malake256 went to the store" (though it'd be nice to be known as THE Malake256). In this sense, I would assume we use things like Reactor Core (Sanctuary Fortress) would be known as "Reactor Core" not "The Reactor Core". Technically, it is "a reactor core named Reactor Core". This may sound a tad confusing, but I'm saying we call it Reactor Core as the name of the room (alternatively, we can call it the reactor core in lowercase to refer to it as the reactor core of Sanctuary Fortress). In articles, I notice often "the [Proper Name]" being used, I would rather we strayed away from that and used either "[Proper Name]" or "the [describing words]" in articles. Opinions?

2. Number two is a little easier to solve, it's either a yes or a no sorta thing. In real life, ships and planes' names are italicized in text. That is, you'll see the ship Titanic officially written as RMS Titanic, italicized name. If we follow real-life English conventions, we would be prompted to write Frigate Orpheon and G.F.S. Olympus. Should we follow that or take on a neutral stance where we don't care about such details, leaving names as Frigate Orpheon and G.F.S. Olympus? I heavily lean towards what we use in real life. Mainly because Metroid Wiki likes to nitpick >:]

Thoughts? Question? Input? Opinions? Comments? Concerns? Anything :D ? --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The usage of "the" when referring to rooms is entirely dependent on the name of the room. "Reactor Core is the location of Sanctuary Fortress' main power generator" just doesn't sound very good, however in other cases such as Save Station A (Phendrana Drifts), saying "The Save Station A" is equally as bad. As for ship names, yeah those should be italicized. MK 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, for concern #1, it has always made sense to me to use a the before room names, as in most cases, a definite article helps with specificity and clearness. As for #2, I've been italicizing the names, except where they are being used as a location, rather than a ship. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 23:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In regards to using definite articles: (I think) I agree with you, Malake. It does feel weird to say "Reactor Core" instead of "The Reactor Core", but Echoes doesn't say "The Torvus Bog" or "The Agon Wastes" or "The Sanctuary Fortress". It's a location and locations don't always need definite articles. For example, I went to Grand Canyon recently. In the park, they never say "The Grand Canyon". It's always, "Here at Grand Canyon...". Saying "Biotech Research Area 1" without a definite article doesn't sound weird, and it's because, as you already noted, these aren't places named after objects (reactor core named Reactor Core). On the other hand, we do say "The United States," but, as none of the rooms I can think of officially have "the" in front of them, I say it's best to leave it off. On the other hand, we say "the kitchen" or "the dining room," so I guess it really depends on whether or not these are proper nouns. Also, we say "the Annihilator Beam" despite the fact that it's a proper noun. Hmm. I'm sort of talking myself out of my decision in an attempt to seem balanced. O_o I need to think about this more. Can we find some official citations regarding this to settle this issue?

In regards to italics, I also lean heavily towards the real life usage. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 17:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some locations referred to as "the (area name)" in Luminoth Lore. Sanctuary Fortress in Sanctuary Falls, Torvus Bog in Torvus Falls, and Sky Temple in The Sky Temple, The Final Crusade, and Shattered Hope. MK 17:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so they do. They refer to Sanctuary Fortress with and without the definite article in the same paragraph. I don't know what to tell you guys on that one. =\ —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 17:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing, really. At least, are we on the agreement of "Frigate Orpheon"? --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Frigate Orpheon rule, as that not only makes sense but is already what I've been doing I believe. As for the definite article issue, we use a the when it is what is definitely referred to. Things like Agon Wastes need no definite article, as there is almost no ambiguity as to what is being referred to. In the case of a room name, such as the Reactor Core, even with or without the capitals, it could be referring to the Reactor Core of the Death Star from Star Wars (kinda poor to reference with, but it was my first thought), or any other Reactor Core. Once we put a the in front of Reactor Core, we know exactly which Reactor Core is being referred to. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking. If we say "The Reactor Core," we might still be talking about the one on the Death Star lol. Adding "the" doesn't help with that issue. That's like saying, "I'm going to Georgia." "Really? Which Georgia? The Country or the State?" "Oh, I'm sorry, that was ambiguous of me. I mean, The Georgia." lol. Doesn't clear things up. XD —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've finally made up my mind lol. I've done a little research and haven't found many references to rooms by name. In fact, the only references to rooms by their name that I've found are the blue doors on Frigate Orpheon. They always say, "Entrance to [Room Name]". Examples are, "Entrance to Air Lock" and "Entrance to Emergency Evacuation Area" and "Entrance to Map Facility" -- none of the scans I looked at used a definite article. Because these are the only official examples I can find, I'm going to go with that unless someone finds official evidence to contradict it. Thoughts? —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As much as it sounds awkward to speak out "Emergency Evacuation Area is a room from Metroid Prime", I'm afraid that official scan data or logbook entries are the final word here, so I have nothing to say in defense of a case-by-case basis or something like that. Of course, we could just use those for the room names with the scan data and go with what makes most sense in the other articles =P Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 22:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does sound weird, but I've found more examples (well just one): "Project Titan specimen is immobilized in Quarantine Cave." Who talks like that?! XD Anyway, I guess we will? =P —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 22:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be our only choice. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 22:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the Pirates just have poor grammar skills. As I stated in my earlier post, not having a definite article sounds quite bad so I really think they should be kept. MK 16:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest breaking out the voting templates, but it's kinda at an impasse right now... Also, the current Citation Policy issue is slowing down again, and to be honest, I really desperately want to go through every article right now and make every single Logbook reference consistent, but we have no clear consensus on what our preferred format is, and even if we've specified that some are acceptable, it's an unwritten law right now, making it hard to establish any sort of pattern. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 16:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence suggests it could be a Space Pirate thing. Space Pirates refer to rooms without the definite article (as in the examples cited above) but the Holobanner scans in the Hall of the Elders do say "Chozo runes translated. Holobanner text reads 'The Hall of the Elders'". So. I suppose that only raises more questions. But I'll be frank in saying that while that little bit of inconsistency might be annoying, we have bigger fish to fry. We have a Citation Policy that needs to be rewritten, and in fact an entire Help Section that could use rewriting. Then there are the Featured Articles/Images revisions we discussed. On the other hand I suppose we should just keep in mind that it can be hard to get stuff done when we fluctuate between like 3 and 6 active people at a time and real life keeps getting in the way. =\ —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 19:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Lots to do when you consider that we only have 1-6 editors on every day... The Chozo Holobanner has just complicated things even more... I'm not quite sure how we can stay consistent with what the games say on this... Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 20:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Simple Discussions in Articles

I know it's weird to have on wikis, I haven't seen too many wikis that allow stuff like it, but a while back we had agreed we would allow simple discussion in article talk pages. I think it's a good way to build a sense of community. We never changed the rules to reflect this, in fact, I don't even think we talked about this on the actual wiki, but discussions are allowed on talk pages provided they don't become negative. Since it really was just a handful of us that decided this, what do you guys think? --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 16:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not really my field of knowledge, so I was just going according to MarioWiki policy here, since there was none readily apparent here. I'm fine if there's a moderate amount of just plain talking, which includes making references and stuff to other pop culture mediums, etc, as long as it doesn't hinder our ability to use the talk pages for constructive purposes. BTW, the OT template is very subjective. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 16:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In my personal experience, minor discussions like those can be kept on personal talk pages, but end up being a nuisance on main space article talk pages. It can clog the RC for one thing, and for another the wikis are information hubs, not forums. Metroid Headquarters has forums to which we can direct people who feel like chatting, and of course there's the NIWA forums. It is true that a sense of community is important, but if people come to MW looking for conversation with no intention of editing, NIWA forums and the like are probably more what they're looking for. That's just my opinion on the matter. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 20:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Controversy

Our current infobox situation seems to be somewhat inconsistent with regards to several things. I'll list my issues below.

• The "Current status" parameter on {{Planet-infobox}} and {{Species-infobox}} is unclear; I'm assuming that it is the known status after Metroid Fusion.
• There appears to be a few redundancies with {{Creature-infobox}} in {{Enemy-infobox}} and {{Plant-infobox}}.
  • In the case of Plant-infobox, Creature-infobox states exactly the same things, except with slightly more coherency and specificity. Also, the Logbooks classify moving plants as "Creatures" and other, stationary plants as research in a section called "Plantforms" (referring to Echoes there).
  • As for the Enemy-infobox, there is virtually no distinction between a creature and an enemy; I doubt anyone would have any trouble calling a Space Pirate an enemy, but those are roughly 50/50 split between classifications as an enemy and creature here. However, the Logbook classifies all Space Pirate lifeforms as Creatures, and not enemies. And then there's the problem of things like Grenchlers, where they are certainly hostile enough to be enemies, but don't follow Samus consciously like Space Pirates do. This system could also very well imply that creatures that damage Samus as part of the layout of the room (like Sandbats) are enemies too, despite being non-hostile. So basically, I don't think that Enemy-infobox is necessary, since we have ample evidence that they can all be classified as Creatures.

Also, just a note; {{Mechanoid-infobox}} has about everything we need for Mechanoids. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 00:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All good points. I'm also not sure what the "Current" status parameter boundaries are. That could certainly be spelled out more. If I recall correctly, the Plant-infobox came into existence when I was on my plant-article-creation kick for plants that could be scanned but didn't have a logbook entry (Glowing Spidervine, Red Starburst, Guide Stem, Stone Creeper, etc). As for the Creature/Enemy issue... I do think that "Creature" has more to offer than "Enemy" does. Most major enemies that we wouldn't be comfortable classifying as creatures (Dark Samus, for example) get the "Boss" or "Character" infoboxes anyway. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would think having a Plant-specific infobox would be well worth our while if we added some details that are only present in plant articles, such as means of producing energy, whether it needs sunlight or not, what climate(s) it thrives in, etc. Also, while we're on this topic, I suggest we come up with a good infobox for use on Doors and Research entry subjects. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Enemy-infobox is being phased out in favor of creature-infobox and mechanoid-infobox. The reason why this project hasn't been finished yet is because the template was on a couple hundred pages... and we forgot about it. It's now only on a couple dozen pages so we actually should be able to finish it in the near future. MK 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to an infobox dedicated solely to Pirate varieties? There are numerous ones and I think a specialized infobox for them would work better than the creature infobox. MK 19:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't, since they appear in every Metroid game and have numerous qualities that separate them from common creatures, such as their many types of equipment and armor, as well as those that are cybernetically or artificially enhanced or mutated by Phazon, and they appear in large, diverse numbers as well. These details are ones we'd need to have on the infobox to avoid having a redundancy with the one for Creatures. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 19:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure, the enemies category isn't really necessary either for the reasons I listed above about the enemy-infobox, so is there any reason to not swap all the enemy categories for the necessary creature categories and finalize the destruction of that category? Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)}

Yeah that category is going to be deleted once it is removed from all files and articles. MK 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey!

Im arcwarioman, Im new and I hope to be a big help to this wiki! --Arcwarioman 21:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Hola --Malake256 ^{{Talk | Contribs}} 00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)