Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You

READ MORE

Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
m
Tag: Source edit
Line 19: Line 19:
   
 
::In terms of rules, yes we have them already. the Fandom push is that our rules be published in a way that are easy to refer to, so we're going to need to refine the way they're presented and fill in any non-sequiturs. As i recall, last year i found a rule that called for [[canon]] articles to be immediately deleted if the subjects were not derived from a book also. obviously, the rules need updating -- '''''[[user:captainmike|captainmike]]''''' [[file:wiki-wordmarkX.png|69px]] 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 
::In terms of rules, yes we have them already. the Fandom push is that our rules be published in a way that are easy to refer to, so we're going to need to refine the way they're presented and fill in any non-sequiturs. As i recall, last year i found a rule that called for [[canon]] articles to be immediately deleted if the subjects were not derived from a book also. obviously, the rules need updating -- '''''[[user:captainmike|captainmike]]''''' [[file:wiki-wordmarkX.png|69px]] 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  +
  +
:The policies already seem well presented to me. Did Fandom provide an example of what they have a problem with? Can you post a link to what they said? --[[User:NetSpiker|NetSpiker]] ([[User talk:NetSpiker|talk]]) 23:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:10, 11 March 2021

Ten ForwardSite changes (Reply | Watch)

Hi everyone, just an update on ongoing site changes --

  • Platform update - i think we're running at full capacity, with the exception of a couple areas we could tweak with the interface. I'm happy to say the platform update is treating us well.. anyone with issues to report please speak up.
  • Site security - in accordance with the webhosts at Fandom, we're locking down some administrator functions to admins who haven't played an active role in the past 4 to 18 months. A rule change will be suggested that inactive admins and bureaucrats can reapply to participate in that way with an abbreviated approval process, pending their actual return to Fandom and this wiki.
  • That brings us to rule changes. Fandom is very clear we're going to have readable rules going forward. everyone with ideas for rules speak up. probably the best way to keep everyone updated will be a rules newsfeed where all current topics are bumped to the top.
    • In accordance for openness with rule changes, i'm considering a forum regarding past bans, blocks and warnings -- users who are at home at other Fandom wikis shoul feel at home here, and, subject to rules getting in the way, i'm hoping to open up a number of past bans and blocks as new rules come into effect.
  • Also on the agenda with the platform is activating updates brought to us by Fandom. Will we activate message walls, commetary discussions, or stick with the talk page system? also, are talk pages from 15 years ago worth archiving in any certain way? (that was the wild west of the internet and while we can gain some clarity in certain policy discussions, others amount to 2 decades of vandalism). Feel free to bring up concerns about archiving talk pages and adjusting to new comms.

Thanks everyone, we've certainly grown into our mission statement. We are going on 16 years old here and we have more pages than Memory Alpha -- we're onto something big here. Keep on Trekking! = captainmike Site-logo.png 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We already have plenty of readable rules at Memory Beta:Policies and guidelines. What kind of rules is Memory Beta lacking? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I think everything from Memory Beta's history is worth archiving. I still like to re-read Forum:Becoming an administrator, Forum:How does one speak to an admin and Forum:Why is this wiki not allowing admin status for major contributors whenever I need a good laugh. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
And I'm more comfortable using talk pages than message walls or commentary discussion. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Some of them are great data sources and policy decisions too - but there are a few that are off topic. those are the ones i'm referring to.
In terms of rules, yes we have them already. the Fandom push is that our rules be published in a way that are easy to refer to, so we're going to need to refine the way they're presented and fill in any non-sequiturs. As i recall, last year i found a rule that called for canon articles to be immediately deleted if the subjects were not derived from a book also. obviously, the rules need updating -- captainmike Site-logo.png 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The policies already seem well presented to me. Did Fandom provide an example of what they have a problem with? Can you post a link to what they said? --NetSpiker (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)