Talk:Memory Alpha

message: To make a link to memory alpha from an article (one Star-Trek related), you can use:
 or .
Just thought I'd include that info here for those who might use it ;)  --ColdFeet 02:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and . 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)
thread_title:  Birthday 

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replies: text:  It's really outdated too.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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Update 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:List of largest wikis]]

message: 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 [].  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. The wayback machine is another route yu can use.  -- Banjeboi 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlotte Observer reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Memory Alfa 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I agree, it seems ridiculous to effectively delete a former featured article. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact the article was once featured article has no bases on current issues. Rehevkor ✉ 17:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: AFD

message: Your input appreciated here.  -- Banjeboi 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: At deletion review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Memory Alpha in print 

message: Just now I have added several more third-party sources. Would it be fair to remove the  template? What about the  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)
replies: text: I think that the referencing has changed radically since the introduction of the  tag, meriting its removal. On the  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Primary sources template 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the start of the page:
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)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: The logo used on this page is out of date.  I tried finding a highres version of the new logo on Memory Alpha but failed.  Maybe someone else can have a go. Robert Brockway (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk • contributions) 19:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo out of date