Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha


ow do articles get removed from this page after they no longer need attention? Is there a procedure? If not, do we need a procedure? --K 09:45, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

I think that procedure should be straightforward - if you edited the listed page, simply add something like "Done. -- YourSignature". Someone else could then check that page and delete the entry completely if he agrees. -- Cid Highwind 15:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I suggest keeping the entry for a week after the Done has been posted, than delete it. -- Redge 16:40, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I think Cid's suggestion is pretty reasonable. -- Dan Carlson 17:35, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Administrator attention

I've added this section because there are a few pages which I think need administrator attention, and this works faster than posting on every sysop's talk page. -- Redge | Talk 15:45, 3 Sep 2004 (CEST)


Does {{pna-cite}} add pages to a corresponding category so that we can peruse the entries and see if we can provide citations to pages/images that need them? — THOR 15:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Can we get this mean more than just "needs wikification"? Like recently, we got several novels entered but they needed to be formatted into the style used for novel pages. Since it is true that the page is unformatted to that style, it is untrue that it just;; needs wikification. --Gvsualan 21:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recently reverted

It has been decided in the past that these messages should only appear at the bottom of a page. -- Cid Highwind 06:13, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)


moved from Template talk:Pna-noncanon

"The population of templates on memory alpha has trippled in the last three months." Do we need this template? It doesn't actually serve a purpose. The message its trying to get across would be better served on the creators talk page, and the article itself should probably get a "deletion" or "merge" template, to merge it into its novels page. -AJ Halliwell 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And there I was, trying to add exactly that comment... :) I think {{pna-inaccurate}} and {{pna-cite}} already exist for every possible target of this template. As a simple "message" template, it shouldn't have a "pna" prefix. -- Cid Highwind 15:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
AJ, you funny. Anyway, I agree with Cid on this. Also, maybe we should put this one on every novel and comic. ;) --Bp 15:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine... lol... delete it. :) -- Renegade54 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


It seems rather silly to put a notice at the bottom of an article, when it would do the most good at the top. I've rarely seen anyone put one at the bottom recently anyways, but thought I should bring it up before just changing the instructions. - Archduk3 09:00, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

The main reason that went into the decision to ask for placement at the bottom was the fact that, this way, editors would still be able to find a page needing attention quickly enough (via their categorization) without forcing readers to wade through "non-content" that is not interesting to them before the actual article content starts. There may be reasons for changing this, but I think "it's not adhered to anyway" is not one of them. For example, people use those messages without giving proper reasons on the talk page, too - but that doesn't mean we're going to remove that requirement, I hope. -- Cid Highwind 14:27, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that I wanted to change this just, or even mainly because of, the use of the templates at the top of an article instead of the bottom. First and foremost, and it was the first sentence, was the idea that readers should know before hand that what they are reading needs work, IE uncited and therefor maybe incorrect. I know that when I'm reading something it's always more helpful to take the grain of salt up front instead of getting to the bottom and learning that what I just read could be a load of Tribble droppings. Not all of these templates are PNA-cite or inaccurate of course, but I'm betting that if you know there was information missing when reading something, you're going to remember that it was incomplete when recalling that information; and it's not like these templates take up the same amount of room as their giant wikipedia counterparts, even with our significantly reduced content space, so I don't think we're going to be loosing readers by putting a box of non-content up front that they might find helpful...up front. - Archduk3

I agree with Archduk3. As both an editor and a reader, I'd like to know up front if the article has any problems.
In addition, we shouldn't think of these notices in terms of being unobtrusive to non-editors. Rather, we should want them to be conspicuous so the underlying problem is actually fixed. If more readers are encouraged to become editors by seeing something tangible they can help out with, we then won't need as many notices. ;-) – Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:36, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Well... I just searched for a high-profile article using a pna template - and had to find out that USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) is considered an "inaccurate article" since last June without change. Somehow, the idea of readers becoming editors because they see a pna template doesn't seem to work out that well.
Anyway, as a follow-up question: what do you intend to do once you've changed the "preferred location" for these templates? Nothing? Move templates on all pages? (What if the template is located in a section?) Try to fix pages and remove the templates? -- Cid Highwind 23:59, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the highest profile article I know of using a pna template is the Intrepid class. Of course, I added it myself, for the reasons said here. With all the bickering over the little stuff about that article, no one, myself included, has decided to do the seemingly necessary rewrite for most of the article (I would have to watch a number of Voyager episodes that I simply don't own). To be honest, I don't really expect any one person to do it, but at least our readers know up front that a wide range of the information presented in that article lacks citations, something they wouldn't know if the notice was at the bottom of the page. Just because something hasn't been fixed yet, doesn't mean it's not going to be. To answer the rest of your specific questions: A) I plan to go over the lists of articles and move as much as I can or remove them by "fixing" the problem. B) The top of a section is better then the bottom of said section; if the problem is only just one section, that section should be the only part that needs it. - Archduk3 01:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)