![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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)
":I can think of two primary ones:
Sohelpme 00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)"
Memory Alpha in not a 'sister project' and shouldn't be treated like one. Sohelpme 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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. -- Steinn inn 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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/sandbox|Borg|Borg Alternate Display Text}}
Feel free to comment here. LobStoR ( talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ 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)
Star Trek
link point to the TOS series page which, btw, has its title italicised?
Cowbert (
talk)
23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)wikia link -->|startrek
wikia link -->|memoryalpha
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:Memoryalpha → Template:Memory Alpha – Correct spelling Petr Matas 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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)
":I can think of two primary ones:
Sohelpme 00:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)"
Memory Alpha in not a 'sister project' and shouldn't be treated like one. Sohelpme 00:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(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)
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. -- Steinn inn 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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/sandbox|Borg|Borg Alternate Display Text}}
Feel free to comment here. LobStoR ( talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ 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)
Star Trek
link point to the TOS series page which, btw, has its title italicised?
Cowbert (
talk)
23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)wikia link -->|startrek
wikia link -->|memoryalpha
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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)
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)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:Memoryalpha → Template:Memory Alpha – Correct spelling Petr Matas 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)