Memory Alpha talk:Policies and guidelines

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Regarding the template {{Policy}}, do we need to make a difference between policies and guidelines, for example by using two different templates, or would that just complicate things? Wikipedia has it (from Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines):

Policy 

policies that are widely accepted and that everyone is expected to follow

Guidelines 

less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases

-- Cid Highwind 17:38, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration (moved from Memory Alpha:Ten Forward)

Our policy and introduction(s) are very clear -- if you start an article about a subject, you should expect other archivists to make corrections, because the article doesn't "belong" to any one person -- it belong to the community.. if you write something, and someone changes it, for the love of the Great Bird, just ask that person WHY THEY CHANGED it, instead of starting an argument.

If you want to write an article on a topic that you don't want changed -- that'd probably be a good start for your own blog or website. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk

I don't know about the issue of things being "my" article or whatever, but I do think the burden of proof, so to speak, would be on the person who reverts it. To a newb -- and for the record, I myself was unaware of the hyphen thing, although I never noticed the lack of them either -- reverting over something trivial like that would look pretty petty, so I can somewhat understand their position. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 21:59, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Vedek on this one. Vandals aside, reverts should be a last resort. In improv, you learn that you should never negate someone else's contibutions but always add to them. It's not precisely the same situation here, but when I see a new contribution that I don't approve of, I'll try to find some third way that might work for everyone. Facts that are plain wrong are another matter, but I think it should be incumbent on the reverter to show cause, especially if the reverter is reverting to his own edit or an article he's contributed heavily to. --9er 05:38, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I, too, think that it should be the "first reverter" who has to explain his reasons. I surely don't manage to do that every time, but I try to add a comment either on the article or the user talk page whenever I revert an edit that isn't very obvious vandalism. Mike is right, though - if something gets reverted and a reason is missing, it might be a good idea for the initial contributor to start the discussion instead of trying to be stubborn. -- Cid Highwind 06:46, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Woha, I agree with Vedek and 9er o_O That leads me to this:

--Memory 22:18, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback policy

You know, we had some trouble with the practise of reverting lately (see Duty Roster issue too) and this is not the first time something like this happens, so we might need a policy on that. As I did somewhere else I suggest some rules for one of the policy pages (or an own for the subject). These could be:

Immediate reverts are allowed for the following cases:

• Vandalism / Spam
• Jokes
• Apparently non-canon content has been added (if you are not sure that some facts are canonical, just add the template {{pna-inaccurate}} to the top of the article and write a note on the talk page)
• Test-edits that should be made at the sandbox
• Categories have been added that were created without discussion

All other cases have to be discussed on the talk page of the article or (if it concerns e.g. templates) on the talk page of the affected user before reverting.

-- I think this could prevent edit wars and/or misunderstandings. --Memory 22:18, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think a policy is really needed. If the information added is of a great quantity as it was with Oberth class and is still questionable, it should be reverted and the info moved to the talk page for discussion. Minor things, however, don't really need to be reverted until discussed. This is just my view, of course. --R.I.P. Vincent Schiavelli From Andoria with Love 22:28, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TOS Remastered "Ghetto"

I am severely troubled by the ghettoization of images I am seeing from TOS-R. There is no reason why these beautiful images (esp the new FX shots) should be relegated to a "remastered" section or a photo comparison page. Whether some like it or not, THEY are the canon images, replacing older, poorer, and ultimately inaccurate (where they differ) images.

MA will look 1000% better once these images assume their proper place as leading images in our articles.Capt Christopher Donovan 22:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It would also help if they were uploaded at a decent size, and not taken right off of trekmovie.com as most of them seem to be. -- Sulfur 23:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but given that the HD-DVDs don't start coming out until December and the relatively few people who are likely recording TOSR digitally at this point they're the best we can get unfortunately.Capt Christopher Donovan 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Until we get better, those just aren't good enough in my opinion. -- Sulfur 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are at least 300x300 if you actually click on the pic on trek movie and open the full size one...the last one I did didn't have a full size one up yet.Capt Christopher Donovan 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still against the idea of the remastered Trek "replacing" the originals -- both are canon, and saying that the remastered images and interpretations must replace the originals is quite wrong -- although the TOS-R are canon and useful in that they reveal more information.

Since TOS is available in high-quality versions, and TOS-R is only available is lower quality TV images, the TOS-R images are actually "poorer" in my opinion, and in many cases show differently lit and staged versions, not at all "replacements". Most original TOS effects are not actually that shoddy -- they do suffer from film grain, matte lines, extensive reuse of angles, and recolored planets and scenery -- but are not really "inaccurate" to my eye -- they show what they show. -- Captain MKB 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I just can't subscribe to that view...the Orion starship, for example, in JtB cannot be both an anonymous spinning blob of light AND a fully realized, detailed ship. The Doomsday Machine cannot canonically be BOTH models, as they differ in appearance and action. Nor can I accept that a slightly less resolution image of a highly detailed source is LESS quality than a high resolution image of a poorly detailed source. YMMV Capt Christopher Donovan 04:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the problems accepting this seem to be your own. Many fully detailed starships would look like a blob of light if they were charged with energy for whatever reasons. I say get over it, after all, we are giving the two versions fairly equal time -- meaning that we won't throw out my favorite interpretation because you don't like it -- and vice versa. -- Captain MKB 04:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)