User talk:Cleanse
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.
For old discussions, check out my archive. But really, unless you're:
- Bored;
- Digging up dirt on me; OR
- Stalking me
Don't bother ;-)
Contents |
[edit] Recent vandal
Erm, you might want to check the Spanish link on the 'Recent changes' page. :-\ Olé 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Damn. Unfortunately I'm not an admin there.– Cleanse 00:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki links for crew
Is that type of link even necessary? We're talking about a site that will most likely have very little information regarding the character and, to make it more pointless, it's pretty much the same info anyway. – Morder 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't add any such links (that I'm aware of), I only formatted the one on Phlox to use templates. I wasn't planning to go around adding these to all crew pages, but at the same time I wouldn't really care if they were added.
- Some WP pages do actually have some great real world info we don't have yet - eg. have a look at WP's article on Jean-Luc Picard, which has some good, cited, info on Stewart's comments regarding the role and fandom's reaction. It also discusses the Picard Song, which we intentionally exclude from MA. So Wikipedia's different focus means that a reader may be interested in seeing their take.
- I'm not aware of any past discussions or policy on this point though, so don't take this as authoritative. ;-)– Cleanse 04:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming you had added it, only wondering if it was necessary. But you raise a good point that I had not considered. Thanks! – Morder 04:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I added the link, as I am sure you are aware, Morder. I noticed that some crew pages had it and some didn't so I was simply attempting to standardize. I agree with Cleanse that different sites have different takes and you never know what is going to be added somewhere else that might be of interest. Again, unless we are trying to save the ten or fifteen bytes that each link adds to a page, I can't see any good reason for preventing its inclusion. — Greg (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I bring it up is the sake of relevance. As you can see in my example above. Someone, and it's been done before, might start adding links to their own takes or some other sites takes on characters which are not what we are (a link farm). However, Cleanse raised a good point and I agree, but this could be up for a discussions since many pages don't have links and a lot of people must have thought that for good reason. It's just my 2c. – Morder 04:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Template (Phlox)
FYI, the instructions for this template are not clear for the special case where the name is not the same on wikipedia as it is here and you want the display name to be as it appears here. In fact, I first tried it like this:
per the instructions, and you can see the result. There is no mention of the second passed parameter at all - that is why I added the link that way. Maybe you should update the instructions.
BTW, was it really necessary to leave a smart-ass comment? I am only trying to help out. — Greg (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Try not to take everything so personally. Anyway, there's another wiki template here Template:W which has more instructions for use and fits with what you were trying to do. I prefer the w anyway since it's shorter and adds the little wiki icon. – Morder 04:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that comment was meant for me, personally, so I assume it was intended for me to take it that way. Otherwise, it might have said something like "Updated wikipedia link to use standard template." That would have been an impersonal comment, and I would not have taken it any other way. — Greg (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Re: Greg - I intended it just as some gentle sarcasm, hence the wink and the smile ;-). Sorry that you took it the wrong way, it wasn't meant to be harsh sarcasm. I wasn't entirely sure if you were aware of the template. I apologise for any offence taken, as that wasn't my intention.
- Re: Morder - the advantage of Template:Wikipedia is that it automatically produces the format we want for external links - namely page at website. Template:W is better for in-line references (as is Template:Wt which does the same thing but italicised).
- In any case, yes, all the Wikipedia templates do need a bit more documentation. I'll have a crack at it when I've got a chance. – Cleanse 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I added instructions for the case of two passed paramaters to Template:Wikipedia - take a look. It seems sufficient, but feel free to change it if you can think of something better. — Greg (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sidebar updating
Just fyi, merely changing the px size to "292" isn't sufficient for the sidebars. To complete them properly, you also have to add "thumb|" before the px size. Now... what's best for them is to actually use a sidebar template if one is available. For characters... {{sidebar character}}. This way, we can keep all of the formatting in one template, and change those as required only. -- Sulfur 03:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha. – Cleanse 03:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Article: Star Trek: The Music
I'd love to add this article, and just copy/paste what I have done in Wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Music ) ... is it acceptable to just copy/paste or how should I go about formatting an article for this great production on MA ... or should it be on MB?
Thanks, AllanVS 12:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] General order 24
In the Starfleet General Orders and Regulations article, you removed the link to a reference I pointed out. However, that site was not the source of my expansion of the General Order, only a reference to a factually correct site. (Strictly speaking, the former version of the paragraph was also not canon, so an expansion would pose no problem) JeffreyAlpha172 18:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- When you add information which is nearly identical to another site, and cite it as a reference, is it really unreasonable for me to believe you're relying on it as opposed to what was in the episode?
- I quote from your edit summary: "Rewrote General Order 24, and added References section to cite work". The site [1] is a fan-created list. It takes regulations mentioned on screen and extrapolates from there. – Cleanse 23:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to cite a source for further extrapolation, just because I expanded it to make it sound like a 3rd grader didn't write it does not mean I copied what was said there. The only way I've ever heard General Order 24 spoken about was in a fashion that made sense, if you read what is there after you, again, reverted the article. You'll notice it does not make sense, if you refuse to allow people to expand it, at least clean it up to make it make sense. And, I dont go around sites looking for a way to expand articles. Thats not how you work on or run a wiki. I know this.
JeffreyAlpha172 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I was the one who reverted it the second time, not Cleanse. I don't see how it sounds "like a 3rd grader" wrote it. It is short because there is not much canon info about it. Why make something more complex than it needs to be? What about the article does not make sense? It says what GO24 is and when it was used.--31dot 00:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good lord...
That vandal must be getting pretty annoying by now, no? I tried to revert some edits, but naturally, this is the time in which my connection seems to go slow ><--Terran Officer 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)