Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Memory Alpha is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 when? :P that the Star Trek film has been released. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
what is it? is it an offshoot from alpha? 86.148.5.106 ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Memory Alpha is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 when? :P that the Star Trek film has been released. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
what is it? is it an offshoot from alpha? 86.148.5.106 ( talk) 19:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)