Talk:Memory Alpha

Template

To make a link to memory alpha from an article (one Star-Trek related), you can use:

{{tl|memoryalpha}} or {{tl|memoryalpha article}}.

Just thought I'd include that info here for those who might use it ;) --ColdFeet 02:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-reference

Wikipedia should not contain unnecessary self-references, but I can't find a suitable alternative sentence to replace the reference to Wikipedia. Maybe it should just be removed, including the Wikia and mediaWiki stuff, as the only reason that that is mentioned is that they are common to Wikipedia. WP Articles on other wikis usually mention the software used, but not the hosting organisation. — PhilHibbs | talk 11:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the self-reference. I'm not entirely happy with the paragraph, and I had a better one, but it was too long and dominated the article with what was in effect a self-reference with the serial numbers filed off. I think the paragraph should be deleted rather than improved by expansion. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

When was MA actualy started (or is Nov 2004 the most accurate that people can remeber), the Mediawiki installation thinks November 22. --ElvisThePrince 07:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It was 2003, actually. I lost my e-mail history in early 2004, so I can't really pinpoint the day MA started. 22 November 2003 is apparently the day the MediaWiki installation went online, but a few days before that, MA existed briefly as a TikiWiki project. Although the latter version never went public. The 22nd of November seems to be the real birthday of the current Memory Alpha. If you're really interested in Memory Alpha history, check out [1] and [2]. The first one is me doing some preliminary brainstorming. It's also where I found out that Dan had a similar plan. The second link is the first time Memory Alpha was shown to the 'outside world'. -- Harry 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"current issues"

The "current issues" section reads like a lot of original research. Who has identified these as issues? Wikipedia editors? That's OR. Someone else? Needs a cite for its conclusions.Night Gyr 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Felt more like big time POV axe grinding to me. Take a look at the phrase, "excessive use of legalese". Is there an appropriate amount of the use of legalese that we can all reference and quantify? I personally have no serious feelings about Memory Alpha's policies one way or another, but I'm pretty sure they don't need to be debated here at WP. The issues should be stated, the arguments pro and con given, then move on. The WP article does not and should not be a persuasive one toward a Preferred side. -- Bill 21:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's really outdated too. Nitpicks are pretty much the only "current issue" on MA. --Gvsualan (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

"Current issues" aren't current, they seem to not even be ongoing issues any more. If I weren't an inclusionist I'd delete the whole section but at the very least section needs to be updated and rephrased in the correct tense now :P that the Star Trek film has been released. -- Horkana (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of largest wikis

The article List of largest wikis was listed for deletion about a week ago. It has been moved to the Wikipedia namespace. I've replaced the wikilink with an external link so that mirrored copies of this article will still link correctly. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte Observer reference

I found a link to the Charlotte Obsever article on their website. Unfortunately, it looks like the article is no longer available, but it's viewable via the Google cache of it. Is that inappropriate to document it that way? Here's the link, let me know and I will add it or not [[3]]. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The wayback machine is another route yu can use. -- Banjeboi 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Broken link to the Memory Alpha site

This should be the correct URL: http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/index.php/Main_Page

The URL that is currently given leads to the Memory Alpha site but it has a strange bug where the page continuously reloads.

Memory Alfa

Resolved

 – -- Banjeboi 21:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Added Memory Alfa as an external link, as I was unsure where to put it in the article. Zidel333 01:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Memory Beta

what is it? is it an offshoot from alpha? 86.148.5.106 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

its a wiki for licensed Star Trek works. I'm not sure what that means. I just saw that stated at the bottom of | this article on memory alpha. Also this article [4] --88.149.115.203 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It means it covers Star Trek books, video games, etc., treating them as if they are canon. Memory Alpha doesn't; it only covers them as if they were fiction. Memory Beta wasn't originally an offshoot of Memory Alpha, (it was originally a different wiki all together) but it tends to function as one now. Oddly enough, you can't copy things from Memory Alpha to Memory Beta, as they have different copyright licenses.

Hope that helps.
(Note that anything said here could be added to the article with proper citations)
-- trlkly 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

If Memory Alpha is the one-stop wiki for all things Star Trek, then why have articles with plot summaries of individual Enterprise episodes on Wikipedia? After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --38.100.221.66 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

N That is a matter for the Star Trek project and would be best discussed on one of their pages. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Resolved

 – Admin's close was overturned at deletion review, article restored. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the recent close of yet another AFD for this article. Redirection was not the consensus of that discussion and so I shall revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't just decide that for yourself, if necessary I strongly suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rehevkor ✉ 15:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the article was not deleted and so a deletion review is inappropriate. The content is still available for normal editing and so I will edit accordingly, just as you have done. Note that this is a former featured article and yet none of its content has been merged into the target of the redirection. This is an absurd situation and I invite interested editors to comment here in support of my contention that we should not have an empty redirect and should work towards making the article featured again. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it seems ridiculous to effectively delete a former featured article. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact the article was once featured article has no bases on current issues. Rehevkor ✉ 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a poor close; there was no consensus in that discussion. Skomorokh 17:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because the history in intact doesn't mean can ignore the concusses because you disagree with it or have issue with a lack of it (personally I have no opinion either way on that matter). If you dispute it then actually dispute it (there are official channels for this, firstly I suggest discussing it with the closing admin if his explanation was not satisfactory enough for you), don't just revert a mere hours after the AFD without allowing further discussion. Rehevkor ✉ 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, deletion review isn't just for delete results, it can also be used to dispute any "decisions made in deletion-related discussions". Rehevkor ✉ 17:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

At deletion review

Your input appreciated here. -- Banjeboi 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

and round and round we go....I just noticed that it's nominated AGAIN for deletion...

I dispute that as it doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion.

Edit: detailed listing moved to AFD discussion page and login added.

VulpineLady (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Memory Alpha in print

FWIW, there's a mention of the Memory Alpha website in a C't article here: http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/2007/9/168_kiosk. You can see a screenshot even in the free online preview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.63.6 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources template

Just now I have added several more third-party sources. Would it be fair to remove the {{primary sources}} template? What about the {{notability}} template? These sources are fairly brief but non-trivial; for example, one of them confirms that Memory Alpha was the largest project in Wikicities in 2005. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the referencing has changed radically since the introduction of the {{primarysources}} tag, meriting its removal. On the {{notability}} tag; on the one hand, the article survived AfD/DRV, but on the other there was no conensus in those debates as to the notability of the topic. I suggest leaving the latter template up for a few more days to give others a chance to discuss, and remove it if no-one contests the notability in that period. Skomorokh 20:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Aren't linking to page histories and pages on the wiki itself are the definition of original research? Tschravic (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Memory Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628174255/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121222125337/https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2007/1/eLaw_legal%20issues%20for%20wikis.pdf to https://elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2007/1/eLaw_legal%20issues%20for%20wikis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed the following paragraph from the start of the page:

The textual content of Memory Alpha is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license. Because this license does not allow commercial reuse, it is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license (CC BY-SA), and material from the site cannot be copied into projects that use the GFDL or CC BY-SA. This distinction makes Memory Alpha incompatible with the main body of Fandom wikis, which are currently licensed under the CC BY-SA license and formerly under the GFDL. Memory Alpha is cited as a source by academic journals, scholarly studies and books as well as Star Trek-universe novels and reference works.

Although this paragraph contains many valid citations (which I have removed from the above for simplicity), it largely relies on original research to relate itself to Memory Alpha, with no non-primary source given for Memory Alpha's license. Furthermore, I have removed the entire "content policy" section, as the only source it cites that connects the whole thing to Memory Alpha is a primary one. Instead, I have integrated the non-Memory Alpha portions of it into the page on Star Trek canon in my recent overhaul edit of that page.

Please comment below if anyone disagrees with my removals. Thank you. — Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 22:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

{{Essay-like}} and {{Cleanup-PR}}

This article is currently listed with {{Essay-like}} and {{Cleanup-PR}}. These tags were added in November 2021. Until mid-August this year, the article remained relatively unchanged leaving these issues unaddressed, but since then I have made a large number of edits to the article rectifying many of its issues. This is why I believe that it may no longer have the issues these tags say it does, namely being "written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument" and reading "like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage."

However, I am not an expert in these things. I have read through the article and do not notice any of these things, but this may be partially due to my bias (I edit on Memory Alpha) or the fact that I don't fully understand what these banners mean. So if anyone who is more qualified than me would like to either confirm that I am correct and remove the messages or explain otherwise, I would be grateful. Thanks for reading! Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 23:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: you were the user who originally added the maintenance tags, so maybe you would be able to give the article a read now that I've overhauled it and identify whether or not the tags should be removed? It would be great if you could do that! Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 19:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry- I see no encyclopedic improvement. It reads as puffery. Something written for publicity, not as an objective article. The style is not encyclopedic at all. The writers have gone for style and pretty over form and substance. Way too many references are written by the creator, or are either paid, fluff, a quick mention in a larger article, or somehow connected with the subject. This article needs serious fixing- or deletion. I would recommend getting an objective set of eyes on it. I wouldn't mind taking a stab at it- but I think you would probably not be happy with how stripped down it would be when I'm done with it. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I took a stab at quickly copyediting, removing puffery, and removing tidbits that do not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. I also removed the old tags- and added a more accurate new one. This is as far as I can go. I don't know enough about the subject, and my focus on this site is elsewhere. But hopefully this creates a more encyclopedic structure to build on. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Your input is very helpful. I'll keep trying to make the article more encyclopedic and find non-primary sources where needed. No matter how trimmed down the end state of this article will be, I will be content with that so long as the article will have no remaining issues. Again, thanks for the help! Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 21:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You went back and re-added sources that do not support what they are citing- why? Are you trying to make it look like it has more third sources? You say you want help- but then you undo it. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you- but I question your insistence on these sources. Are you connected to this website in some way? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)