| Ten Forward → The Chicken debate (Reply | Watch) |
Ok, this is getting silly, we have discussions going on all over the place about the merits of chicken and chicken related articles. Lets discuss the general problem here so we can come up with a solution to all related articles.
The issue, some feel chicken is to generic an item to merit an article here, it's meant to be given knowledge. However chicken is referenced in many forms throughout trek so others believe it's justified. Then of those who feel chicken has merit some would choose to have a single chicken article for all chicken related dishes whilst others would prefer individual articles for each dish.
My take, maybe it is mundane, but that’s no reason to go deleting stuff, if it has a legitimate reference it has a right to an article if someone can be bothered to write it. Other related references have individual articles, Whisky for example, why should chicken be any different. I think this whole debate springs from us getting a bit over protective with policy and issues of "real world" articles lately. -- 8of5 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- As for my part, I'll admit I sort of lazily started off in my "compromiser" mode, so now that I'm more focused on the real issues I've changed some of my votes: absent clear vandalism, true irrelevance, or duplication we should err on the side of openness, and better cases for deletion need to be made than "this is dumb and obvious". Obviously someone thought it was worth putting up, and maybe we should wait a while before judging its irrelevance. I have no idea of what memory resources we have available, nor what we are using, but I would like to know that to help judge just how necessary any "pruning" might be. Some people may have a beef with MA. I don't, nor do I care much about such "beef"s. This is a separate wiki, but we do complement each other and there is plenty of cross-linkage. We don't need to do something one way just because MA does it that way, but if its a sensible way don't knock it, either. (Now excuse me, I just found a box of my old FASA stuff, and have better things to contribute.)--Emperorkalan 17:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've been here a while, but haven't really made many edits or taken part in the community's discussions very much. observations:
- If you want to appear "welcoming" to new users, try starting some kind of dialogue (user talk:captainmike, or this page is actually a good example) before you nominate all the new articles created by said user for deletion. it seems really standoffish that you are inviting users to contribute, but then nominating for deletion when they do. try opening up and asking "why did you create this article?" before you start saying "this is worthless and doesn't belong". Assume good faith...
- if you didn't want people to operate on the assumption that Memory Alpha-style content should be added here, you really shouldn't have ripped off their name. regardless, you are using a wikipedia-style interface, start to expect wikipedia-style contributions. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've been here a while, but haven't really made many edits or taken part in the community's discussions very much. observations:
Mike, I don't know if in your observations you saw the mess a while ago with all the real world articles full of information utterly irrelevant to this site and created with justifications from little off beat references. The whole thing has heightened awareness of the relevancy of articles and made people a bit jumpier to stop things like that happening before they start. In a way it's good that we are tightening up on what we should and shouldn’t accept and getting some direction, but it has had the side effect of the jumpiness sometimes going a bit far and as you say being a bit stand-offish. I hope it will calm down over time.
As for the name, there was some debate when we changed it from the less catchy Non-canon Star Trek wiki to Memory Beta as to the implications of the name and relationship with Memory Alpha. It would be nice to think of us as working together, but we are separate entities with different priorities and approaches to things, and we should be, we deal with very different subjects. Sometimes we should follow MAs lead for good reason, others we don't and indeed shouldn't. But saying well that's how MA does it just can annoy, because, we aren’t MA.-- 8of5 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)