Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Goa'uld: reply
Line 451: Line 451:
The Goa'uld page needs some work. Info on how the Goa'uld effects (i.e. flanging are done), and how Ra wasn't going to be an alien until very late in filming ought to be added. Also, we should add more info about the culture and inflence on their worshippers. This should be about their culture, biology, and "behind-the-scences" info, not how many episodes Yu appeared in. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]]]] ([[User talk:Tutthoth-Ankhre|talk]]) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The Goa'uld page needs some work. Info on how the Goa'uld effects (i.e. flanging are done), and how Ra wasn't going to be an alien until very late in filming ought to be added. Also, we should add more info about the culture and inflence on their worshippers. This should be about their culture, biology, and "behind-the-scences" info, not how many episodes Yu appeared in. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]]]] ([[User talk:Tutthoth-Ankhre|talk]]) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:The problem is not the ''how'', but the ''that''. [[Goa'uld]] certainly has GA potential, maybe even FA potential, but (at least for me) it's not the lack of knowledge how to properly rewrite and expand the article, but simply time. As is with many of the current ''Stargate'' articles, unfortunately. &ndash; [[User:Sgeureka|sgeureka]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sgeureka|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sgeureka|c]]</sup> 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:The problem is not the ''how'', but the ''that''. [[Goa'uld]] certainly has GA potential, maybe even FA potential, but (at least for me) it's not the lack of knowledge how to properly rewrite and expand the article, but simply time. As is with many of the current ''Stargate'' articles, unfortunately. &ndash; [[User:Sgeureka|sgeureka]] <sup>[[User_talk:Sgeureka|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sgeureka|c]]</sup> 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll be working on improving it.--[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|&#91;&#91;User:Tutthoth-Ankhre&#124;Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe&#93;&#93;]] ([[User talk:Tutthoth-Ankhre|talk]]) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:51, 6 February 2009

Welcome

Shortcuts

This is the discussion page for WikiProject Stargate, where you can discuss centralised matters relating to the articles on Stargate around Wikipedia.

If you are a visitor, thanks for dropping by! If you like, you can join our WikiProject by adding yourself to the participants list over on the main project page.

Discussion

To get rid of fancruft once and for all

I've been inactive for a while on this project and probably will continue to be, but I do keep checking up on it. For the record, I'm Aquillyne, formerly known as Alfakim, who more people may remember as being a very active member.

A bit of an essay - please read

  1. A project organised by fans
    • Stargate articles are perhaps some of the worst among Wikipedia for being full of fancruft, and a lot of people are doing great jobs to fix this.
    • However I feel that a huge reworking is ultimately in need, as most pages are NAMED and ARRANGED in a fancruft way.
    • Indeed some articles just need deletion, too.
    • If we want to be recognised as a decent project and really contribute to Wikipedia, we're going to have to be pretty tough and pretty hard-line about editing the Stargate pages.
  2. Keeping it out-of-universe
    • Everything needs to be changed so it's out-of-universe, and this includes our categorisations. For instance, the article Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1 (which emerges from an in-universe notion) is entirely unencyclopedic.
    • Indeed, splitting articles by race in general is an in-universe categorisation. This is because, in the real world, there are no such races, and hence no such categorisations.
      • Imagine it a different way. If you saw the article Scottish people in Stargate SG-1, what would you expect its contents to be? First and foremost, you'd expect it to be about real Scots who feature in the show. In the case of Stargate, you'd probably expect it to be a list of cast members who were Scottish. (And then you'd mark it up for missing notability).
      • There is no difference with the article Goa'uld characters in Stargate - from an out-of-universe perspective, this says "People who are members of the real-world group 'Goa'uld', who appear in the TV show Stargate SG-1". This is wrong.
    • So what are the out-of universe, real world categorisations? Something more like List of Stargate SG-1 villains. Remember, we do not use "The Goa'uld speak with flanged voices", we use, "X decided the Goa'uld characters should have flanged voices to make them scarier".
  3. Keeping it notable
    • There has been a general trend to follow this line of thinking: "If it has importance, give it its own article; otherwise just mention it in an umbrella or list article."
    • This is clearly wrong. If it doesn't have notability, don't mention it at all.
    • That includes most characters in the series, except a few System Lords, SG-1, etc. Everyone else is either mentioned in Stargate SG-1's cast section (or SGA's) as an officially-named recurring character, or not mentioned at all.
  4. Keeping it factual
    • Technology in Stargate and Planets in Stargate are both entirely fancruft articles. This is because:
      • No such technology or planets exist;
      • Nor do they correspond to anything that exist
        • This is unlike characters, which correspond to real actors.
        • You might say, "The tech corresponds to props! We can do those articles up so they have production information!"
        • This is putting the effort in the wrong place. If the fictional technology is so notable it deserves that much information, it should already have its own article, rather than be a part of Technology in Stargate. Just like Stargate (device). To note - Stargate (fictional device) is more appropriate.
  5. Keeping it encyclopedic
    • You may be thinking, "This is cutting out TONS of really big stuff in Stargate!" - but that's of course the problem: in Stargate. If Wikipedia were the Stargate Wiki, or GateWorld, it would be horrendous to cut all this out. But it isn't, and the fact of the matter is that we're writing in an encyclopedia.
    • The general rule for an article is: "Can you imagine this article one day in the Featured Articles list?" If not, don't have the article at all - because an article that doesn't even have FA potential is clearly not hitting Wikipedia's quality criteria.
    • Also bear in mind that the trend we have of LOTS of articles makes our project very hard to manage and bloated. We ought to have a minimal set of very high quality articles, which we can add to if necessary to reach a golden mean.

Comments

Please leave comments on my thinking here, but if you simply agree, move down one section and help me organise a to-do list. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New project structure

All articles not mentioned here will exist as redirects to the appropriate page below where their notable information is mentioned.

Stargate (which explains the five canon categories)

  1. Universal topics
  2. The Dean Devlin canon
  3. The Bridge Studios canon (Brad Wright, Jonathan Glassner, Robert C. Cooper) (which picks up the Dean Devlin canon, but is not endorsed by it)
  4. The Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment canon (which picks up the Bridge Studios canon, and is endorsed by it)
  5. The Infinity canon (which picks up the Bridge Studios canon, but is not endorsed by it)
  6. Non-canon works
    • Comics, literature, etc., which each have their singular articles.

If you think this structure misses out anything important please comment below. If you're wondering where articles like Asgard (Stargate) would go, or Technology in Stargate - they wouldn't go anywhere - but their info might. The tech articles are nothing but fancruft and that's pretty much it. We would mention all of their important information in plot synopses, or perhaps at most have a simple list. Races like the Asgard are down to discretion. The Athosians (Stargate) are basically just human supporting characters, and can be dealt with in a few lines in an Atlantis plot synopsis. However, the Asgard (Stargate) are more interesting due to the abundance of info on how the props were made and controlled, so they might deserve their own article (which would of course list all their arcs and episodes).

Comments

Please leave comments here. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Long but necessary preface: When I started editing Stargate articles in October 2007, there were roughly 500 SG pages (plus minus 100). Nearly 300 of these were episode articles (all of them have been transwikied and the majority been merged), and I count over 300 merged non-episode SG articles at User:Sgeureka/Merged#Stargate (a few dozen of them were merged back in 2006, but the majority were merged by User:Tone in 2007, and trimmed&merged by User:Yzx and me in 2008). Not counting the left-over episode articles, we're down to less than 100 articles (which includes ~20 pages for the franchise itself, ~20 pages for Lists of episodes and season articles, ~20 pages for main characters, and ~20 pages for major races). What I mean is that if someone feels that we have now is a terrible fancrufty mess (a statement with which I agree to an extend), then the progress since last year should be taken into account.
My idea for the future of this project is based on Featured Topics with a clear hierarchical structure (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Articles). Most (maybe all) main characters have GA&FA potential, and so have quite a few (maybe very many) episode articles, but getting them there is not so much a problem of incompetence or will, but time (and good-faith newbies who keep adding in-universe content again and again). Getting articles deleted these days is problematic because of the inclusionists versus deletionists fiction battle, which often results in inopportune keeping of dreck and inopportune deletions of poor but improvable articles with dedicated editors.
In direct reply to some of Aquillyne's comments:
  • I have emptied and deleted one or two dozen in-universe categories a while ago, but more merging has taken place since then. It is time to review the cats again.
  • Goa'uld characters in Stargate is a spin-out of both List of Stargate SG-1 characters and Goa'uld, both of which are (at the moment) too long to merge the Goa'uld char list in. This may change in the future, and I am fine with wikipedia as a work in progress. The suggestion of List of Stargate SG-1 villains sounds like a good idea at first - but what's with Yu? What's with Ladon Radim? Loki? Kavanagh? Maybourne?
  • Re: Technology in Stargate and Planets in Stargate as fancrufty lists - I agree, but I have no solution. Merging is impossible as these lists are already top level. AfDs would most certainly end in keeps, as their deletion would have direct impact on the fancrufty Star Trek and Star Wars lists, which fanboys would never allow. Plus some pieces of technology actually have production information which just needs to be added (I have extensive fan material for the latter SG-1 seasons and the first two SGA seasons, see e.g. my additions to Earth starships in Stargate). Or: I have seen some fiction franchises only list the recurring pieces of technology. But that would be a step which requires some pre-discussion here.
  • I am mainly an SG-1 fan, and my knowledge of Atlantis in-universe importance (like with the article on Athosians) is somewhat limited. I must therefore rely on others to determine if I am too precautious with the removal of excessive information, and what actually needs an article.
Anyway, I have about two to five SG articles left for merger (not counting episode articles), I have a few Stargate B-class articles to get to GA, and then I plan to do some work on Stargate SG-1. I am also trying to make sure that the same mess doesn't get started with SGU again. My SG ToDo list is therefore (still) pretty full. – sgeureka t•c 00:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed opinions, but I question whether anything as drastic as your proposal can realistically be implemented. My specific points:
  • We've merged down the lists almost as much as possible given size restrictions, but as User:Sgeureka mentioned, any attempt to remove the technology (or ships or planets) lists altogether will almost certainly fail, especially since (I think) lists do not have to demonstrate notability. I do think that things can be done to at least minimize the amount of cruft on those pages (removing insignificant items would be a start, but uniform criteria need to be established if that's the case) There is also real-world info out there that can be added.
  • I see your point about grouping characters by fictional race, but from an organizational perspective I feel that when talking about fictional characters using fictional categories makes intuitive sense. I wouldn't be thrilled if it all got turned into an alphabetical list, but I could live with it.
  • Moving things to plot summaries is all well and good in theory, but until it's actually done trying to remove the original material would be the same as deleting it, and I've already stated my thoughts on how practical that would be. Most of the episodes probably have enough production info to be turned into articles (again), but that's a long, long ways off.
Sorry if I'm sounding negative, but considering what the state of Stargate articles on Wikipedia was before all the recent(ish) work was done, I'm reasonably satisfied with the current framework. Until a there is a change in consensus in Wikipedia, I think having some cruft in a fictional franchise coverage is inevitable. -- Yzx (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments everyone. I appreciate what you're saying about how a whole load of work has been done already. I know - in part, the quality of the work was what inspired this essay. I appreciate the huge amount of work some project participants are putting in, and I particularly appreciate the work of Sgeureka who I have noticed has been taking a solid, hardline approach to making our articles a lot better and has been putting in a lot of effort. So that's great! However, what this essay is about is where we need to be, where we need to be aiming. For now we can ignore that it'd be difficult to pull this off. Once we agree that this is a good restructuring, we can all put the work in. But for now, it's just a discussion point. I think if we're honest with ourselves, the above is really where we need to be. It doesn't matter if other major projects aren't here yet - why shouldn't the Stargate project be the one setting the standard and being the best on Wikipedia? Why shouldn't it be that other projects look to us? But this aside, as I say, all the above is about the theoretical best place to be, and while I appreciate much work has been done, there is much to go - and wouldn't it be better to put our effort in now to steer the project in this direction, rather than working in the wrong direction only to have it later rewritten? --Aquillyne-- (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(After reading your essay and my previous reply again to make sure I am not repeating myself again) There are are three approaches to get the perfect Stargate coverage on wikipedia that we'd all like to see (e..g. everything is at least a GA):
  1. Never merge an article and expand them all to GA (approach of ~2004 till 2007, but this approach produced nearly no significant quality articles per today's standards, probably because all energy was focused on adding even more new in-universe data after the newest episode was broadcast, and the experienced wikipedians were busy with limiting good-faith newbie damage)
  2. Merge all insignificant in-universe article and leave major ones be, slowly improving those to GA (current approach since 2007, took a lot of time for trimming&merging, but also produced 1 FA, 5 GAs and 1 GAN in the last year, quality is steadily rising)
  3. Merge all articles that don't satisfy WP:WAF or simply redirect them, regardless of WP:POTENTIAL, and then build the Stargate coverage top-bottom per WP:SPINOUT (worked for me for the Featured Topic of the semi-obscure TV series Carnivàle but was never tried for a major show like Stargate; even more time would be spend in trimming&merging, as simple redirecting would lead to huge fan outcries and accusations of vandalism; would also lead to strange circumstances that Radek Zelenka, a GA, would have an article and Jack O'Neill wouldn't at this time; some editors would question the point of merging articles if they will spun out again anyway some time in the future)
If I was editing in a bubble, then yes, I'd prefer option 3 just like you seem to prefer, as we would never have to deal with bad SG articles. But there is also WP:POTENTIAL and no WP:DEADLINE, and we have to repect the views of the general en.wiki fiction readership even if they don't give a damn about policies and guidelines (de.wiki, on the other hand, tends to delete non-quality articles on-sight, independant of article potential, and while they have nearly no problems with fancruft, they also make it impossible to write GAs/FAs on fictional elements). So, while option 2 is not perfect, it gets acceptable results and keeps everyone's stress level comparibly low. On the other hand (and this is the first time I say this), I strongly support the SPINOUT approach for Stargate Universe from the start, e.g. meaning we shouldn't give each main character his own article from the get-go. Fans (and this includes me) who then absolutely want to have an article on e.g. Everett Young, will be forced to dig up sources and write a decent article. I hope that by that time, our current character articles will have been improved enough to also justify as a spinout. And we'll have survived this hard transitional period in a peaceful fashion. – sgeureka t•c 14:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sgeureka, you've got my position slightly wrong. My position is to decide upon a list of articles that we SHOULD have, regardless of their current state. This list should list every single article the Stargate coverage on Wikipedia needs. Anything not on the list gets redirected to the list (with its info mentioned in the redirected article, if notable). Then we do the merging and trimming - to bring things closer to that list. And we improve the quality of articles on the list, till every single one is FA (goal of the project). What is this list? I've made it above - please edit and discuss it accordingly.
Why this idea? To give the project structure. The structured list of all Stargate articles, as described above (and open to editing) can be displayed on the main WikiProject page. It gives everything focus. It puts everything in perspective.
Why re-structure as above? To avoid the current structuring folly, a huge mistake that will prevent most SG articles from ever being even GA. The entire structure of the WikiProject is based on in-universe notions. We're structuring the pages like we're the GateWorld Omnipedia. If you're in-universe, of course you structure by race, technology, planets, etc. But this all just reads like a fanbook. This is Wikipedia, and the whole way the project has been structured really needs to change.
What does this restructuring mean? Not much, in terms of which pages we'll have. It sets the pages in new perspectives, and gives them new goals. It makes it clearer what pages we need and don't. Ultimately our core articles won't change, but the way we think about how they are organised will, and it becomes clearer which not-so-core articles are notable, and how to name them, and what content they require.
So I'm not advocating a radical stripping down to a quality standard, I'm advocating a project structure, a way to organise our pages which has GAPS that need filling - but then at least we know where those gaps are, and we know which pages to merge away. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible that your impression of this wikiproject's goals/perspecive is based on the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate? If so, please bear in mind that the old-old wikiproject page was terribly in-universe-fancruft-focused until I rewrote it this spring after many performed mergers. The still ongoing mergers have kept subtly shifting the WP's true scope from then so that the updated wording is also outdated now. I myself am keeping track of my GA/FA/FL/FT-focused perspective via bolding in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Articles, and only share my doings in the "Current nominations and proposals" section in WPSG, ignoring the wording of the rest (I didn't know anyone actually read it). So if you want to give the WPSG page a facelift, by all means, please do.
  • "My position is to decide upon a list of articles that we SHOULD have" - that's what the importance scale is for, you can see my take at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Stargate articles by quality. Merging and trimming has been going on for over a year, but I am seeing the end of the tunnel for merging. Yes, more trims (without necessarily merging) are desperately needed, but I am not always in the mood for trimming, and User:Yzx was the only editor who helped with trimming in recent times - getting another editor like you on board would certainly help. Adding real-world information to articles is the hardest and most neglected job; I often feel like the only one who actually does that and could need some support.
  • Maybe our visions aren't that different in the end: Many of your proposed lists already exist or are already part of other lists under a different name (e.g. there is currently only one Races in Stargate instead of division by show, and the Cast lists are already covered by the Character lists). However, I'd argue that some of the redlinks should be created as sections in main articles and wait for the time to spinout (e.g. Stargate fandom and List of Stargate SG-1 sets etc.), and I regard your proposed List of Stargate SG-1 crew etc. as pure list cruft. I have already listed other concerns previously. Maybe we should start new discussion threads for each point, and work from there one by one. – sgeureka t•c 09:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sgeureka, I helped set up this WikiProject, I've been here from the beginning.
I should have made it clear: the redlinks in the above section are just there to fill gaps - I wouldn't suggest we make Stargate Universe articles, for instance, until there's sufficient info! Likewise with the crew lists, which I agree aren't useful really. Please edit the list as you see fit. If it's agreed that we don't need a crew list, then delete it.
Sgeureka, I think we are on the same wavelength. I'm not aggressively suggesting something here, I'm opening it for discussion. I think if me and you worked on the above list of "should have" articles, then we can actually solidify it as the project structure, which would be great. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Ooops, missed this on my watchlist.) So here's my list of absolutely-must-have articles:
All the others should be kept or merged on a case-by-case basis, and it's up to interested editors to make merge suggestions and then perform the trim&mergers. – sgeureka t•c 12:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Stargate - I've added some crucial info about the differences between Stargate canons. This is one of the biggest problems at the moment. Currently every Stargate article is framed from a Bridge Studios perspective (i.e. SG-1/Atlantis fan) - but this is only 1 of several Stargate productions. The Bridge Studios canon is not supreme - it just has the largest fanbase. Thus if our articles match that bias (or assumption), they are in a sense, "in universe", and in a sense, "fancruft". That's just the most foundational thing that's currently wrong.
I agree with your list of must-have articles. I think you're missing:
I'm ambivalent about Ascension (Stargate) - does it deserve an article for being such a massive central concept across nearly 10 years of episodes? I don't think so really - it can be handled in a plot synopsis.
Now here's the million dollar question: why can't we cut everything down to the above articles? If there's a good answer, then we need to amend the above list. If there's no answer, then.... ? --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that Stargate (device) (which may have GA potential) could be merged into Technology in Stargate (which I feel should be trimmed to major recurring techs anyway). GateWorld could theoretically be merged into Stargate#Fandom (it can't become a GA). I have zero knowledge about SG literature, comics, audiobooks and also video games and hence can't comment on that. Continuum and AoT, yes, should stay around. Ascension (Stargate) has been on my (merge&)redirect ToDo list forever. Why can't we cut everything down to the above articles? - we can certainly try, but I did/could not do this because (1) I was getting tired after transwikiing&merging hundreds of SG articles, (2) because some of the best articles are the result of time&editing and not chainsaw-cutting, and (3) because the last thing I need(ed) is getting accused of being evil User:TTN II so that my non-SG mergers suffer from systematic kneejerk fan reactions. Also, the legitimate List of Stargate SG-1 characters is already bursting at the seams although it doesn't even describe the major players in the needed depth yet (my FA Characters list-article for an obscure 24-episode show is 96kB, and a list for a popular 200+ episode show will be longer accordingly), so some split-up may be wise. Whatever we decide to do now, I don't expect any fast progress anymore. If someone has specific ideas or intentions for major changes such as getting rid of all poor main character articles, character sublists, technology sublists, the season articles, race articles, and SG games (that are all the possibilities I think), let's start a new thread to weigh the pros and cons. – sgeureka t•c 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

De-indent. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it the wrong way round on that one. Technology in Stargate is not an article to keep. It's an article to delete (pure fancruft - even if you strip it down, it's an in-universe categorisation). So you wouldn't merge Stargate (device) into it. If Stargate (device) was to be merged, it would be into Stargate. But I think there's sufficient info regarding the making of the prop, concept and design, as well as sufficient notability, for it to warrant its own article. GateWorld is also very notable, having so many viewers as it does, conducting so many interviews, etc. Ascension (Stargate) however, as you said, needs to be just merged into Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis plot summaries.
I'd like to mention here that my ruthlessness regards all this is not as an outsider. Most of the articles I am advocating the complete deletion of were written, in bulk, by me. Vanity aside, the values of Wikipedia and WP:NOT stand true. This is an encyclopedia. I don't want our Stargate coverage to be just fancruft anymore, like many other WikiProjects (why can't we set the standard?).
You say that lots of great articles were written by slow increments on what would originally have been deleted. This doesn't make much sense - if it was deletion-worthy (in terms of fancruft, notability, in-universe), it doesn't matter how much you add to it, it still needs to go. DNA Resequencer (Stargate) was a top-quality article written almost solely and obsessively by User:Tobyk777 (if I remember rightly). It had thousands of references, tons of out-of-universe information. But it wasn't notable. So about 100k of article and hours of work was merged into a tiny section in another article, and rightly so.
If we upset the fanboys, so what. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I understand if this sounds like a big job that's tedious and tiring. I'm not really suggesting that we undertake a huge project straightaway. All I'm debating for right now is simple agreement. I want to work up agreement on what needs to be done - on what the articles should be. If you agree, then we can think about the way forward to get there. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want our Stargate coverage to be just fancruft anymore, like many other WikiProjects (why can't we set the standard?). - 100% agreed. For my part, I am ready to discuss specific proposals. – sgeureka t•c 21:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, brilliant. My proposal is:
  1. We (me and you, and anyone else) form our list of core articles, and spend a while thinking about any further ones that would be needed.
  2. We work on those core articles and make them really damn good, including any information we imagine is (a) present in other articles outside of the list, and (b) relevant and notable.
  3. This makes the articles outside the list effectively redundant. One by one, we merge them away and AfD.
The first things I'd like to disappear are the extraneous articles like Jack O'Neill, Tok'ra, etc. (I don't know if those are already gone). These types of articles can be deleted and merged almost instantly, as they're sort of "last branch" articles, if you think about a tree structure. Things follow to them, but not from them, if you see what I mean. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another proposal that may work for all of us despite a different work ethos: Each one of us just states the non-must-have subarticles that we personally intend to (keep) work(ing) on up to at least B-class status, and we'll consider the other articles for merger one by one (it's absolutely fair: no volunteers -> no article -> reduced number of fancrufty SG articles overall). I have 7 articles (Template:C-icon Cameron Mitchell (Stargate), Template:B-icon Jonas Quinn, Template:B-icon Ori (Stargate), Template:C-icon Redemption (Stargate SG-1), Template:C-icon Lost City (Stargate SG-1), Template:B-icon Stargate SG-1 (season 8) and Template:Start-classicon Stargate Program) besides the 17 must-have articles from above that I'd like to keep around, and I admit to have a COI about keeping the other SG-1 main characters since I have the long-term goal to write a Featured Good Topic on them although I know that I just don't have the time to commit to doing that at the moment. As I hate coming up with plot summaries, I prefer to keep page histories around for culling and not do AfDs. If the other editors are fine with this proposed process, you/we can start Stargate Merger Part II (as stated before, I have already merged nearly everything that I absolutely wanted to see merged in my personal Part I). – sgeureka t•c 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike a few. As long as these articles just get merged and not AfDed, I can resume GA-work when I have the time and urge. – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this suggestion that any articles without volunteers get AfD'd. But equally, articles which we ought not to have ought to be AfD'd regardless of volunteers. However, that's an ultimate aim. For now, I'm happy with the idea that non-core articles are worked on to increase quality for later merger. Regardless, I still want a list of must-have articles. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Link: Edit This Section

Vote the articles you'd keep

Other than the core articles mentioned above (please add a reason if possible).

Comment I'd keep Goa'uld and scrap the list. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Can be covered in List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1, with the important arcs covered in Goa'uld if necessary. – sgeureka t•c 10:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still getting better ideas for the representation of this content all the time (and these ideas may turn out to be crap later nevertheless). I won't commit to any more "we definitately have to keep this or that article"s so that I don't have to eat my words later, although I'll stay open for any specific merge/move/rearrange proposals by others. – sgeureka t•c 13:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the above lists List of Stargate SG-1 characters could be severely shortened. Absolutely TONS of cruft in there. They are lists. They should be nothing more than bullet points. Each character gets one line. That's a lot of characters. If they deserve more info than that then they can be mentioned elsewhere if it's important. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each character gets one line. And that results in valuable article content how? Why not simply follow WP:V, rather that suggesting a draconian measure that prevents value being present were warranted. List articles shouldn't just mean "tiny bullet point entries", but rather "a collection of entries too short to warrant their own articles". The end result should be valuable content, not minimal linecount. LinaMishima (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Aquillyne, you prefer List of Harry Potter characters and List of characters in The Simpsons (that's perfectly fine). But the problem of "mentioning elsewhere" remains if you/we want to keep cutting on the number of in-universe articles. (Some rambling ahead) WP:FICT supports aggregate character lists as a trade-off between cruftiness and usefulness; good examples are Template:FA-classicon Characters of Carnivàle and Template:FA-classicon List of Naruto characters (no subarticles, but ~1 paragraph per major character). I based the current SG style on List of House characters because I found that format to be extremely helpful on my random House-episode-catch-up sprees. Other solutions are Characters of Lost (many crufty subarticles, but just one/two lines for any character) and Template:GAN-icon Characters of Smallville (only legitimiate WP:SPINOUT subarticles, tons of paragraphs for major characters and 1/2 line for each minor character). Of course, SG-1 ran twice or three times as long as almost any other popular show, so I think it would make sense to have more character lists accordingly. – sgeureka t•c 23:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or in case I am missing your point, Aquillyne, are you suggesting to turn List of Stargate SG-1 characters into something like List of characters in The Simpsons, and then e.g. have the aggregate lists List of main characters in Stargate SG-1, List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 and List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1? – sgeureka t•c 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sgeureka, those are some wonderful example lists! I'm considering writing an essay on the subject of meaningful lists (for the purposes of looking to see how to integrate such suggestions into actual practice), and those links show the full spectrum of list styles LinaMishima (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that 95% of characters in Stargate deserve the List of Harry Potter characters treatment, and 5% deserve the Characters of Carnivàle treatment, i.e. about 7 of them. This can all be done in one article, Characters of Stargate (or similar), without any need for other articles like Jonas Quinn, etc. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before we give Stargate characters the HP treatment, I'd rather remove the one- and two-timers for cruftiness, insignificance and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Jonas Quinn is GAN now, but I'd get your point if you were talking about Hammond and Landry. What to you think of the current List of Stargate SG-1 characters (possible merge-target for all non-GA main characters), List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 and List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1? All three have FL potential (I am working on it). ETA: Atlantis may be able to go with just one character list, and no more than two (main, recurring) if all main characters get merged for the time being. – sgeureka t•c 10:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current List of Stargate SG-1 characters could just do with some cruft-removal and then it's fine. No character deserves their own article - all character info should be in this list, or in plot summaries at Stargate SG-1, etc. The ideal would be to have 1 paragraph for each regular character, a few sentences for each recurring character, and one line for every other character. Jonas Quinn may be GAN, but let's face it, there's nothing notable about this fictional character that deserves more than his inclusion inside another article. Daniel Jackson might qualify for more notability - maybe enough for his own article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal would be to have 1 paragraph for each regular character, a few sentences for each recurring character, and one line for every other character. - Agreed on the middle part, but can you explain how you came to this conclusion for the regulars and the one-timers (honest question)? I was able to cut down Vala Mal Doran's plot summary to 3 paragraphs (and added 16 real-world paragraphs; she "just" appeared in 1/7 of SG-1), and per my work on Characters of Carnivàle I increasingly see listing one-timers as fancruft. Maybe we can save time on dicussion if you demonstrated how much you'd merge of all the SG-1 main characters into List of Stargate SG-1 characters (I have already done this for Hammond and Landry), and discuss a redirect of the main char articles then. – sgeureka t•c 17:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what your question is, but I'll answer anyway. I figure that a series regular deserves 1 paragraph just to say who they were, who played them, which seasons they were in, list off the major plot arcs, etc. You don't actually need to write the plot in there - that stuff is covered in the main plot summary at Stargate SG-1 or whatever. It's soo crufty to start going into how Vala used to be host to Qut'esh on her character listing. One-timer actors also don't deserve even a sentence. It's either regulars, recurrings (Bra'tac, carter's dad), or people who starred at least 2 times, say. So Hammond, having been a regular, gets 1 paragraph in the character list. Which we probably ought to rename Characters in Stargate or similar, because the "list" title is simply less useful! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you think the depth of Stargate SG-1#Cast for the main characters is pretty much sufficient - and I disagree. But I think I found the perfect middle ground: I have nearly no wiki attachment to SGA-related articles, and I don't intend on improving them to GA/FA/FL either. I am not sure whether there are any wikipedians who do. So instead of discussing this endlessly and getting nowhere because of our opposing view points on details, would you be fine with cleaning up the cruft in regards to SGA as you see fit, and leave the SG-1 stuff to me? I may need a few weeks/months longer than you, but I am sure the results will be respectable. It would be a win-win. Oh, and the naming convention of character lists is to call them "List of XXX characters" (highest possible quality: FL) unless you want to write an article on them (including long sections on casting, development, reception - highest possible quality: FA). – sgeureka t•c 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-indent --Aquillyne-- (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with List of Stargate SG-1 characters then (and Atlantis). Could you tell me why Stargate SG-1#Cast is inappropriate for the main characters? Sure, you could add a few sentences there. But I feel that anything else you add to that really belongs in another place. There are three options really:
  1. Short paragraphs in a character list
  2. If there's more information of note, put it somewhere else, e.g. Stargate SG-1
  3. If there's more information of note, expand the list into a Characters of Stargate SG-1 article.
I favour 1, then 3, then 2. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this long reply written out, but then, with all due respect, I realized that I've had enough of discussing hypothetical article structures. I simply don't know what will work best for the articles; I never fully know in advance, but I know how to get there. You have been talking about your eagerness to get rid of fancruft for two months now yet haven't done any work, while less-eager people actually have. I'd see it as an act of trust if you left the 10 SG-1 character articles to me (whatever solution I come up with for them), and I encourage you (for the third time?) to please start merge proposals and AfDs (which are likely to result in keeps or mergers) for the other articles, as you see fit, so that the job finally gets done. – sgeureka t•c 11:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sure. To be perfectly honest, I'm a discusser rather than a doer. But I'll get something done :) --Aquillyne-- (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the article SG team

I ask for input for what should be done with the article SG team, which has been tagged for notability issues since August. I'll list my concerns (from both sides of the fence) below.

  • The topic has nearly no significance/importance in the real-world (e.g. to build a reception section) => violates WP:N (guideline)
  • It is unlikely that significant production and development information can be added even from primary sources => also violates WP:FICT (essay)
  • It is a list => WP:FICT (essay) makes notability exceptions for lists from highly notable shows, but the article should then be moved to List of SG teams
  • It is a list of information that has very little in-universe insignificance, but is nevertheless of interest to some people => WP:FANCRUFT (essay)
  • List information that has some in-universe significance (such as that Reynolds is the leader of SG-3) is already present in the List of characters in Stargate XYZ list => redundancy
  • "SG team" in itself is worth no more than a dictionary definition, which can be / is already given in Stargate Program => WP:NOT#DICT
  • "SG team" is a likely search term => can be redirected instead of deleted

I don't have a strong opinion if this article should be AfDed, merged/redirected (probably to Stargate Program), or be moved to a new name, but I admit that if this question came up in an AfD for another show where I had no conflict of interest (WP:COI), I'd recommend "(Delete and/or) redirect". What do others think? – sgeureka t•c 18:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --88wolfmaster (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Stargate Program. A little of the information can be kept, like the production info on the Atlantis teams' unofficial designations. -- Yzx (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate quality assessment

For transparancy: I have changed the quality assessment of the article Stargate from A-class to GA-class (it was already made a GA in 2006). Per [2], the A-class assessment seems to have been done by external reviewers without an "official" review, and the SG wikiproject just took over that assessment. I think while the article is an alright GA, it is not polished enough for A-class per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment (plot summary of the Stargate film is too long, and not enough sources, although the scope/content is fine). Since I think we can do a lot better than that, I'd be reluctant to hand out A's so easily. If other editors believe the A-class would nevertheless apply, I would favor a proper project review, as recommended by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. – sgeureka t•c 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of planets in Stargate

This is an idea that just came to me, and I apologize in advance if this is a rubbish idea. My wiki attention is also already devoted elsewhere, so I am also not in a hurry to do anything about this just yet. But here it goes: For at least half a year, I've been trying to think what to do with List of planets in Stargate because I've seen several planet lists of other fiction franchise being deleted for fancruftiness, in-universe focus and lack of notability. This rationale would theoretically also apply to the SG planet list, and although I usually value WP guidelines and avoid playing favorites, I'd be sorry to see the SG planet list go because I do in fact see some encyclopedic and navigational value, even if others consider it fancruft.

After User:Yzx put effort into cleaning up the planet list, I was even more reluctant to "destroy" someone's work. On the other hand, it became obvious to me that most planets are only mentioned/visited once and never again. So I thought, what about merging the planet list into the episode lists? When I edited Carnivàle, I was obsessed about locations and added an extra locations column to List of Carnivàle episodes to avoid deletion, and it worked out perfectly. List of House episodes has one column for "Final Diagnosis". List of Lost episodes has an extra column for "Featured character(s)". A "Visited planet" column wouldn't be too unusual.

The few planets that are visited repeatedly (Abydos, Langara, Chulak, Dakara) are usually very closesly associated with a race, so they can/should be covered in more detail in the respective Race article/section. I have made a sample merger in my userspace for season 3 of SG-1, see here. And now I hope for some comments. (As said above, my main wiki attention is also already devoted elsewhere, and I just want to see if this idea is worth something for future considerations.) – sgeureka t•c 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, but it's only useful if the column somehow includes information about what other episodes that planet is visited in. I'm not sure of the best way to do that, though. --Tango (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't that many planets that were visited repeatedly, but here are my proposals: Many of them can simply be linked to the race (e.g. Abydos (Stargate) -> Abydonians (Stargate), Tollana -> Tollan (Stargate)), where all episodes of visit can be mentioned as well. Chulak should be linked to Jaffa (Stargate) as well. The Asgard home galaxy + planets would get a new section in their article. Castiana/Sahal/Vagonbrei would get a mention in Ori (Stargate). Lantea/Atlantis is no problem anyway. M7G-677 (the kid planet from SGA 1x06), which is mentioned several times, would just link to the SGA 1x06 ep entry. Dakara is the only planet where things are not as clear-cut (Ancients, Jaffa, Goa'uld, or Ori), but since it was mostly a plot device for the Jaffa, it should IMO get its main mention there. All other planets would appear unlinked in the List of episodes. – sgeureka t•c 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to merge (not redirect) List of planets in Stargate into the first two season articles of SG-1. Merging into the prose turns out to work better than creating a new column. No problems so far, although the gate addresses look a little crufty (they can be removed later if they are deemed too silly). – sgeureka t•c 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the remaining planet names, designations and addresses to the various season articles (notable exception: the Gate Bridge planets, because they seemed like cruft and don't further the story). Unless there is opposition within the next week or so, I'd merge the few recurring planets (see above) to Mythology of Stargate, and then redirect List of galaxies and planets in Stargate there. – sgeureka t•c 13:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

62.195.5.40 (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, please merge the pages so nothing gets lost.[reply]

Finished. Now redirects to Stargate (device)#Addresses (which hatnote-links to the LoEs for the one-episode planets). Chulak and Dakara were merged into Jaffa (Stargate), the memorable planet names were directed into the Race articles/sections for redundancy reasons, and the one-time planet names+addresses were merged into the Lists of episodes. All redirects fixed. – sgeureka t•c 23:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the featured list List of Stargate SG-1 episodes currently has a tag for unsourced statements. It would be great if a member of this project could take care of the issue, otherwise it may be nominated for removal. Once the issue is resolved, please indicate so here. Thank you, Scorpion0422 15:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the transcluded template {{Stargate DVD Dates/SG1}} has citation tags. I'll try to fix it within the next seven days. – sgeureka t•c 18:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

specialized character template

{{Infobox Stargate character |
| image = 
| caption = Dr. Radek Zelenka
| name = Radek Zelenka
| race = [[Tau'ri|Human]]
| gender = [[Male]]
| birthplace =  [[Czech Republic]]
| family =
| tv = [[David Nykl]]
| first = [[Thirty-Eight Minutes (Stargate Atlantis)|Thirty-Eight Minutes]]|
}}


Radek Zelenka
Stargate Atlantis character
First appearance"Thirty-Eight Minutes"
Created byBrad Wright
Portrayed byDavid Nykl
In-universe information
SpeciesHuman
GenderMale
OccupationScientist
NationalityCzech

What specialty purpose or parameters does {{Infobox Stargate character}} perform that cannot be duplicated by {{Infobox character}}? It appears (see right) that there's no appreciable difference save for colouring or slight layout differences (to which I'm ambivalent, however the latter does allow for specifying its colouring). I'm inclined to nominate the former for deletion in light of the latter, but would like the project's input first. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about doing exactly this a couple of weeks ago, but I was busy and stuff and wanted to give the project time to recover from my project overhauls all the time. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you set the infobox colours according to {{SGColor}} when changing them on the articles? Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the infoboxes of the SG-1 characters yesterday (didn't get to the SGA characters) and used the standard wiki-lightblue instead of the default gray and the old standard {{SGColor}}. I have no strong opinion about the colors, as long as they are the same for all characters (this Wikiproject had about six different colors up until a few months ago). – sgeureka t•c 07:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The colors should not be used; from a real-world encyclopedic perspective they're all just fictional characters on a TV show. -- Yzx (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have no need for specialised stargate templates in any area. It doesn't even make sense to have them. We don't need a stargate charcter template, and we certainly dont need a stargte COLOUR template!!! These should be eschewed at least, deleted at best. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, convert to {{Infobox character}} as fast as you please, then TfD the Stargate template. :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the remaining SG character pages to use {{Infobox character}}, and {{Infobox Stargate character}}/{{Infobox Stargate character}} are orphaned in article space now, although they are still used in user- and project space. {{SGColor}} is now orphaned as well except for several episode articles, so it can be re-introduced for the characters or be completely orphaned (I am neutral on that). – sgeureka t•c 13:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Sgeureka. I feel that the fewer project-specific templates there are, the better. That Infobox Stargate character is used on user-pages really shouldn't be our concern...unless someone wants to use AWB and convert the existing instances to Infobox character. Might also be a good idea to see about cleaning SGcolor from the User space as well...replacing all instances with the default #7F8EB7. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just kill the project specific templates, especially the insidiously useless {{SGColor}}. Colour doesn't matter - use #7f8eb7, use #whatever, it doesn't make a difference - this is no biggie. Kill that bloody template. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very easy to go through and replace SGcolor with a colour code using AWB, and I'd be happy to do so if there is consensus. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow guys great job. I need to check in more often. anyways, support replacing SGcolor.--88wolfmaster (talk) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next step: what color?

So there seems to be consensus to get rid of {{SGColor}} (the template). If we remove it (through AWB or whatever), with what color code do we replace it? Most standard TV templates (e.g. {{Infobox Television}} or {{Infobox Television episode}} have depricated the color parameter so that it doesn't even show up in the documentation anymore; one the other hand, all major TV franchises have their own color. As said above, I have no strong opinion about this as long as we use the same color across all SG articles (per the benefits of pastell colors (WP:COLOR) and the KISS principle, I am leaning slightly towards standard colors though.) – sgeureka t•c 08:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, best case is to use the existing "default" colour of #7F8EB7. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use any colour whatsoever. Use the default, and when I mean default, I mean don't even enter a parameter. The default for the television infobox (which is a shadow grey) will show up if you don't enter a colour parameter, and this is ABSOLUTELY ADEQUATE - COLOUR IS NOT IMPORTANT, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. We have a million more important things to focus on, such as having decent content before we ever need to worry about what colour to use. When the WikiProject is complete, we'll have a discussion about colours and AWB them in. Until then let's not waste any more breath on it! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without the enthusiasm, I agree with User:Aquillyne. A problem with stipulating a specific colour is that other users (not familiar with the project's stipulation) will either not add a colour at all to the box, or will remove it from ones we already have to make them "standardier" with the site. Besides, if we decide to acquiesce to the default, we won't have to discuss or argue (now or later) about why we use one colour over another. I've also seen discussions here and there about depreciating the colouring function altogether from the infoboxes we're discussing; should that happen, we'll be defaulting to ... well, the default anyways. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillyne, erm, please remain calm? This is no big deal...Sgeureka just wanted to establish consensus since removing SGcolor will affect a significant number of pages. It isn't something to get worked up over. That said, and unless someone wants to beat me to it, I'll start removing SGcolor transclusions tomorrow. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I'm passionate but of course I'm calm :) --Aquillyne-- (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SGColor has been removed from every place I can remove it from (except two AfD pages, which I will not touch). If any pages still show it being transcluded into them, it is likely just the server cache. Unless there is an objection, I'll place it into the TfD cycle. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that {{Infobox Television episode}} (which is used in SG episode articles) uses the full-protected {{Television colour}}, which in turn defines 

| Stargate Atlantis        = #7F8EB7
| Stargate SG-1            = #7F8EB7

(that's why SG ep articles still show up in SGColor although the articles themselves don't define a color). I'll wait two days for possible objection here before I place an {{editprotected}} request at that template's talkpage for removal. – sgeureka t•c 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Stargate-stub}} for deletion

I nominated {{Stargate-stub}} for deletion. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BStargate-stub.7D.7D_.2F_Category:Stargate_stubs. – sgeureka t•c 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerger of categories

I boldly upmerged Category:Stargate series to Category:Stargate because the category should either have been named Category:Stargate TV series, or the games and audiobooks be technically merged there as well (because they are series too). If this is fine with everyone else, we should consider upmerging Category:Stargate games too (it's just four articles, and they don't really form a coherent group either). – sgeureka t•c 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article: Mythology of Stargate

I have merged (not redirected) the SG-1 content of one-off races of Races in Stargate and Human civilizations in Stargate SG-1 into the individual episode summaries of the SG-1 season articles. The recurring human civs that don't have their own articles (Tollan, Langarans etc) are also summarized in the respective sections of List of Stargate SG-1 characters. The same can be done with the rest of Races in Stargate and Human civilizations in Stargate Atlantis for Atlantis.

I therefore propose to get rid of the human-civ articles, and move the trimmed Races in Stargate article to Mythology of Stargate (the name is open to debate). This article could also be the new home of Ascension (Stargate) (spans too much of the show to be merged to a single race); minor recurring race articles like Kull Warrior that we'll have problems improving to GA although their current article isn't bad; recurring locations of List of planets in Stargate, and (parts of) Atlantis (Stargate) and Stargate Program (I'm just brainstorming). Compare Mythology of Carnivàle, Mythology of Lost, Mythology of Heroes, Harry Potter universe, or Universe of The Legend of Zelda. This article will hopefully increase the real-world focus of in-universe information (as far as that's possible) and discourage the addition of extremely minor plot details for the sake of being complete (e.g. the article name of Races in Stargate encourages the inclusion of the Gadmeer, but Mythology of Stargate wouldn't). This proposal is the first step of a bottom-up equivalent of Aquillyne's top-bottom proposal #To get rid of fancruft once and for all from above. – sgeureka t•c 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good proposal, and would be an excellent place to discuss such matters as how the Goa'uld characters were influenced by real-world Egyptian, Celtic, etc mythos. Given that Stargate is basically founded on Earth mythology, the title seems entirely appropriate and would serve a dual purpose (the mythos of the show, and how Earth mythos influenced it). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the idea, but I am a little concrened that since Stargate went on a little (well, in some cases a lot) longer than your examples, I'm just worried that the article may be too long, not that I don't have a problem with long articles, just as long as we find some images to put now and then. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that's a lot to merge into one article. We could try it and see how it goes, we can probably find a way to split it in two if it gets too long. Incidentally, I would merge Kull Warrior into Goa'uld if anywhere - they are just a drone form of Goa'uld, after all. --Tango (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd officially propose each full merger before I perform them. The intention of this thread was just to ask if everyone is fine with the basic restructuring of Races into Mythology, and to get rid of the one-time races or civilisations (as they are/will be summarized in the respective episode summaries). I'll be considerate of article length for anything I do. – sgeureka t•c 18:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like this suggestion and I don't think it'd be that long an article. The way it seems to me, it would only warrant the major races being mentioned (you can forget Kull Warriors - they're an arc in Season 7, and not much else. Plot synopses cover them). This would be a great place to mention the System Lords and Egypt, the Asgard and Norse, the Ancients and Romans, the Furlings and Mayans, the Wraith and Vampires, etc., etc. That's about it though? --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved and merged Ascension (Stargate) there (to be trimmed). A lot of copyediting is necessary to refocus the article. I am busy with other (SG) articles ATM but will get around to this article eventually. Feel free to propose any mergers into that article. – sgeureka t•c 12:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stargate spacecraft

I think this category should be considered for deletion, as there's only three articles on them now since those merges with all various spaceships into a couple of pages. I could do it, but I was just wondering if anybody has any thoughts or objections to it first. Thanks -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, so I boldly upmerged this category to Category:Stargate technology. The empty category can be deleted in four days via {{db-catempty}} without much bureaucracy. – sgeureka t•c 12:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observations for character articles

After the months-long efforts to merge nonnotable articles (quantity problem), I have been working on improving the coverage of SG-1 characters for a few months now to solve the quality problem (I always have GA/FA/FL/FT in mind as the ultimative article goal). I have come to the following conclusions:

  • Characters who appeared only once are nearly always insignificant for understanding the show and don't need to be covered in Lists of Characters at all. If need be, they can be mentioned in the List of Episodes. The only exception I can think of is Reese, but she was also mentioned repeatedly after her one-time appearance, and has a deserved place in Replicator#Background.
  • Characters who appeared twice still don't need to be covered in LoCs and should be cross-linked in the LoEs instead. This also applies to memorable 2ep characters like Linea and Felger - unless someone can add a few lines of real-world info.
  • Characters who appeared at least three times generally have an impact on the show (although some named background characters like General Vidrine or Julia Donovan screw with this observation)
  • Character arcs can usually be summarized in one paragraph for 3ep+ characters, in 2-3 paragraphs for really major recurring characters, and no more than 4-5 paragraphs for main characters. Original research is a common source for bloated character descriptions, and only in the fewest cases is it important to note that someone is allergic to citrus fruit or is an avid birder.
  • Unlike the SG-1 team members, Hammond and Landry have neither a real character arc nor tons of real-world info about them, so they may not need an article
  • With the above in mind, all SG-1 characters can be covered in the following three lists unless someone improves them into a WP:SPINOUT:

If everyone is fine with it, I'd go ahead and rework the three SG-1 character lists to what I said above (someone have better names?). These observations may also give some insight/direction what to do with the SGA characters, and where to go with the race articles (the new Mythology of Stargate article opens a whole set of new options). – sgeureka t•c 21:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a wacked out project that soon won't have a character article for Hammond yet two of the one season characters have articles (and to forestall any questions I like those characters and actors ) .Garda40 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how wacked out a project must be if it tries to improve all its articles to GA and beyond, meeting all wikipedia policies and guidelines in the process. Those quality-obsessed wikipedians, *tsk*... – sgeureka t•c 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How Interesting .You didn't actually answer the question .Garda40 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the question? Who are the one-season characters you're referring to? – sgeureka t•c 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can merge in etc and yet you apparently don't know Who are the one-season characters you're referring to .Odd ? Garda40 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, really, who are the one-season characters in SG-1? O'Neill=10, Carter=10, Daniel=10, Teal'c=10, Hammond=10, Jonas=3, Mitchell=2, Landry=2, Vala=3. All other SG-1 characters are already covered in lists. – sgeureka t•c 15:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did not find any characters that were only in one season that were linked to their own article, so I have no idea what characters are being referred to.--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow .People are being literal with their season count .Jonas is really a one season character ,his own article makes that clear (for reasons related to Michael Shanks ) .Technically he did appear at the end of season 5 and start of season 7 plus one other episode but to count him as a 3 season character is like counting Ra as part of the TV series. Technically true but giving a misleading impression . Garda40 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be reluctant to consider Chevron Guy as a zero-season character after his appearing in 100+ episodes. In the end, an article fictional topic must be supported by real-world info and sourced analysis, and it seems Hammond is going to be weak on that no matter what we do (or someone has a couple of interviews or books that I am not privy to, but we'll see). – sgeureka t•c 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Stargate

What are we going to do with Portal:Stargate? It is only transcluded ("mentioned") in three articles (although it is linked from every {{stargateproject}} banner}}, it's terribly outdated (it reports the beginning of SGA Season 4 as news), it is built from a mess of transluded subpages, and it covers nearly the same ground as Stargate. I only ever come across it when I am doing category/template/incoming_link cleanup. It's got some references that can be used in other articles, but I don't feel we should leave it around for further rotting (WP:MFD?). – sgeureka t•c 14:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, we have a Portal? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion

I have done some more cleanup in the Stargate maintainance space and have nominated several unused templates for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 25. I'll TfD a few more unused SG templates later this day. – sgeureka t•c 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate Atlantis episodes

Opinions would be welcome here. Matthew (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Stargate works

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Stargate works, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stargate works. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Stargate

Portal:Stargate, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Stargate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Stargate during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 15:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

While I haven't made regular contributions to the project as a whole, I have made the odd contribution at an article level. I would like to raise the subject of 'spoilers'. Granted a spoiler is generally the provenance of fan pages rather than Wikipedia, it constantly distresses me that the outcome of story arcs, and this case, aspects of the final episode of SGA Earth_starships_in_Stargate#Named_ships.

I would be most pleased if there could be some discussion as to how this can be managed. I would like to suggest some kind of markup for plot-description that has recently aired, such as bold-facing or italicising. A cap, tilda could be used in the heading of the relevant section.

I may be a lone voice on that matter, and if that is the case I'll accept the rule of the majority and try and manage my viewing habits. (EgI do not presently look at any articles pertaining to SGA as it is not aired in Australia presently)

Anyways, best for the festive season to all. Paul Roberton (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a sticky point for Wikipedia as a whole. Like you, I'm just being really careful about what I browse and look at for fear of unwanted spoilers. Take a look at WP:SPOILERS for the generally accepted site-wide consensus on spoilers. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Paul Roberton (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten how to execute reverts on articles, can someone please revert Earth_starships_in_Stargate#Named_ships please? I'd like to reiterate my suggestion to lock the article. Thanks.

Paul Roberton (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected by User:Huntster on January 2.[3] Episode airs on January 9, 2009, so protection should be lifted then. – sgeureka t•c 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revise Importance classes

Edit: If no-one knows what I am talking about - see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Stargate articles by quality. – sgeureka t•c 13:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the mergers resulted in less and less Low-importance articles, I think it's time to reconsider the importance scale that won't have to be revised any time soon and won't use its usefulness. My suggestions below are split it into two because history has shown where the reader interests lie (i.e. plot), but I don't want to be unfair to the other camp either because we're a real-world encyclopedia. I feel Top and High marks should be reserved for very special articles that will stick around even if everything else gets removed as fancruft.

Plot-related articles:

Real people:

  • Medium: all main actors, producers, main directors and main writers
  • Low: all multi-season non-main actors whose characters may be able to support their own article in the Good Article sense, e.g. David Nykl (Zelenka), Cliff Simon (Ba'al), Teryl Rothery (Dr. Fraiser), ...
  • Debatable: all non-main actors whose character can definately never support their own article - either remove them from the scope of this project, or rank them as None; all SG-relevant info is/should be included in the character lists
  • Debatable: all other people involved with production or reception with only passing significance, e.g. Pierre Bernard (comedian), Stuart Tyson Smith - either remove them from the scope of this project, or rank them as None; all SG-relevant info is/should be included in the articles for the film/episode/game they worked for

Please leave comments if there is something to agree or disagree with, or if you have an idea for the Debatable stuff, in particular the debatable people articles. I'll implement the Importance changes no earlier than in seven days. – sgeureka t•c 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been decided what external links this wikiproject actually supports for its articles, and I think it's time to make it a little more consistant across the articles we have now. I have seen around:

  • IMDb - has got cast lists, otherwise regarded unreliable
  • SciFi - official but generally low on additional information
  • MGM - official but generally low on additional information
  • Stargate wikia - non-reliable GFDL fanwiki but great for plotty in-universe descriptions, much WP information has been transwikied there
  • SG Solutions wiki - non-reliable fan wiki but great for plotty in-universe descriptions, no association with wikipedia or the GFDL
  • GateWorld - good and somewhat wiki-reliable fansite, usually has no content that a finished article hasn't got either
  • GateWorld omnipedia - non-reliable fan encyclopedia that can usually be replaced by citing primary sources (e.g. episode titles)
  • Screenplays distributed by MGM

Personally, I am very much opposed to the linking to SG Solutions and GateWorld omnipedia at any time. I see the linking to GateWorld pointless in finished subarticles but as a benefit in unfinished articles. I am neutral on the official sites and the official screenplays in subarticles - at least they don't hurt. I see a collaboration with Stargate wikia beneficial if and only if a wikipedia article just cannot delve into the same plot detail as they do (which is usually true for character articles or character/episode lists, but not episode articles). IMDb should be and usually is already the standard for episode articles. Comments? – sgeureka t•c 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some of the articles on the SG Wikia... I think its pretty good stuff. I'd like to suggest that SG Wikia be considered under something like "Further reading" if it complements work here, as it is well organised and generally very exhaustive- the SG in-universe timeline on that site is extremely good. Re IMDb, I think actors own official websites, management websites or actors guild websites(when they can be found) are more credible. Paul Roberton (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up about Athosian

I'll just let you know that I boldly merged Athosian into Teyla Emmagan and its character list section into List of Stargate Atlantis characters#Recurring Athosian characters. Yes, the Athosians appeared or were mentioned in many episodes, and the article was comparibly long[4] - except that the article had no real-world content to justify such a length. It also seems to me that the Athosians didn't really have an impact on the story of Atlantis except for Teyla, who in turn had no real story arc except everything related to the Athosians. A merger therefore reduces/reduced a lot of redundancy, and Teyla can probably establish notability much more easily and from a better real-world perspective overall. I have previously merged the Langarans into the article of Jonas Quinn for the same reason. If someone believes this merger requires more discussion, feel free to restore the article. – sgeureka t•c 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of filming locations in and around Vancouver?

Should this get your project template? I'll list myself as a "sympathizer", partly because I'm fairly useful in identifying sets/locations; see the list's talkpage article also for a discussion of further BC-related locations article issues.Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{stargateproject}} talkpage template: I'd say yes, as the article has a lot of information that's directly relevant for Stargate fans and non-fans, so it should fall under the scope of this project. But as Stargate is only part of the list, I'd mark it as {{Stargateproject|class=List|importance=low}}.
  • {{stargate}} article naviation template: No, because if every show did that, the lower part of the article would get extremely messy.
– sgeureka t•c 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goa'uld

The Goa'uld page needs some work. Info on how the Goa'uld effects (i.e. flanging are done), and how Ra wasn't going to be an alien until very late in filming ought to be added. Also, we should add more info about the culture and inflence on their worshippers. This should be about their culture, biology, and "behind-the-scences" info, not how many episodes Yu appeared in. --[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the how, but the that. Goa'uld certainly has GA potential, maybe even FA potential, but (at least for me) it's not the lack of knowledge how to properly rewrite and expand the article, but simply time. As is with many of the current Stargate articles, unfortunately. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on improving it.--[[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Stargate_task_force&oldid=268955505"