This RfC was closed on 23:56, July 13, 2013 (UTC) by HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) with the final resolution of oppose, making sensible connections already falls under Use Common Sense policy. Please do not modifiy it.
Connections[]
Seeing as there isn't an existing policy on connections to to other games and users (myself included) have created literally pages of arguments on the matter that went absolutely nowhere, I thought I'd codify a set of rules. Let's begin with defining what connections to other media are: basically, something in Metroid looks, acts, or plays a role in the plot suspiciously like something in another, unrelated game, movie, etc. (I've never run into “sounds like”, but I guess it's possible). Usually these are given an entry in the Trivia section. This is not something explicitly and iconicly Metroid appearing in another medium, or something explicitly and iconicly “other game” appearing in Metroid. Those are cameos and crossovers, and we already have a policy for those.
Now, obviously we can't allow them all, because that would fill the wiki with meaningless things that vaguely resemble something in Metroid (“Hey everybody! Admiral Dane and Capitain Picard BOTH WEAR UNIFORMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”). But on the other hand, I think it would be bad to preclude these all together- connections make the wiki interesting, and as the source for all things Metroid we kind of have a responsibility to document possible inspirations. So I propose the following policy:
Basically, a connection is relevant if it is not something that could easily have happened by accident: that is to say, if a connection is strong enough that it is more likely the deliberate work of the developers than it is just a coincidence. Now, usually it's impossible to confirm once-and-for-all that a connection is deliberate. As a wiki, uncertainty is something we naturally have to deal with, and we sometimes just have to select the most probable explanation as the “true” one in the absence of facts, and make some reasonable speculation. However, I am also of the opinion that even if we're wrong, the improbable explanation is true, and it really is just a strange coincidence, then it should still be covered because strange coincidences are interesting and can become a part of a game's fabric. Now, I'll admit it's hard to weight probabilities on something like this, and I expect some debate on the liklihood of individual connections, but I've come up with some angles for adding weight to a connection's unlikeliness:
Obviously, the more similar something is to something else, the more relevant it is. Once again, this could be physical appearance, role in the plot, or some other characteristic.
In that same vein, the more similarities something has with something else (usually across multiple characteristics), the more relevant it is. Put another way, multiple similarities together give the subject more weight than jut the sum of the weights of those similarities.
However, something is less relevant the more common it is in outside media, simply because common things will just be more likely to show up due to their being, well, common.
For obvious reasons, if a developer specifically says that something was based on something else, we cover it, but I think we should also cover the denial if a developer specifically says something isn't related to something else, partly because that means said thing was important enough to warrant a response, and partly because we have the good habit of jut covering everything a developer says.
Obviously, some of the philosophy behind this will be removed in the final policy so that the thing can be condensed into a set of guidelines.
- Question: Should we implement the plicy outlined above (possibly in simplified form).
- Positions: Agree (If you want the ploicy outlined above condensed and implemented), Disagree (If you do not want the policy above condensed and implemented), Neutral (If you are unsure).
Discussion[]
- Agree- as policy progenitor. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and you should really read my book." 18:13, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Agree- (If I have a handle on this correctly...) Just made a post arguing against an instance of this. I think that if someone wants to put an exception forward on the talk page, they should be allowed to make a fair case, but the fact is that the trivia section of articles are very much abused with things (along these lines and others) like this. An example of a good argument might be a brief section on the history of early powered exoskeletons in reality and fiction in the Power Suit article, with a link to that article on Wikipedia. An example of a bad argument would be to compare recent and unrelated powered exoskeletons. (Fictional or otherwise.) ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 19:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Comment- All good points, but I'm not sure if I understand the first part of that example. It seems like you're talking about a description of a subject that makes use of out-universe technical or historical information, not a connection to another specific fictional work. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and you should really read my book." 22:09, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Comment- That's correct. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 03:59, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I feel like it will be very difficult to decide what is and isn't considered a relevant connection if this proposed policy is put to use. I foresee a lot of conflict between users trying to argue this. I think that a better policy would be to simply disallow these seeminly random coincidences unless it is explicitly defined as a legitimate connection, because allowing all of them will attract a lot of speculation and will clog up the trivia sections of a lot of articles. Joe Copp 00:25, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose For the same reasons as Joe. We don't need a whole other policy for these, and I'd like to think we've smartened up about "references" in other series (OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!! *giddy jumping up and down* SAMUS WEARS A CATSUIT LIKE SCARLETT JOHANNSON AS THE BLACK WIDOW! IT'S GOTTA BE A REFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!). Use Common Sense covers this just fine, so I say we close this and point it to the connection clauses of the guideline. --RoyboyX(complaints/records) 17:12, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Things like this don't need their own policy. The policy isn't going to actually serve any sort of purpose because it isn't going to prevent these arguments from happening and it doesn't serve any sort of administrative purpose (arguing isn't a blockable offense), so it's just not really necessary. I agree with Roy that things like this are covered by just simply using common sense, assuming good faith, and coming to a consensus on the wiki. DoctorPain99 17:40, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
