Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Advertisement
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Ten ForwardPolicy reminder (Reply | Watch)

From Memory Beta:Inclusion policy[]

excerpt from subsection "In universe articles" 
... a source must be the complete and final version of a product; information from pre-release material (trailers, excerpts, and previews) is not acceptable for sourcing in-universe information.
Content which is not cited to one of the licensed sources, or that cites an unacceptable source - such as fan-fiction, unlicensed publications or speculation - is not suitable for this database and will be removed.


excerpt from subsection "Real world articles" 
... articles are written from the real world perspective; subjects include each of the acceptable types of source listed above, the different Star Trek series and miniseries, and persons and companies involved in the production of Star Trek products.
Background information should be cited whenever possible, from sources such as articles and interviews from magazines or websites, author annotations, or comments by Star Trek content producers in public forums.

Thank you -- captainmike Site-logo.png 11:07, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

You literally just reworded the policy to suit your interpretation and implementation. That is not something any single admin is empowered to do on their own. Such a change needs to be brought for community discussion and vote. --TimPendragon (talk) 12:15, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Tim - you need to calm down. The text excerpted here was written by user:8of5. in 2008. https://memory-beta.fandom.com/wiki/Memory_Beta:Inclusion_policy?oldid=217987
I haven't rewritten anything about this body of text. there have been copyedits by myself, user:Cicero, and user:Sulfur over the intervening 12 years.
In fact, the last major changes to the inclusion policy were made in 2015 and 2017 - all documented in the talk page and the history of the inclusion policy article.
I documented the change i made today on the talk page immediately with a full explanation. And community discussion of the ramifications.
Please focus on the policy and not this kind of accusation -- captainmike Site-logo.png 12:31, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Okay, let's keep this discussion here. Now, I'm not making any accusations, I'm looking at edit history, and seeing the change you just made. Even if I mostly agree with it, it's not the "minor clarification" you call it. It's a sweeping reversal. And something that major needed to be discussed before you implemented it. --TimPendragon (talk) 12:36, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
This isn't the place for this discussion. This forum is a reminder of these two excerpts of policy to explain the recent protections and reversions of information covered by the policy excerpts. -- captainmike Site-logo.png 12:39, April 14, 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement