If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out:
- Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the content and resource policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette.
- How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha.
- Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create.
- The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles.
- How to write a great article is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday.
- See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs.
- Look up past changes you have made in your contributions log.
- Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own watchlist.
- Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your talk page.
One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.
Impulse ship Edit
- No prob. -- Kingfisher 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
New Pages Edit
Hey, great work you've been doing. Thanks. - Lt. Washburn 22:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you removing the Energy category from the reactor articles? The category isn't just for types of energy, it's for energy sources, energy fields, and other energy-related topics as well -- Renegade54 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that the Energy category is part of the Physics category, I think it would be a poor choice to conflagrate "things that produce/affect/transform energy" with "things that are energy", considering that they are two fundamentally different things. Either of those groups would contain several dozen articles, and I think to blend them would make the category less useful. I would advocate an "Energy Technology" category instead. -- Kingfisher 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- We conflagrate all the time... which doesn't mean it's right. ;) It probably wouldn't hurt to have an "Energy technology" category, though, as a sub-cat of Technology. Why don't you assemble a list of potential candidates and add it to the category suggestion page. I'll be happy to support it. -- Renegade54 21:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Kingfisher. I just saw your rewrite of the article Vaadwaur. Good work on that, I think the article has a better flow now. However, when copy-editing articles, please make sure not to remove any information - the content of the former "physiology" section seems to be missing completely for some reason.
When an editor thinks that some content doesn't belong on an article, it is common practice to move that content to the talk page for further discussion instead of just removing it. So, if that wasn't just a mistake during editing which you will fix later, it would be nice if you could comment that removal. Thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it is a personal bias of mine, that I don't like extensive descriptions of things that are self-evident upon looking at the subject but not emphasized in dialogue, hence the truncation of the physical description. -- Kingfisher 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)