Template talk:Memory Alpha

Star Trek Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the template attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Science Fiction Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was considered for deletion on 13 December 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Would someone like to explain the objections to this for me? So far I've heard "It's undiscussed," which is silly because one should be bold in updating pages and thus prior discussion is not grounds for reversion, and "it doesn't need to be a box," which is equally strange, as templates masked as plaintext are actively frowned upon. Does anyone actually have a good reason for edit warring this one? Phil Sandifer 20:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the active template should be Template:Memory Alpha--two words, but to repeat my comments on that talk page:

":I can think of two primary ones:

• Using the position and style of a Wikipedia ('not for profit') "sister project" template/link seems to misrepresent Wikipedia's organizational relationship to the Memory Alpha site (and it's 'for profit' status)(unless something's changed that I'm not aware of). Seems like having it similar to {imdb} {gutenberg} etc. seems clearer

• Turns out Memory Alpha is specifically mentioned for 'no special treatment' at Template talk:Wikia, for exactly the reason I surmised. Sohelpme 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless you have a bot lined up to fix a LOT of pages, by changing the position you'll be stranding bullets in external links sections like Gary Lockwood presently has--investigating that disfigurement is what led me here

Sohelpme 00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Memory Alpha in not a 'sister project' and shouldn't be treated like one. Sohelpme 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered most of your concerns at Template:Memory Alpha, but I will point out that that is the active template at present. Phil Sandifer 01:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [1] [2] [3], then waiting a couple of days and starting again [4] (note disingenuous edit summary) ignoring warning messages about disruption [5] and continuing [6] . 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)[reply]

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 {{imdb title}} and other links that could use interwiki's but don't. But still my edit was reverted. --Steinninn 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think we should use interwiki links for free content resources whenever possible. Phil Sandifer 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I doubt we could here. You may find pertinent input at WT:EL. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Uncontroversial edit: Request that this template be converted to an extended instance of Template:Wikia, for consistency with related templates: Category:Wikia templates.

{{Memoryalpha|Borg| Borg Alternate Display Text}}

• Borg Alternate Display Text at Memory Alpha

{{Memoryalpha/sandbox|Borg| Borg Alternate Display Text}}

{{Memoryalpha/sandbox|Borg|Borg Alternate Display Text}}

Feel free to comment here. LobStoR (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --CapitalR (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

I request the previous edit be undone as it has changed all the related links to point to http://memory-beta.wikia.com as opposed to http://memory-alpha.org as it did previously. If the change was intentional, it should have come under more intense community scrutiny, especially the Star Trek WikiProject. If it was unintentional, reversion should be uncontroversial. Further, per the Star Trek WikiProject's MoS, the franchise name shouldn't be italicized unless referring to Star Trek, the original 1960s series. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the resulting Star Trek link point to the TOS series page which, btw, has its title italicised? Cowbert (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin would adjust the following lines of code, this will fix it (without reverting it):

replace:

wikia link -->|startrek

with:

wikia link -->|memoryalpha

Thanks. edit: ...and un-italicize, as pd_THOR mentioned.　　LobStoR (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I updated as requested and it seems to make the links end up in the right place (and I fixed the italics problem). It seems that the links now point to "memory-alpha.wikia.com", which are redirected to "memory-alpha.org"; are you sure that's what you want it to do, and that it will not be confusing to readers? --CapitalR (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, CapitalR, but can't think of any elegant way to avoid this domain variation (except for returning to the previous template revision that doesn't use Template:Wikia). I don't think it makes a difference, as inexperienced readers won't know the difference, and Star Trek experts will already be well aware that Memory Alpha is a Wikia site. Just my $0.02. LobStoR (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to say "Memory Alpha: The Star Trek Wiki (a Star Trek wiki)"? The redundancy is jarring. Also, there's a problem with the link on Trials and Tribble-ations: it links to wikia:memory-alpha:Trials and Tribble-ations .28episode.29 (which doesn't exist) instead of to wikia:memory-alpha:Trials and Tribble-ations (episode). Powers ^T 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linking bug has been reported at the Wikia template. Display text has been adjusted to reduce redundancy. LobStoR (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a nitpicky point, can an admin. replace {{high-risk}} with {{high-use}}? -- 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)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Can {{high-risk}} be changed to {{high-use}}. Any maybe even moved into the doc subpage. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Implemented. Kusma (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{wikia}} 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)[reply]

Hello, I considered fixing {{wikia}}, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, call me pedantic, but I do not feel the formatting issues are minor. If you feel like fixing {{wikia}} 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)[reply]

I thought about using {{Wikia}} 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 {{Wikia}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Indeed, and I've realised that it would be more productive of me to go and do the {{wikia}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See the section above. This will be automatic once the template is converted to use {{wikia}} 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)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template calls another template ({{Trim}}) via a redirect ({{Str trim}}). Replace redirect {{Str trim}} with actual template name {{Trim}}.

Reason: Reduce system overhead.

 — Quicksilver^{T @} 14:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Anetode and WOSlinker: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Memory Alpha is an open wiki and therefore considered a self-published source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]