User talk:BorgHunter

Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

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 and  policies, the, our ,  and guidelines for proper.
 * 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.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha!

New categories
Please do not arbitrarily add new categories without going through the proper procedures, which includes first proposing a new category at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions. In the meantime, please stop changing categories until you have proposed your idea. Thanks. --Alan del Beccio 03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh come now. What harm could I possibly be doing? The whole point of a wiki (granted, I'm cribbing this from Wikipedia) is to be bold in editing. As such, I am. Category:Starship classes is unwieldy, and should be broken into subcats to improve readability. Unless I'm being outrageously disruptive, I think I should go ahead and finish my little project...but I'd be glad to hear any objections to the plan. BorgHunter 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The objections would be that the SOP in this situation is to first propose, then create, when it has been accepted. Being bold is great in writing new articles, but when it comes to maintenance pages, "the point" is somewhat different. --Alan del Beccio 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well...I see. But really, categories aren't necessarily maintenance pages. They are also a navigational aid. If they become inefficient to that end, they should be streamlined, which was what I was attempting to do. I understand the need for process and procedure, but not in this case, because I'm not doing anything really controversial. And, to be quite honest, one thing I want to avoid on MA (a great Trek reference, incidentally) is getting bogged down in process. I want to write a Star Trek reference. Process is a giant pain in the rear, and if I wanted to deal with it, I would. However, I do not. Unless I'm being a gigantic ass (please tell me if so!), I intend to write a Star Trek reference and nothing else. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, we have bots to do the category changing for us, so doing it manually is not necessary, once the category has been accepted, which I am all for, once it is suggested. --Alan del Beccio 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh, shiny bots! Bots are nice. Not quite appropriate for this case (how could a bot tell what is Federation and what is not?), but they're timesavers, aye. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I don't disagree with the new category, however, our policies are not Wikipedia's policies, and vice versa. We have SOP's we follow, none of which include any statements that suggest that we "ignore all rules." Besides, it is just common courtesy. Also, bots are quite appropriate, and much more efficient in this case. You tell them what to do, such as categorize a list of pages, and all the work is done behind the scenes. The end results are the same, with exception of there not being a few dozen consecutive edits that say: "change cat." --Alan del Beccio 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)\
 * I know you're policies aren't Wikipedia's; otherwise, why would I have honored your request to stop? But my point is, ignore all rules should be a policy of every wiki (it's integral to the entire concept of one), and be bold is one of yours. Also, I'm truly not interested in SOPs or anything like that. If you push me too hard to follow a list of bureaucratic policies, I'll simply leave. I'll quit with the category renaming (and I still don't see what was so wrong with it) and hope someone else follows through with the policy end of it, but you might see me around...and you can count on one thing, and that is: I'll be helping to write a Star Trek reference. Thanks for your help. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For future reference
I realize that some categories are non-controversial and Memory Alpha:Category suggestions tends to get ignored by many people (myself included), but for future reference, try to use that page even when creation of a new category seems obvious or natural. Think of it as a necessary evil to prevent categories from going in all sorts of directions. Wikipedia has some seemingly silly procedures of their own, such as adding (TNG episode) or (DS9 episode) and naming things "Oklahoma City, Oklahoma" instead of just "Oklahoma City". The only reason they don't have category suggestions (or do they) is the sheer number of topics they cover.

As for bots, it's actually very easy for an admin like Alan to create a temporary list page from which a bot can categorize things that have been agreed upon.

Hopefully you don't get the wrong idea about us - we're a very open community, so feel free to check out our IRC channel (the "Chat" link) or contact me or one of the other users through IM. Maybe we can avoid any future misunderstandings. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk 04:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh god, you're trying to suck me in! This is how I became a Wikipedia admin and got sucked into the not-fun madhouse of policy and bureaucracy! Noooooooooo! ::runs so far away:: —BorgHunter (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)