User talk:Memory

Welcome!

Hello, Memory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs WP articles about very specific fictional contents?[edit]

You said...[edit]

that "most Trek-articles that use it belong only to the MA because Wikipedia is not a Wiki for fiktive terms". That, however, is incorrect - Wikipedia is a Wiki for 'phantastic' terms. Presumably, so is MA. But we do cover pop culture, scifi, fantasy etc in exquisite detail - feel free to contribute! R adiant _* 21:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for important terms, sure. Darth Vader is definitely important (also for a real-world-encyclopedia), Frodo too, James T. Kirk too, but somewhere is a finish line. Drayan must not be here, Trilithium and other things like that too. In the end, should every Uruk-hai in the Battle of Minas Tirith get an own article? That's too much... --Memory 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New banner[edit]

What do you mean when you say Keep the old version, I'm going to create a new template"? Are you going to ignore the voting process and create a new template as you would like this one to be? You should know that it will be speedily deleted.

Also, I find it odd that you believe it necessary to link so bombastically to Memory Alpha. It is, after all, a reference, like any other source. Surely, in any article that exists in both wikis, the Memory Aplha article will contain much of the same information as Wikipedia. What then is the added value that theMemory Alpha template adds to the specific article. -- Ec5618 14:04, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to link "bombastically" (what do you say about the Wikispecies template?), the contributors of the smaller articles shall be redirected to MA because things like Trilithium just don't belong here, they are not important enough outside of Trek to have an own article here (I say this as a Trekkie). If WP goes this way, we'll have some day articles about every spell from Morrowind or Warcraft, or about every charakter from ST fan fiction (which is banned even on the MA), because there's no argument to stop it if you keep other "small details" from Trek, LotR or whatever. We can't prevent WP not even from getting articles about every living (deceased) human with (descendants with) the ability to add an article about him, because how can we ban this (as "not important enough") if we have an article about Trilithium? - Got it now?

Originally, I would make a new template for this, then I thought I can use the existing, but now I think it's better to make no template and add a suggestion pattern manually to all smaller articles. --Memory 16:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting we delete articles on StarTrek topics?

*argh* No! But there were other (nontrek) articles deleted in the past that were not more or less "nonrelevant" than e.g. Trilithium... --Memory 23:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The wikispecies article links to a page that contains very different information. Memory Alpha will link to articles that might as well be carbon copies. Trilithium looks like a blue link to me, so it exists in Wikipedia.

Yes, but other Wikis (e.g. German WP) banned detailed trek/fiction articles like this because of - what I explained above... --Memory 23:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a suggestion pattern manually is a bit silly, and a somewhat sneaky way of cicumventing the Tfd process. If you want to imput specific text into many articles, use a template. That's what they're for. But if most people want to see a template deleted, they don't want that information to be added to those articles. -- Ec5618 16:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

*lol* The deletion voting for the MA template sprung up only as an "answer" to the deletion vote for the HRWiki template, so I don't treat this process any longer as serious... --Memory 23:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the placing of the template. It should be at the bottom of the article. Banners at the top of the article are usually those notifying readers of calls for deletion, clean-up, etc. and is very distracting. If you feel the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I suggest starting a poll in the talk page for each article and seek consensus. I have started a discussion on this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek and I invite you to participate. (Any direct follow-up to my talk page, please). 23skidoo 04:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote here, I adapted the German version which is far bigger than this one and also placed at the top. Ok, the bottom is good too. I don't want to delete the existing articles, I just want to limit the expansion of smaller Trek articles because of the reasons that are explained here. So this banner is only a combination of a general information on the nature of the article and a suggestion. (I keep it here because the discussion is of general interest) --Memory 20:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Memory -- From frustrations with redundancy, I created Template:Hrwiki as a graphical ad. So I totally know where you're coming from. Your arguments against radical inclusionism above are quite valid, especially in light of the fact that Wikipedia cannot match a fan wiki's willingness to cross the line in use of copyrighted material. Perhaps it is best to take an eventualist standpoint, and help enable an army of editors who'll merely refactor the information so it fits. It may seem like a lot of work to keep deleting fan pages that pop up like mushrooms, but a well-placed ad wouldn't stop them anyway. Maybe we should push for each of the wikis in the Interwiki map to have a page for outlining the balance between the Wikipedia/Wikibooks and itself, enumerating the "encyclopedia-worthy" topics that are worth droning on in an NPOV about...? Metaeducation 10:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'm not an exclusionist, but in this case (detailed fictional content) I think it's not necessary to integrate the whole Trek vocabulary here if there is a Wiki like Memory Alpha. But I don't want to delete anything. --Memory 21:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Memoryalpha (old)[edit]

I just noticed that the way you edited Template:Memoryalpha and later Template:Memoryalpha_article, you apparently intended for it to be used in a different context than my original version. The original version was intended to be used exactly like Template:imdb_name, Template:imdb_title, Template:ibdb_name, etc; that is, in the External links section, on a line with a * at the beginning. (Have you seen these other tempaltes in use? Look at Patrick Stewart#External_links, for instance.) It seemed logical to make the MA templates behave the same way. Now you have edited many articles to include "{{Template:Memoryalpha}}" instead of the "*{{memoryalpha}}" that is used elsewhere. I have now reverted to the versions of the templates without your CSS box, because from the current deletion poll I think the consensus is that it should be plain text. Non-wikimedia projects don't need a big CSS box. Unfortunately, now all of the articles you edited to use Template:Memoryalpha without a * before it (and many without even an External links section) aren't displaying the original template correctly. I fixed a few, but I really don't feel like fixing all the stuff you broke right now, so I hope you or someone else will... Do you understand why it's not good to change the context a template is expected to be used in, when many articles are already using it? ~leif ☺ _(talk) 08:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The point is: it shall be a big eye-catching box because of the reasons I explained in the deletion discussion. If it is not, it is easy to overlook the presence of MA where the work on such articles is far more appropriate and noticed as here. So there is a difference in the intention between the imdb temp. and this one. Maybe I create a new template for this indication, similar to the one used at the German Wikipedia which i don't want to adapt because it's so huge. But I can try to make it smaller. --Memory 13:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the disclaimer[edit]

Memory, I really don't like the disclaimer you've been putting at the top of several Star Trek-related articles: This article contains fictional facts and terms from the Star Trek universe. Note: content of this specific level might be better contributed to the specialized Wiki Memory Alpha.

The problem is that all content is welcomed in Wikipedia. If it's factual and encyclopedic, it belongs here. If a fact is too trivial to deserve its own article, then it can be made part of another article. I'm looking for any official statement in the Wikipedia FAQs to back me up here - I can't find any yet, but similarly I can't find anything defining what level of detail is too trivial to include in Wikipedia, and I've never seen information rejected for being too trivial. If a pointer to your web site becomes accepted for Star Trek articles, then what's to prevent a pointer to IMDB at the top of actor/actress articles, or a pointer to car fan web sites at the top of automotive articles?

Your disclaimer, especially placed as it is at the top of an article, looks like it would serve to discourage someone from contributing to Wikipedia and instead would divert them to your project instead. While I think you've got a really terrific project and I want to see it grow, I don't think this is the way - I think your disclaimer is contradicting the goals of Wikipedia. I think it ought to be removed from the articles it's been added to, and there's probably a much better way to make sure that information is shared between Wikipedia and Memory Alpha. - Brian Kendig 23:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

~~I am going to remove the disclaimer from the pages which use it.~~ (Whups, someone else beat me to it.) At the very least, something like this needs to be a template, not boilerplate text. And IMHO it's little more than an ad for Memory Alpha. - Brian Kendig 19:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)