# Talk:Samus Aran

The following description is in-universe:

She is 190 cm (6 ft 3 in) and 90 kilograms (200 lb) while wearing the Power Suit.
It is immediately followed by a description that is not in-universe:

The Super Metroid Nintendo's Player's Guide describes Samus as 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) tall and weighs 198 pounds (90 kg) without her Power Suit.
Either both should be in-universe, or, per MOS, neither:

The official Return of Samus website lists, under a diagram of the Power Suit titled "Samus Aran", a height and weight of "身長：190cm　体重：90kg". The Super Metroid Nintendo's Player's Guide describes Samus as 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) tall and weighs 198 pounds (90 kg) without her Power Suit.
Reverting because "other articles" are in-universe too isn't a good reason to keep the in-universe bit. If the sentence is hard to read, it can be rephrased, but not in an in-universe style. EV stuff (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I see the problem a lot more readily now; that whole duo of sentences is very confusing and the typical in-universe won't work here. It's also off because her Zero Suit height seems to be all over the place, according to Time Extension, so I replaced the primary cites with it as a secondary.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I restored the primary sources and kept the secondary source. The primary sources are more accurate than the secondary source. EV stuff (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The reference to Miss Brianna Wu’s admitted personal opinion on Samus’ identity as a transgender woman is not relevant to the character in any way and the section regarding it should be removed.
If we are to include every single niche internet microcelebrity’s opinion on Samus Aran and her identity, the article would be thrice as long. Statements on the identity of the character should stay limited to statements from creators and members of the development team, as this is an article for information and not speculation.
The statement itself is admittedly based on a throwaway comment, and also more than likely refers to Samus’ dual heritage as a Human-Chozo hybrid due to her upbringing. It seems improper to include a whole section of the article discussing what is essentially fan-fiction and pure speculation, given Wikipedia prides itself on informative and relevant details in its articles.
Perhaps the paragraph could be streamlined to focus more on the statement made by  Hirofumi Matsuoka and how it has led to discussion about Samus’ own identity and what she represents. This would allow the article to stay consistent and not spiral into an unrelated gender debate which, given Miss Wu’s own personal history, is biased and opinionated at best. 146.200.144.236 (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It's there because others started discussing the same opinion, and some back and forth regarding that opinion. It's also only one paragraph, so please stop blowing it out of proportion; it's hardly getting WP:UNDUE here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
If we’re gonna talk about neutrality, I’d like to refer to this:
“Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.”
I would say that the bare minimum of people talking about Samus being a transgender woman applies here, seeing as Forbes’ own article on the matter that is referenced on this page only itself can reference Brianna Wu’s article on the matter. Most discussion online points back to Miss Wu’s article as a starting point for this discussion. Does an echo chamber of one opinion count as a large enough group to warrant this paragraph?
If it matters so much to be included, a link to a separate article that discusses transgender woman in video games can be linked and the information placed there. It is not relevant to this article 146.200.144.236 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It was just her, sure. But there were other outlets examining the point and adding their own counterpoints. It's hardly fringe, just a lesser point of discussion. So WP:UNDUE is what you're trying to argue, but it doesn't apply. Now if you're doing this because you dislike the point, there's WP:IDONTLIKEIT for that, and the fact that wikipedia doesn't censor.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
If lesser points of discussion that barely qualify for a paragraph are eligible as “promotion and reception”, then the Sonic the Hedgehog page deserves a whole section dedicated to Sonichu and Chris-chan.
It is needlessly promoting debate on a subject that already has an answer, given the fact that the character is biologically female as confirmed by the people who created her. It adds nothing to the article to keep the paragraph there.
My own personal agreement on the topic is irrelevant, and the fact that the paragraph has attempted to be removed before clearly shows that this is not an isolated consensus.
Unless someone wants to flesh out the section to discuss both the conversation of Samus as transgender and highlight the agreements and disagreements made in response to Miss Wu and those like her, then it will simply be a small paragraph that feels tacked on at the end as some sort of virtue signal and that alone makes it out of place on the article more than anything. 146.200.144.236 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Sonichu has no bearing on Sonic. You're not even trying to present an argument here. It's fine as a paragraph. It's a (albeit odd) valid observation of the character after multiple outlets discussed it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, it has no bearing on the character and as such doesn’t warrant any mention. It’s not even mentioned in the Sonic the Hedgehog fandom page, that’s how little bearing it has on the franchise.
Now apply that same logic here, to a random paragraph stuck at the end of a page dedicated to one of the most well-known female video game icons, that you yourself admit is an odd observation. There has been little discussion on the topic, and yet it warrants including on the character’s Wikipedia page?
My argument boils down to the point of its inclusion. There are little sources that don’t reference each other, and the discussion is fan-fiction and speculation. It can’t be considered a valid reception to the character when it is wrong and baseless.
I argue this from a place of love for Samus and her character, and while of course people are entitled to their opinions you can’t ignore the facts of who she is. Hence why I feel the opinionated paragraph adds nothing to the article and should be removed 146.200.144.236 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Completely agree with Kung Fu Man. It's a perfectly fine (though odd) observation well supported by sources and the small size does not violate WP:UNDUE. Complaints are just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please cease blowing this out of proportion based on your personal opinions. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to add that the IP user's use of terms like 'transgenderism' and 'biological woman' is a pretty clear hat-tip at their thoughts on trans people, and pretty clearly reveals their entire argument to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Athanelar (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
The recent edits may have been spurred by this Twitter post. Popcornfud (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Good find.I made a thread at WP:RPPI to get the page semi-protected to deal with this IP vandalism. Athanelar (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
FYI my RPPI resulted in the page getting semi-protected for one week, so we shouldn't have to worry about the brigading anymore. Athanelar (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if this is an incorrect way of communicating, I'm the one that made the edit about Yoshio Sakamoto and his comment on Samus being a "newhalf", I believe you were the one to undo my edit because it was a dubious analysis, however I don't understand what makes it dubious to tag it as contradictory since Matsuoka stated Samus as being a newhalf while Sakamoto stated she wasn't, I'm new at editing wikipedia as it's obvious and I would appreciate any feedback and a way to maybe include Sakamoto's comment on the matter in the article, if it's of any relevance my edit was based on Samus article from metroid fandom wiki, I don't know if this is the correct way of communicating this but I was simply trying to not flood the article with incorrect edits if I was doing something wrong, thanks in advance and sorry for the troubles. 95.21.181.233 (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
In that edit you wrote: However on 2004, series co-creator Yoshio Sakamoto stated during an interview that a Metroid game on the PlayStation 2 would be "as likely as Samus Aran being a newhalf", contradicting Matsuoka's claim, since Metroid was never released on the PlayStation 2.
The bolded part is your own interpretation of the implications of Sakamoto's statement. This breaks Wikipedia's rule against original research (see WP:OR). We would need a reliable secondary source to make this interpretation instead. Sakamoto's statement is vague (not to mention the complexities of translating it from Japanese) so without that extra source it's not very useful for the article. Popcornfud (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTH (and WP:OR more broadly). On Wikipedia all we do is report what the sources say. If source 1 says A and source 2 says B it's not our job to present conclusion C based on A+B, even if C might seem to be logically sound.
To put it another way, Wikipedia is not supposed to have an opinion. Basically, you could state that Sakamoto said "a Metroid on PS2 is as likely as Samus being a newhalf," but you can't therefore state that his intent was to imply a particular conclusion about Samus' identity, since that's not stated in the source. It's entirely possible for example that at the time he thought it was certain that there would be a Metroid on PS2, or that it was partially likely, etc. Athanelar (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I think a big point of contention too is that Kern is framing the reception bit as "it's saying she's trans" and folks are coming here thinking that, when that isn't what's going on. It's merely cataloguing discussion around the character, similar to how Sorceress (Dragon's Crown) catalogs Jason Schreier's meltdown over her and the back and forth, but the article isn't inherently saying "this character is sexist". A reception section merely illustrates discussion around a character and the lenses it was discussed through from reliable sources. Does that make sense, anon?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Correct, the Twitter post is mischaracterizing what the Wikipedia article actually says. Popcornfud (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I came from the twitt and it did appear like that from what it was written. I understood that was not what was really happening and I considered that Sakamoto's comment was relevant to the information as it felt like a pun over Matsuoka's prior statement. 95.21.181.233 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
So it would be correct to add for example the next quote to the article (It's been done with AI, and it has assured me the comparison was done in a negative view, in addition to Sakamoto himself leading with the comment to the other part about playing it on the gamecube):
Question: I’ve been wanting to play Metroid Prime for a while, but won’t it be ported to the PS2 or something? It would really help if that were the case...
Sakamoto: “Samus was actually a newhalf!” …It’s about as impossible as that! Please enjoy it on the GameCube!
I tried to shorten the quote previously when adding the changes to the article since I didn't quite know how to add it to the previous content and I understand that it could have definitely felt pretty unclear. I will try to refrain from subjective changes from now on. 95.21.181.233 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's been done with AI
What, exactly, has been done with AI? You found that quote with AI
Please read Wikipedia's guidelines on using AI to find sources or edit. Namely; don't, unless you know exactly what you're doing and what the possible issues with using AI on Wikipedia are. Athanelar (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
No, the translation has been done with AI with an LLM to be more precise, the quote is from  metroid.jp [1] It is the first question on this web, I asked it to do a direct translation and a full breakdown of the translation process, in my experience LLM's are very reliable with translations. After reading the guidelines I understand the concern but I would say that current machine translations are not comparable to 2016 ones, so is this a viable edit or does it need a human tranlator to review it? 95.21.181.233 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
All LLM output, including translation, needs to be human-verified to make sure it's compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case the relevant policy is verifiability since at the moment all we have to go off is blind faith that the LLM's output is correct, which is not at all a given. Athanelar (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)