Template talk:Memory Alpha

message: (again) This template was stable since 2004 on a text link -- until the 27th of May, 2007 (which is a long time since 2004...). No compelling rationale has been given as to why this template should be "boxed". It's my firm belief this violates WP:NPOV to give certain links more priority (and to put it like Phil "pimped"), there's also clearly no consensus for this change to "boxes" (as the TfD discussion is clearly showing). Wikipedia's MoS also says nothing about linking with boxes, but rather text. The text link clearly has consensus as "Silence equals consent" (WP:CON - silent since 2004), and also: nobody has complained about text linking. Matthew 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text linking is explicitly discouraged at Wikipedia:Template namespace. Consensus can change, and at present there is clearly not silence on this matter. Considerable rationale has  been given - as evidenced by the fact that, despite nominating both the parent template and Template:HarryPotterWiki for deletion, you've gotten nothing approaching a consensus for either. There is clearly no "consensus" version for this, and it's very misleading to assert that there is. Phil Sandifer 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Template namespace isn't policy/guideline, MoS is a guideline. Consensus can change: yes... but you have to get consensus to change it, which you haven't. The TfDs have clearly shown no consensual support for your boxes (that's not ignoring the help you asked for on IRC, and other mediums I imagine). "There is clearly no 'consensus' version for this", I've not seen any compelling reason ("The website is GFDL" isn't compelling, imo) to overturn the present consensus that has been stable for an eon. Matthew 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't, however, need consensus to make a change - Wikipedia:Consensus is very clear on that point. There is clearly not a consensus for the old version. If there were, there would have been protests about this on the template page above, on the Star Trek WikiProject, in any number of places. I was responsible about this - I asked here and on the WikiProject, I've responded to issues people raised with implementation as soon as I could, I made sure messes got cleaned up. There hasn't been opposition to these changes anywhere but from you, and your opposition has been more in the form of edit warring than discussion, and your tendency towards conspiracy theory ("and other mediums I imagine...") is disheartening to say the least. You may not think the fact that the projects in question are free content is sufficient, but, well, given that promoting free content is a basic goal of the project, that's a bit of an uphill case to make. Phil Sandifer 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a case of, as far as I can tell, a single edit warrior warring up to what he considers the limit of his "entitlement" to edit war against multiple opposition   , then waiting a couple of days and starting again  (note disingenuous edit summary) ignoring warning messages about disruption  and continuing  .  This is blockable disruption.  I'll be investigating Matthew's recent edits to see if this is a pattern. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: I was under the impression that interwiki links like MemoryAlpha: should only be used in the article" and not  in the external links section. This is true for  and other links that could use interwiki's but don't. But still my edit was reverted. --Steinninn 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think we should use interwiki links for free content resources whenever possible. Phil Sandifer 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no formal decision on why IMDb links don't use interwiki links, and the matter doesn't seem to have been discussed more than a hand full of comments. Some of which I've made myself in the last month. -- Ned Scott 03:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  no interwiki links 

message: Can someone here tell me why this one was allowed when I created a wikilink template for Heroes wiki that was already in place and it was labeled spam?  I like this link I used the text for the new one, just wondering how you overcame this. Ejfetters (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt we could here.  You may find pertinent input at WT:EL.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroes wikilink

message: As a nitpicky point, can an admin. replace  with ? -- I don't think this template is used on 100,000+ articles, which per the -risk page seems to be the threshold for use of that template. --EEMIV (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can  be changed to . Any maybe even moved into the doc subpage. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-risk/-use 

message: See Template:Memoryalpha/sandbox. After a discussion at Template talk:Wikia, the interwiki links were changed to external links in Template:Wikia. This stops treating Wikia (or Memoryalpha) as a sister project. It also adds the "nofollow" attribute to the link (all other external links have that). I think I also fixed the "Trials and tribble-ations" problem mentioned above, but it would be nice if people could check. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented. Kusma (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal in sandbox 

message: This edit doesn't appear to have been in face of an established consensus, and was hence inappropriate. The previous revision should be restored and discussed, rather than this template doing its own thing for what looks to be a minor quibble with the layout. This would ensure that in future this template does not need to be special-cased as happened in Kusma's section above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i think the true reason is to use memory-alpha.org, instead of all the wikia redirecting caused by the usage of the wikia template. I would say that is a valid reason. Both templates should be interlinked in the documentation to make sure people understand that both need to be update. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a considerable length of time it wasn't even clear that the MA article here wasn't going to be re-deleted. Regardless, if an internal link is desired then the best way to add it would be to get  updated to support that format (I can see how to do it) rather than reverting a change to a protected template which had consensus without discussing it. Then every Wikia link could benefit. That was the whole purpose of unifying these in the first place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello, I considered fixing , decided I did not really feel like rewriting a ParserFunction-based template into a an even more complex one that day, and felt that that burden felt on the person wishing to use a centralized template. Cheers, —Ruud 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do not fork templates because of minor formatting quibbles, even if it might be difficult to fix said quibbles. There was consensus for the change, and it was undone without it. As I'm unable to follow the usual BRD process (what with being a mere user), an admin should revert the change until such point as there is consensus that it was the right thing to do. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, call me pedantic, but I do not feel the formatting issues are minor. If you feel like fixing  or more editors agree that breaking the formatting of this template is not as important as using a meta-template, I'd be happy to revert my revert. Please remember that meta-template exist to save work, in this case it might be more trouble than it is worth. —Ruud 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought about using  for the MemoryAlpha links, but given that we have an article about Memory Alpha, I felt it was more useful to have the template link to our description than to use the "standard" template. Of course I wouldn't mind having  extended to support additional internal links. But there is the additional issue that Memory Alpha people seem to like using their own domain name instead of the Wikia subdomain, and I didn't see "consistency" as a good reason to not respect their wishes. — Kusma talk 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: To answer Thumperward's other point, the edit in question was two months ago, and has not caused problems or complaints so far. I don't see a reason to revert it "because it hasn't been discussed". It can just be discussed now. — Kusma talk 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, and I've realised that it would be more productive of me to go and do the  work myself first as an act of good faith. That'll just take a little time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to use {{tl|wikia}} again 

message: While this template isn't a direct variant of Template:wikia, it still refers to a site hosted on Wikia.  As such, shouldn't it be added to :Category:Wikia templates?  John Darrow (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the section above. This will be automatic once the template is converted to use  again, but that requires some improvements to the meta-template which fell off my radar at some point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be included in Category:Wikia templates? 

message: Template calls another template () via a redirect ().  Replace redirect  with actual template name .
Reason:  Reduce system overhead.
 — QuicksilverT @ 14:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: but the system overhead involved is likely to be very small so I wouldn't worry about this sort of thing. Tra (Talk) 23:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 March 2012 

message: Editors who watch this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 December 13#Template:Memoryalpha. Certes (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template nominated for discussion 

message: This template is currently used on less than 2000 pages, and as such does not qualify as a highly visible template. Please unprotect it. Petr Matas 03:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested unprotection 

message: I noticed that many/most of the articles about actors and other living persons involved with Star Trek don't currently have a link to Memory Alpha. I tracked down two of the edits removing these links here and here, both by the same editor and both with the edit summary "rm per WP:BLPEL". But, the text currently at BLPEL doesn't seem (to me, at least) to prohibit MA links... unless MA is considered a "Questionable" source? (WP:NOTRS says "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest."... afaik MA has a good reputation for fact-checking, and their editorial processes generally produce high-quality content that someone reading an ST-related BLP probably is interested in.)
So, before I go and add this MA template back to BLP articles, I wanted to ask if there has already been a discussion somewhere specifically about MA links in BLPs, and, if there hasn't been, to invite people to say here if they think there are good reasons not to. I will also invite User:Nikkimaria (the editor who removed the link in the two articles I mentioned above, and presumably others) to weigh in. 2001:5A8:0:1:0:0:0:40B (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Memory Alpha is an open wiki and therefore considered a self-published source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does (or should) BLP/RS prohibit links to Memory Alpha?