Metroid Wiki talk:Quality Standards

1. All content is to be written in formal American English, not British English, Australian English or any other variation of the English language.
2. Even though the games of the Metroid series are originally published in Japanese, the translations and localizations of Nintendo of America are taken to be canon at Metroid Wiki.
3. Articles are to be named and written, and games quoted, using Nintendo of America’s translations.
4. Although the original Japanese can greatly differ from the English translations, these differences are not to be mentioned or noted in the main body of the article, however, significant differences can be mentioned in the trivia section of the article.

I don't see that these rules have any merit, or that they reflect the desires of the community.

For the first, leaving out or adding a u is not going to hurt anyone. Banning what comes naturally to a large number of English speakers, on the other hand, can drive users away. That's not something that we want to be dealing with from the get-go.

For the second, the Prime Games are originally published in English. Also, it's hardly logical for us to decide what constitutes "canon". We have no more insight into it than the average user will, so why not let them decide for themselves what to take as canon?

For the third, there are no NOA translations for any of the Manga.

The fourth is very problematic. Differences between different versions of a game are just as much Metroid info as anything else, and users may want to know about them. Furthermore, Metroid Prime has extremely significant storyline differences even between different English versions of the game released in the USA. Would this also be relegated to the trivia section? If so, what would go in the "plot" section, the original release, or the most recent release? And why?

Twentytwofiftyseven 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Twentytwofiftyseven. We should not make rules that have little effect on the actual article, but might be taken offensive by potential contributors like the American Language enforcement (which, in my opinion, is fine for article titles alone).

Defining "canon" ourselves seems to be in conflict with the meaning of canon itself, as we can only assume that there is a specificly defined Metroid canon if Nintendo actually said so themselves.

I also agree that the Metroid Prime article should get an entire section devoted to the differences between the original and the newer story. - Cobold 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with 2257. First of all, the purpose of this wiki is to provide all of the official Metroid information available; limiting ourselves and readers to American games has no meaning. As 22 and Cobold said, we can't establish what "canonicity" is by ourselves. In my opinion, any version of the same game, whatever language it uses, is just as "canon" as the other. And as for the fourth point, I don't see what can be accomplished by forbidding any Japanese differences to be written. If we do that, we're not providing all of the information possible to the readers. --Garlic Man 02:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, so we actually discussed this in staff chat, and were presently making some changes that better suit everyone, I feel. We will be using a consistent language in text however, meaning since this is an american based Metroid Wiki, we will use american english in the context of the text of the articles. However, you will be able to note name differences, and other significant differences, between game localizations within the context of the articles. Some other big changes were made too, as I agree as the founder of this place that these rules in that of themselves were way too restrictive. I hope you find the new policies to be much better, and I would appreciate feedback on them. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on what Nathan has said: The quality standards are something for the staff to decide, but we do consider and appreciate user's views. We have just thoroughly gone over each point that has been raised, and made a decision on each. The changes have been made to the page also. Point 1 is staying the same. Metroid Wiki wants consistency across its articles. It is not a matter of America is supreme, but that a uniform language is professional. American English has been selected due to that is where the wiki is hosted and based, it is where majority of the users are from and the MediaWiki software is USA English based.

As for point two, we agree here, and have reworded that as follows:

"Here at Metroid Wiki, the English localized versions of Nintendo of America are the game translations that are used in article bodies. Differences in other language versions can be mentioned in a separate 'Localizations' section of the article, but are not to fill in main body content. In some cases names and other aspects may differ across English versions, and it is acceptable to note these in the article's body."

Please note that this policy is not set in concrete. We have decided to see how it goes, and when and if localization differences reach the wiki, we will asses how it is working and decide it if is the appropriate system. Lastly, points 3 and 4 we agree are unnecessary and have been removed. Anything about them that is at all relevant has been included in point 2. Thanks for your feedback.-Melchizedek  ^talk 03:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I do like this better, but I'm still curious what you'd have done with Prime. NOE changed the plot around quite a bit when localizing Prime for Europe, and Retro Studios has gone on record that the NOE changes were unauthorized and non-canonical... However, with the release of Metroid Prime Trilogy, the original Retro plot has been dropped, even in North America, in favor of a third plot that's more like the NOE plot than the Retro version. As you can see, it's all a bit confusing, and I think we should sort this out now before well meaning contributes give us a strange amalgam of all three (Which is what has happened at Wikitroid). Twentytwofiftyseven 04:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We just briefly discussed this and think that it is probably best for Prime if we have a section for each version on that page. The NoA version will come first, as it is sourcable that it has been stated as canon by developers. The NoE altered version second, and then the third version. Order of release basically. Sound alright? -Melchizedek  ^talk 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'll go add an explanation of the three different versions to the page. Twentytwofiftyseven 15:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"To elaborate on what Nathan has said: The quality standards are something for the staff to decide, but we do consider and appreciate user's views."

Hey Melchizedek, we are also part of the NIWA alliance. What makes us different from Garlic Man? That we didn't request Sysop powers? - Cobold 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I said that to clarify why the page was locked, so not everyone can simply alter the policies, only the staff can. I did not mean it in an offensive way whatsoever. Being a part of NIWA has no bearings at individuals wikis, as they are still remaining individual wikis. Yes, users are able to help improve them like has been done here, but it is a staff decision. What makes you different from Garlic Man is that he was interested in helping out and Nathan selected him to be part of the staff. In essence, the possession of rights is the exact difference. Yes, we may all be a part of NIWA, but in this individual wiki's eyes, that holds no bearings. Apologies if my wording of "for the staff to decide" offended you, but this is how it is. -Melchizedek  ^talk 23:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just found there to be a contrast between those who have actually been writing articles and are thus affected by the guidelines, and, well, the staff which has been busy doing other things (not neglectible things, but other things). So we come across a problem during editing, and get to hear stuff like this. It sounds a lot like "No we haven't actually been doing this ourselves, but our word alone counts." If you call yourself the "Metroid Wiki", with its articles 100% not being written by you, that does naturally evoke an impression of being talked to from above. I'm not calling you to go out and write articles, but maybe you should phrase that better next time. It made it sound like all the staff is for is to enforce rules on users who then actually do the work, while the staff is having a fine day. And I know that's not true, and you're doing hard work as well, but it definitely sounded like that. - Cobold 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for coming across in that regard. :) -Melchizedek  ^talk 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously the idea here is that we set guidelines that the users should follow for essentially nothing other than consistency and quality related standards. Were not trying to be the overbearing overlords, just trying to maintain a certain level of... quality I guess. Were not trying to look down on you guys.. I promise! The reason Garlic Man is an admin is strictly because he approached us essentially from the get go about being highly interested in doing sysop related work on the wiki. Thats just to clear that up, in case people were curious as to why I chose him. We talked about it, and so far it seems like a good fit.

As for any other concerns, obviously feel free to voice them. This wiki is young, isn't even being advertised yet, but still has a solid start. A lot of you guys are the reason for this, so I do thank you. Heck, without complaints about this policy I may have never even noticed the issues with it. Nathanial Rumphol-Janc 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stubs

Just a note: stubs are often short articles, but usually, a stub being classified as a stub is based off a general lack of all necessary information that could be relevant to the article in question. For example, Bryyonian Teleporter Pedestal is not classified as a stub, because it has all the relevant information on the page. However, Pirate Homeworld is a stub, but it actually has roughly the same amount of content as Bryyonian Teleporter Pedestal. Basing stubs off length causes all sorts of trouble, and doesn't accurately represent what the stub template itself implies, which is that the article is a stub because it is devoid of info. So basically, I think we should change the bit about stubs on this page to reflect that. Thoughts? Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 18:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that does need to be updated. I'll try to do it right now before we forget about it. MK 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Articles should cover all relevant information. If they lack majors details about the subject matter, they should be marked as stubs." That's what I got so far, opinions? MK 19:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I'd modify the middle of the section to read something like "Once a stub has reached an adequate amount of information, the tag should be removed." I'd leave the last sentence as is. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A note of caution: It's been my experience that some editors conclude that because something is unimportant or only briefly appears in a game that an article can have only one or two sentences in it and that length is acceptable. Frankly it isn't. A sentence isn't even a stub (much less an article), and there is always, ALWAYS enough information to write more than a sentence. A lack of information is usually due to laziness. For example, small room articles can describe the visual facets of the room in detail, or explain obstacles in reaching the room, or draw comparisons with similar locations. Therefore I believe some caution is called for in deciding whether or not an article has "all the information it possibly can" and can be expanded beyond what it is. But that having been said, I also agree that there will be plenty of articles that will be short even when fully fleshed out and that these should't be classified as stubs. —Embyr 75  ^--Talk-- 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've taken Embyr's point into advisement, I haven't been able to incorporate it into the revised section very well. The best I've come up with is "While smaller articles on subjects with less available information are acceptable, vague descriptions of the subject or articles that are only a few sentences long are still stubs." Any suggestions on how to improve that would be greatly appreciated. MK 22:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding that after the sentence about removing the stub tags would probably do the trick. The unified whole would go something like this:

Articles should cover all relevant information. If they lack major details about the subject matter, they should be marked as stubs. Once a stub has reached an adequate amount of information, the tag should be removed. While smaller articles on subjects with less available information are acceptable, vague descriptions of the subject or articles that are only a few sentences long are still stubs. These articles should be expanded as quickly as possible so as to provide the most in-depth information.

That should take into account all our current policy as of right now. Bop1996 _{(Talk | Unfinished projects)} 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

OK the stub standards have been updated. MK 19:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)