< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:19, 31 August 2008 editHuntster (talk \| contribs)Administrators47,429 edits →Bold GA delisting of Stargate SG-1: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:34, 21 July 2024 edit undoIznoBot (talk \| contribs)Bots27,818 editsm →[] of []: Task 4: Remove/replace substed TemplateStyles tagTag: AWB
(327 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archive= Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive %(counter)d
			\|algo= old(31d)
			\|maxarchivesize= 150K
			\|minthreadsleft= 5
			\|counter=12
			}}
	{{/Header}}		{{/Header}}
	<!-- When archiving, leave the above line alone -->		<!-- When archiving, leave the above line alone -->
			== New sister project proposal ==

			Hi, you may want to see . --] (]) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
	== SG-1 Episode notability ==

	As already stated a few sections above (]), all SG episode articles will be up for review some time in the not-so-far future. It is current consensus among most of the reviewers that only those article should be allowed to have their own article if they either assert notability (e.g. by awards, see ]), or offer significant encyclopedic coverage (production, casting, reception, other noteworthy things, see ] for an example). Episode notability/review discussion usually take about a month. I am an SG-1 fan (not so much SGA) with some spare wiki time at the moment, so I would like to get a headstart before the results of the discussions (usually redirects) are ''enforced by consensus''. I have already made a list of episodes that received award recognition above; they can survive on their own for now, so they will be exempt from my following plans. I will also ignore every episode starting with Season 4 because of the audio commentaries. So that leaves the majority of the first three season episodes. My plan is to start ], ], and ]. All episode plot will be trimmed&merged there, leaving redirects to the respective season article. The articles can still be revived anytime as soon as they assert real-world notability or significant secondary information (as outlined above).

	An other or additional option (which I am trying to look into) is transwikiing the full episodes to ], which would leave them outside the scope of wikipedia notability guidelines and they can get as detailed in plot as the editor wants. ] (the ] wikiproject) has already had some experience in this matter that we could draw from. Articles from wikia can also be re-imported into wikipedia very easily if somebody wants to work on an episode article in a more encyclopedic environment.

	But before I start with anything, I need to know if there is resistance about these plans from within this project. If it turns out that too many SG-1 editors here want to work from the perspective of fandom instead of a (real-world) encyclopedia, I'll admit that I don't have the stamina to argue the points of ], ] and ] (and some more) to guideline-ignorant editors, and that I'll find other wikipedia articles to work on. Others can then try their luck in persuading consensus in the ep notability/review discussion to keep all articles, which was almost always unsuccessful, as far as I am aware of. (This is not so much a threat, but a likely prediction of what ''will'' happen, in case if you have not been previously aware of the procedure.) If you'd like to state your support, you can certainly do so, but I just want to know about resistance now. :-) – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

	:To be fair, the issues with episode articles can't be described as simply as being ''" work from the perspective of fandom instead of a (real-world) encyclopedia"''. Having been involved in the development of the episode review process, I honestly don't think it accurately represents a community-wide perspective, and as such it isn't fair to describe it as a consensus. The review process has never been vetted by the larger community, and it is used primarily as justification for merges that are really soft deletes (since no effort is made to integrate material into the destination articles). In fact, there are several rather strident "merge" supporters who are going after articles with a zeal that goes far beyond any typical "cleanup" program, and who have openly expressed disdain for these sorts of articles in general.
	:Worst of all, there has been little or no attempt to find any sort of middle ground; those who oppose merges are dismissed as "fans", or of being ignorant of Misplaced Pages's conventions. Editors who oppose "merges" are told - often quite rudely - that their opinions don't matter, or that their work is rubbish, or that they should go to a "fan site" instead. (The "other site" nudge is, I think, quite troubling, as such a move would inevitably lead to articles that incorporate all of the nonsense - speculation, theories, etc. - that we are able to filter out on Misplaced Pages. Not everyone who opposes merges is interested in a "free-for-all"...)
	:Sgeureka, ''please'' don't take this as a rant against you personally; I actually quite respect the fact that you have made an effort to develop and present your plans here. (All too often, the "notification" consists of a form letter and a lot of pushy statements about how resistance is futile...) I just think that we shouldn't be taking the attitude that the process is automatically correct, and that the outcome is inevitable. Thoughts? --''']'''''<small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small>'' 08:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

	::Thanks for adding your last paragraph. It seemed at first like you were opposing (my) cleanup attempts because of the actions of others (with whom I may both agree or disagree). In the end, resistance ''is'' futile when you don't have guidelines and policies covering your six, but if I/we can "save" the most important information by bringing it in line with guidelines and policies (and/or by simply transwikiing it), we can prevent any nastiness by preventing an externally enforced review process. And that's all I'm hoping for ...and make wikipedia better in the process. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 12:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

	::: As one of those who does not read this portal I came here after finding that the episode articles I often refer to have suddenly vanished. Trim the articles of excessively verbose material if you must but don't delete it all! I doubt I am the first who will come here to find out what happened. Noting my <b>strong objection</b> to this merge/delete/migration. --] (]) 05:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


	== Tau'ri does not apply on Atlantis ==

	Can we please just call them human and be done with it? Tau'ri is in universe speak and should be avoided. We haven't heard that word spoken on Atlantis at all, even when Cromwell was host to a Goa'uld. - ] @ 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	:The problem is (and I have no other solution for this), Jonas is human, but he is not Tau'ri. Vala is human, but she is not Tauri. The list goes on for e.g. Teyla and Ronan. In the same manner, Langaran, Aschen, Athosian etc. technology are not Tau'ri although they are human. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	::"from Earth"? "Terran"? Tau'ri isn't really a good choice. How many people even know how to spell it? Probably just us obsessives! --] (]) 12:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: :-) I was talking more from the perspective on how to call the ]-related articles: ], ], ], and ]. And I am currently proposing a new article called ] (which of course I should have spelled ]). I am not really happy about the term myself, but as I said, it's the best we currently have. I think "Terran" is even more obscure than "Tau'ri", and "from Earth" is impracticable in article titles (IMO). – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 13:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::What about "Earth starships in Stargate", and so forth? It doesn't seem that grammatically offensive. -- ] (]) 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Reading this thread again, I wouldn't object to that at all. See below however. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	The current "Tau'ri" articles are:
	*] -- there are only few things to say that are not PLOT (] and ] problems), but this article (1) could serve as a merge target for other Tau'ri articles or (2) could be merged with the ] article (currently a redirect)
	*] -- I'm still thinking of merging it with the SG-1 Tau'ri char article someday because of the significantly-shared universe (the main characters, Walter, Siler, Dr. Lee, Agent Barrett, some of the Earth ship characters, Lorne, Dr. Novak, Zelenka, Woolsey - although the last two may be able to support their own articles). Requires time-consuming trimming though.
	*] -- see above
	*] -- I like the idea of merging it with the ] article (currently a redirect)
	*] -- depending how strict ]/] will become towards "]", this may get merged into ] (could take years though or not happen at all)
	*] -- depending how strict ]/] will become towards "]", this may get merged into ] (could take years though or not happen at all)
	Nothing that requires any immediate attention, but we could keep it in the back of our collective brain. The problem with "Tau'ri" in the article title could therefore solve itself almost on its own. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Stargate Atlantis episodes being transwikied and about to be redirected, Stargate SG-1 episode about to be redirected ==

	Although this has already been announced elsewhere, I'm making a note here in case somone missed it:

	* ] is still open, but the lack of any comments leads me to believe that there is no opposition, so I will do what I think is right in about one or two weeks.
	* ] details what is about to happen with the Atlantis episodes, also due to the lack of progress otherwise

	– ] <sup>]•c</sup> 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	==]==

	] is up for GA review. If someone wants to read over it, go ahead. I don't see a reason why the GA should fail, and I'll try to rework the other character articles in the same manner by first removing the ] and the unnecessary ], later by adding real-world content. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

	==]==

	I have experessed my concerns about this page at ]. – ] <sup>]•c</sup> 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
	:It just occurred to me that there is a verifiable source for all the info in the article: the GateWorld Primer.--]-- (]) 14:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The GW primer (which currently just gives you a a 404 error) doesn't state in which month what takes places, so the months are original research. If the months are removed, the timeline becomes redundant with the List of episodes. What may be salvagable (IMO) is the timeline of what the Ancients did. But I think all of this is already present in prose in the Ori and Ancients articles. I have already asked an admin at the ] if they are interested in the timeline (including a complete transwiki), and he'll get back to me. So once the remaining issues are ironed out, I think AfD is the right action unless someone can come up with a better idea. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 15:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Short episode summaries on List of episodes, and long summaries on season pages ==

	Thanks to ], it is now possible to show short episode summaries in the LoE, while showing long episode summaries in the season articles. To do that, the episode template now allows a new parameter called LongSummary. If this new parameter has not been added yet to an episode template, ShortSummary will be transcluded instead. As per ]'s concern in ], my initial plan to remove all episode summaries in the LoE is thus off the table.

	<nowiki>{{</nowiki>Episode list/Stargate
	\|EpisodeNumber=3
	\|Title=]
	\|Aux1=]
	\|WrittenBy=]
	\|DirectedBy=]
	\|OriginalAirDate= ], ] (])
	\|EpisodeNumber2=102
	\|ShortSummary=After being...
	\|'''LongSummary'''=After being infested by a ] parasite in the previous episode...
	\|LineColor=2A52BE
	}}
	– ] <sup>]•c</sup> 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	May God Bless You Always!

	I question the edits that an IP Address made on the above page, but do not know much about Stargate. Maybe someone from this group could review the edits and make a more informed decision. Thank you. (] (]) 02:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

	:I've it for the time being. There were so many typos and formatting errors that I saw no other option, but I unfortunately don't remember all the details of the current status. Someone may want to go over it again and restore the changes that are true. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
	::I've gone through the version you revert to and it fits with my memory of events except for one missing entry, the ZPM brought to Atlantis by the replicators and kept there (and depleted in ]), which I've added. --] (]) 14:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


	==Stargateproject: Articles of unclear notability==
	Hello,

	there are currently 95 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with ]. I have listed them ]. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of {{date\|2008-03-12}} and may be slightly outdated.)

	I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether ] can be added, whether the articles can be ] into an article of larger scope, or possibly be ]. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see ].

	If you have any questions, please leave a message on the ] or on ]. (I'm not watching ''this'' page however.) Thanks! --] (]) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Stargate navigation templates ==

	There are currently six navigation templates for the ''Stargate'' articles on wikipedia, namely {{tl\|StargateLists}}, {{tl\|Stargate Races}}, {{tl\|StargateTech}}, {{tl\|StargateTopics}}, {{tl\|Stargate Characters}} and {{tl\|Stargate SG-1 Seasons}} (with the new ''Atlantis'' season articles, another one could be created). Most of them are overlapping quite a bit. I have thus merged all of them into one template, see below.

	{{Navbox
	\|name = StargateNav
	\|titlestyle=background: {{SGColor}};
	\|title= '']''
	\|group1=Production
	\|list1= '']''{{•}} '']'' {{•}} '']''{{•}} '']''{{•}} '']''{{•}} '']''{{•}} '']''{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group2=Television
	\|list2= ] (Season ]{{·}} ]{{·}}]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]){{•}} ] (Season ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]{{·}} ]){{•}} ]
	\|group3=SG-1 characters
	\|list3= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group4= Atlantis characters
	\|list4= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group5=Races and factions
	\|list5= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]s{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}}{{nowrap\| ]}} {{•}} ]{{•}} Human civilizations (]/])
	\|group6= Characters by race
	\|list6= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group7= Technology by race
	\|list7= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} Jaffa{{•}} ]{{•}} Replicators{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group8= Starships
	\|list8= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	\|group9=Miscellaneous
	\|list9= ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}}{{nowrap\| ]}}{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ] ('']''{{•}} '']''){{•}} ] ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]{{•}} ]
	}}

	(A few of the articles are still up for a merge, so the template may become still a little smaller). Would there be opposition if I replaced the current nav templates with the new one? It can be put on auto-collapse or not. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	: I believe something in this template has increased the horizontal margains by a substantial amount. I can't see it actually, but I have to assume it's the template. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
	::The template looks fine to me - there was something a couple of sections up that was causing horizontal scrolling (I've now removed it). --] (]) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::: Awesome, thanks. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 00:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:Seems rather large to me - do we need that many navigation aids? --] (]) 00:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::Do you mean the number of nav templates we currently have? If yes, would you rather have them merged into, say, three different nav templates? Or did you mean there should only be one nav template like above, but the number of links given there should be cut down (i.e. leaving out some pages in the nav template)? – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::The latter. The merged template seems far bigger than necessary to have on every Stargate article. We should either have a smaller single template, or keep the separate templates so we can just add the ones that are relevant to each article. --] (]) 15:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
	::::I've been giving this some thought, but I am having trouble to find decent split points for the proposed main template and not come up of what we currently have. I'll try to find possibilities for merging some of our current templates (bottom-up approach instead of top-down), to see if that works better. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

	As comprehensive as this template is, I think its too bulky. I have tried to condense {{tl\|StargateNav}} and tried to combine that with {{tl\|StargateTopics}} (so as to possibly replace it). The source code is available .--] (]) 03:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) <!-- {{User:88wolfmaster/Sandbox}} -->

	:Actually, I like yours better than my attempt. It is very clearly arranged, and the elements are grouped by show or not, depending on common sense. This will/would also make the template easier to expand and maintain if ''Stargate Universe'' gets greenlit. The only templates that may be necessary then is one for technology (probably a wise idea anyway - there is just so much, even when trimmed) and one for the character lists by race (although I am exploring in how far it is wise to trim&merge some/most character lists into the respective race articles and collaborate with ] for ], like I am currently doing with ]). Last but not least, it can be argued that the "Universe" section in your template should go below the shows, and that ''Ark of Truth'' and ''Continuum'' can be moved into the ''SG-1'' section, but that's one of the more trivial decisions for later. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 09:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	::I am glad you like it. As for the trivial decisions, its easy enough to move the universe section and I can just add extra links to the films under SG-1 next to the seasons part - but i wold like to keep them under franchise (kinda like how SG-1 and SGA are still linked there) until we have enough films to warrant a whole article.--] (]) 10:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::It seems there is no opposition to your template, so I'll go ahead and replace my code for {{tl\|StargateNav}} with yours (with credit). {{tl\|StargateTopics}}, {{tl\|StargateLists}}, and {{tl\|Stargate SG-1 Seasons}} thus become obsolete, and {{tl\|Stargate Atlantis Seasons}} will not be created in the first place. {{tl\|StargateTech}} should/will remain like it is, especially since it seems like the tech lists, the starship lists, and some odd single pieces of technology ;-) are here to stay. The future of {{tl\|Stargate Races}} is uncertain at the moment: it is somewhat useful, but at the same time, the article ] (and by extend ] and ]) already carries its burden. I am unsure about {{tl\|Stargate Characters}} per my comment above, so the decision about its future should be left for later (probably much later). I'll begin work now. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	:I can't believe it took this long to notice this, but we are should to come up with an new name for the second section (Universe) so as not to add confusion with the upcoming series. Also was there a particular reason why you removed the link for that section?--] (]) 21:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	::It was a , the test didn't work, and while I was trying to figure out why it didn't work (I never found out), I forgot to revert as promosed. I have the link now, of course. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
	::As for the other part of your question - "Fictional universe" or "World " may work. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

	==AfD nomination of Timeline of Stargate==
	]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:adw --> (I have been given this a lot of thought over the past two months, but I always come to the same conclusion that a (proposed) deletion is the best option.) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

	== What should we call the Ancients? ==

	Two IPs are persistently changing every occurrence of the word "]" to "Alterans" in ]. While this is what they are called in their home galaxy, it is not their name from the perspective of the Tau'ri, or what they are commonly called in the show (except by characters from their home galaxy). Should this be reverted? The equivalent would be somebody going through the entire French Misplaced Pages and changing every occurrence of "Anglais" to "English", because that is what the English people call it. As Stargate is written from the perspective of the Tau'ri (which I realise is the same thing from a Goa-uld perspective, but it's easier to say Tau'ri than 'people from Earth'), and the article is named Ancient, shouldn't they be referred to on Misplaced Pages as the Ancients, not the Alterans? —]∴ ''']]]''' 19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
	:The Ancients were introduced in ''SG-1'' Season 2 as "The Ancients", were continued to be called this way until early Season 9 of ''SG-1''. To my knowledge, they are still (mainly) being called the Ancients on both ''SG-1'' and ''Atlantis''. That makes it obvious to me how they should be called. The beginning of the ] article makes everything else clear. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 19:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
	:99% of the time on the show, they are called "ancients", so that's the name we should use. The alternatives should be mentioned, of course, but not used routinely. --] (]) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

	==Lists of Stargate topics==
	]
	A ] template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl\|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ].

	Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:PRODWarning --> – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	==AfD nomination of Lists of Stargate topics==
	]An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:adw --> – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 06:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Articles and topics in ] ==

	I have re-arranged the articles in ] (formerly known as ]) to see what ] are possible with Stargate articles. Although this WikiProject has no quality assessment (stub, start, B-class, GA, FA/FL, see ]), I went ahead and have added the current quality of each article (minus seasons, episodes and cast&crew) that I perceived as right. I may later add a parameter to {{tl\|stargateproject}} so that the assessment is displayed there as well. Articles where I believe a merge may be beneficial sometime in the future per ], are bolded; basically, every stub- or start-class article on single fictional elements may be considered for a merge down the line, but I also have no doubt that e.g. the articles on the main characters can be easily improved to at least B-class quality, often even FA-class level. The quality of lists of fictional Stargate elements (mostly characters and technology) are currently of not so much concern, so I left them most of them out of the considerations. Now that the majority of episode articles and the really poor articles are taken care of, I intend on spending my time evenly now on trimming&merging, and expanding the articles that should stay. I think apart from getting the current B-class articles to GA, I will focus on getting the SG-1 characters topic to Featured Topic. Just for transparency. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 12:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

	== Tlak'kahn ==

	Who are these guys. The Stargate Infinity page doesn't say. ] (]) 16:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

	== New MOS for TV ==

	The television community currently has an MOS guideline under proposal, and would appreciate all comments at ] in order to have the best possible guide for television related articles. ] ] 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

	== New template ==

	] and I have designed a new master template for navigation so that all former templates are combined in one - see . Before I go ahead and replace all former templates with this new version, I thought I'd ask how many people are totally opposed to this idea. The design of the "Fictional Universe" part itself is just ''one'' idea for arrangement and can still be changed and tweaked after the fact through the normal edit process. Comments? – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 12:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Generally speaking, I like it. I think some thought needs to go into deciding which parts should be shown by default on which pages (should the list of SG-1 characters be shown on an article about Atlantis? should the Fictional Universe section be shown by default on articles that are part of it? etc). I'm not sure of my views regarding that, but will give it some thought. --] (]) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Per ], it is possible to hide sections (not line in sections) via the \|selected= parameter, but I have left it blank for now (it/they would be huege). I have replaced the old {{tl\|StargateNav}} with the proposed code, replacing all the other nav templates. {{tl\|StargateLists}} (an old template), {{tl\|Stargate Races}}, and {{tl\|Stargate Characters}} are orphaned in mainspace and now redirect to StargateNav, while {{tl\|StargateTopics}} (an old template) and {{tl\|StargateTech}} are also redirects there but are still transcluded in mainspace. Technically speaking, the first three templates could be nominated for deletion. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
	I have only one thing to say. The sooner we delete or ignore ] the better. It appeared in 2 episodes in a 214 run. That's low notability if ever there was. Remove it from the template, and PROD it too. --]-- (]) 03:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I've been meaning to merge that article ''forever''... But I could never force myself to read the article to find mergable bits (except obviously the last section). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 06:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I think the template needs a link to ] and ], which are important topics (albeit in-show). I actually think those and all related articles should be merged into a single one under ] (currently a redirect) or something similar, which could then also serve as a parent article for the Earth character pages. -- ] (]) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
	::I've added the two links to the template. I've thought of proposing a merger of ] and ] into ], but I like your idea even better (i.e. to create ]). This could also hold the ] article that is long and sourced but unfortunately very in-universe-]. But we need to watch out to not blow the ] limit, which may require careful trimming. As always, transwikiing excessive material to ] will be the most sensible solution. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 06:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

	==] nominated for speedy deletion==

	This template was in short use for a while, but its purpose is already fulfilled by the general nav template, and it has been orphaned for months. I therefore nominated it for speedy deletion, which can be objected within the next seven days. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	== TfD nomination of ] ==
	] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Do what with trimmed character lists? ==

	I am currently working on SG character lists. I originally wanted ] to become something like ] (]'s work) or ] (my work, a Featured Article now), but the SG-1 char list is already beyond the size limit although it only holds one third of the characters I originally wanted to include (not counting the main characters, which should be able to support their own articles up to GA level and beyond). However, I just finished reducing the plot details in ] to GA/FA-level depth, and it's only 10kB. Generally speaking, only the characters who have appeared in several episodes (3+) got their own section, while the others were moved as bullet-pointed summaries into the Minor characters section. Production info is kind of slim on Asgard characters since they are first and foremost puppets, and info about the puppets should go to the Race article.

	Now, I imagine that character lists like ], ], ], ], and ] won't also be much longer after a necessary trim, although some character sections can be expanded with info from audio commentaries and gateworld interviews etc. (I am leaving ], ], and ] out of this discussion for their obvious size, and I can't yet comment on ] and ] for various reasons).

	So, the options are:
	# Leave the lists in their trimmed form and do nothing, period.
	# Merge&redirect the trimmed lists into the respective Race articles, e.g. merge ] into ]. I have already done this with ] once, which now redirects to ], and it doesn't look bad, also for improving the Race articles to GA or keeping the Race articles around in the first place in the light of (the still proposed) ].
	## In parallel, merge the characters with their own sections into ]/] and turn their sections in the Race article into bullet-points (linking to ]), so that all major characters are first and foremost described in the ] article, but are accessible from the Race article
	## In parallel, merge a one/two paragraph summary of the really significant characters into ] and link to their (long) sections in the Race article via {{tl\|Main}} (or just link their bolded names, as is already done with e.g. the main characters there).
	# Merge&redirect the trimmed lists into ] and remove the bullet-pointed characters as too insignificant - ] can give detail on one-time characters.
	# Something different altogether

	I personally favor option 2.2 as the best middle ground for presentation, quality, depth, navigation, and pleasing both inclusionists and deletions, but I need the input from others before going ahead with something so drastic. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:2.2 sounds good, but I'm concerned about how long you expect the "long" versions to be. If 2 paragraphs is a summary, the long versions must be pretty long, is there that much to say? I think if you can justify more than 3 or 4 paragraphs, you can justify putting it in its own article. --] (]) 16:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::The long versions? ] currently has (basically) four long-ish paragraphs, two of them with significant-ish production info, that can't be trimmed much further. She is already borderline to getting her own article back. So I'd say the long summaries can be as long as they need to be, but should have no more than <s>one or two</s> a handful of sentences of plot summary per episode at most. Once there are more than four or so substancial paragraphs for a non-main character, such as for ], the articles pretty much pass the proposed ] and become undeletable in practise, so they can their own article, I'd say. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::I agree that 4 paragraphs is around the right place to draw the line. A 2 paragraph summary of a 3 paragraph description doesn't seem right to me. If the subject only warrants 3 paragraphs, those 3 paragraphs should go in one place only, with a couple of sentences to summarise them anywhere else it's needed. If they warrant more than that, they can have their own article, and a slightly longer summary elsewhere. --] (]) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::How about the following? (I am still brainstorming; ] is still a work pit, and I haven't touched the redirects of characters who have their own Race-char-list article.)
	::::* no Race article (e.g. Narim, Martin Lloyd) -> all paragraphs in Main char article, redirect redirects to Main-char article
	::::* 1 paragraph in Race article -> don't mention in Main-char article but if truly significant make 1:1 copy to Main-char article, redirect redirects to Race article
	::::* 2+ paragraphs in Race article -> 1 trimmed paragraph in Main-char article with {{tl\|Main}}, redirect redirects to Race article
	::::* >4 paragraphs in Race article -> 1 trimmed paragraph in Main-char article with {{tl\|Main}}, think about spinning out the character into own article if enough real-world info present
	::::This would make the Main-char article more of a portal of manageable size for the non-fan who found it through hatnotes or nav templates, while redirects and the search box still lead the interested reader to the detail is looking for. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::Sounds good. Although, perhaps characters with 1 paragraph in the Race article should get just their name (linking to the Race article) listed on the main-char article under an "Other Asgard", or whatever, section? Also, if you have more than 4 paragraphs in the race article without enough real world info to make a separate article, we should consider trimming the description since it's probably an excessive plot summary. --] (]) 19:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::::I like your idea as it solves a lot of problems. I've already laid the foundation stone in the main character list now and think the basic structure is set. The only characters that have mostly untrimmable plot summaries but no real-world info are the likes of Moros, who have a huge fictional mythology, but who rarely appear on screen. But fortunately, such characters are rare from an editing view point. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::The basic structure looks good. There's lots of trimming to do, especially in the miscellaneous characters section, I might give you a hand with that tomorrow. Moros is a special case, if only because he's based on a real world legend (you could say the same about the Goa'uld, I guess, but not to anywhere near the same extent) - let's worry about him later! I imagine we could get a whole article out of him if we tried, comparing the Stargate depiction to the legends (need to be careful of OR, of course). --] (]) 03:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

	Hey, guys just got a chance to look at this and it looks good. I was wondering though is there a reason that Richard Woolsey has a main article template and bullet? cause it stands out from the rest of the page.--] (]) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
	:That was an arbitrary decision. When I restructured the page yesterday with Tango's suggestions in mind, I chose to add hatnotes for each main character, together with hatnotes for the Race char lists. Since Woolsey is likely important enough to get his one-paragraph section in the list, and since he got his own article as an ''Atlantis'' main character, he got a hatnote as well (for now). All of this may change significantly as the article gets finetuned (with a chainsaw). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 09:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

	===Related note===
	I am currently aiming to get rid of ] by merging the characters into ] and ]. My planned cut-off level is to only move characters that have appeared (or were mentioned) in at least three episodes, but there are some characters who don't meet this level. How strongly do people feel about keeping the following character sections around in some form: Aris Boch, Dreylock, Hale, Larrin, Linea, Lucius Lavin, Ma'chello, Omoc, Shifu, Travell. I personally believe that Shifu (definately) and Linea and Ma'chello (maybe) should be kept, but I can't comment on Lucius Lavin and Larrin, as they are from ''Atlantis'', with which I am not as familiar. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Before all our episode articles were deleted, it would have been easy - character descriptions just go in the relevant episode articles with links between them if the character is in more than one episode but not enough for a separate mention. Without episode articles, it's difficult, because an description of a character that only appeared in one or two episodes is likely to end up being a plot summary of those episodes, so we might as well recreate the episode articles. Do you think we could recreate the episode articles, but take it slowly and get each one (or each small handful) up to a decent standard (not all the way to GA, but close) before starting on the next? When they were deleted they were mostly just stubs with some plot summary and a few bits of trivia, if we could include character analysis (beyond just plot summaries) and production details (from commentaries) and critical reception (from reviews on Gateworld and similar), they might be able to survive deletion. --] (]) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Almost every SG-1 episode beginning with season 4 that didn't have a Peter DeLuise commentary has good chances to become a GA someday, so I wouldn't mind resurrecting those episode articles with popular characters. This shouldn't be the norm though, as the currently existing articles (which usually have a couple of award nominations to assert notability) should take precedence. We wouldn't do anything wrong though if we just merged the mentioned characters into the respective show character articles for now, independent of my arbitrary inclusion critera. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

	===Progress===

	The table cells below refer to the progress according to trim-and-merge option 2.2 (see above). Some table cells are left blank in the table since a "no" could also imply a final decision, not the lack of progress so far. Most of the trims have been performed by ] and ].

	{\|class="wikitable" width="100%"
	!Finished
	!Article
	!Merge target
	!Trimmed (+size)
	!Merged into ]
	!Merged into ]
	!Merged into Race article
	\|-
	\|
	\|]
	\|{{dunno}}{{Ref_label\|C\|c\|none}} ]
	\|{{yes}} (21kB)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{dunno}}{{Ref_label\|A\|a\|none}}
	\|
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (11kB)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (11kB)
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (12kB)
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|{{dunno}}{{Ref_label\|C\|c\|none}} ]
	\|{{yes}} (55kB)
	\|
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{no}} (for size concerns)
	\|-
	\|
	\|]
	\|{{dunno}}{{Ref_label\|C\|c\|none}} ]
	\|{{yes}} (33kB)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|
	\|-
	\|
	\|]
	\|{{depends}}{{Ref_label\|B\|b\|none}}
	\|{{partial}} (43kB)
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|
	\|
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|{{depends}}{{Ref_label\|B\|b\|none}}
	\|{{yes}} (45kB)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{no}} (for size concerns)
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (19kB)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (15kB)
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (19kB total)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|]
	\|{{yes}} (19kB total)
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|Main character lists
	\|{{yes}} (19kB total)
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{dunno}}{{Ref_label\|A\|a\|none}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|-
	\|{{yes}}
	\|]
	\|Main character lists
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{yes}}
	\|{{n/a}}
	\|-
	\|}

	'''Table legend'''
	* '''a''' {{Note_label\|A\|a\|none}} There are no recurring characters of that race so far.
	* '''b''' {{Note_label\|B\|b\|none}} The Tau'ri character lists could be merged into ''one'' ] article (currently a dab page) if the trimmed size allows it, or be merged into the ] article (whose current information may be merge-moved into the planned ] article), or be left like it is as two separate articles. Either way, it is way too early too tell what to do with it.
	* '''c''' {{Note_label\|C\|c\|none}} Depends entirely on the new article size ''after'' the merger. No article should be more than 40-60kB ''at most'' (although plot trims are preferable to articles and lists that don't establish ]).

	'''Other notes and discussions'''

	Some/most of the mergers into the main character articles still have to be trimmed down to one paragraph (work in progress). Most of the image boxes in the character lists were removed since they were ''way'' larger than the accompanying text, and mostly included information that was redundant with the first sentence in each character description. Images were not removed so far except for those characters who only appear in the main character lists, which will/should only have one main cast image and free images of the actors - the ] enforcers can deal with the images in the Race articles later. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I like the idea of merging ] into ]; as has been discussed before I favor moving away from using that word as it's an externally applied term in the show and isn't used by Earth characters to describe themselves. I do think that (and the other merges) would make the Stargate Program article too long to incorporate a character list as well; I think a single list at something like ] would suffice. I think there shouldn't be two separate lists for Earth characters in both shows, given the degree of overlap between them. -- ] (]) 17:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

	The character lists will be merged into the Race articles shortly, if they haven't been merged already. The Goa'uld char list is still big despite the trim, and will therefore not be merged anytime in the near future, especially since I expect additional real-world info to exist to establish the necessary notability. It's still too early to decide about the future of the Tau'ri char lists, although I should point out that I just removed 62kB of plot and unsourced material of questionable reliability in the SG-1 Tau'ri list, and am still not finished - so article size may or may not be a problem. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 15:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Quality assessment ==

	I have added a rating for quality (and importance) to the {{tl\|stargateproject}} banner in each SG article, except actors etc.. The quality assessment was largely based on ]. The importance is based on the depth-distance of the article back to the parent show, e.g. ''Stargate Atlantis (top) -> Technology in Stargate (high) -> Ancient technology in Stargate (should be mid, but I've rated it high for dominance) -> Zero Point Module (low)''. I am going to set up the new categories and the bot (]) tommorow. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 01:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Merging tech lists ==

	I've trimmed and moved the information from ] to a subsection of the main ] article, as I don't think there's enough on Tok'ra tech to warrant a separate article. I think this can be done for most of the currently separate technology articles, which IMO need trimming anyway to eliminate a lot of duplication and trivial material. What do people think? -- ] (]) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I was thinking that the technology lists should at some time all be considered for a trim and merger into the main ] article, based on their in-universe importance and recurringness. One-off pieces of technology may not deserve more than a bullet point (if at all), although I have several ] magazines covering some pieces of technology (mostly recurring) from seasons 7 through 10 of ''SG-1'' and seasons 1 through 3 of ''Atlantis'' in astonishing real-world-production detail to satisfy ] to at least support the main tech article. I prefer the merger into one Tech list instead of into the Race articles because alien technology usually only becomes mention-worthy because the Earth teams start using them (at which point the race of origin becomes unimportant), not because the technology defines the races (unlike the alien characters). Sectioning the tech by race in the main list is still a good idea.
	:Having said that, I have little interest in scifi technology in general and thus have no real desire to edit the tech articles beyond the now-finished mergers into lists. The space ship articles should be kept separate from the tech article mergers for the time being. I suggest to trim all lists first (like is currently being done with the character lists) and see what we've got before taking action - I anticipate that the Tau'ri and Ancient tech lists will still be huge after a trim, so they may be able to stand on their own. Creating two tech lists à la ] and ] is probably not such a good idea because of the cross-over-ness of the shows, but it's a viable option if the Tau'ri and Ancient tech lists (the main cross-over tech problem) stay separate. I am aware that my opinion may not hold much water in the tech-enthusiastic wiki geekdom. ;-) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 05:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

	:About your work on the Tok'ra tech - yes, that's about how I imagine the depth to be for non-important alien tech (and I don't mind it being summarized like this in the race articles, occasionally linking to sections that cover an important element in more depth like with tretonin). My reply above was more focused on what to do with the more prominent tech, which ] is full of. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Rename ] into ]? ==

	Since forever, I have wondered what to do with the article ]. It's obviously not a race and thus can't be merged into ] for its supposed lack of real-world notability, but at the same time it has too much in-universe significance to simply be deleted. Well, technically the Tok'ra are the same race as the Goa'uld, and the Ori are the same race as the Ancients; I still don't know the technical difference between Relicators and Asurans except for their fictional creators. The Alliance of four great races is also a grouping per "faction", not race. So, I propose to rename ] into ] and merge the Alliance there - or would this open a huge can of worms – IIRC, "]" showed ''humans'', Oranians (i.e. Jup and Tenat) and some Serrakin as belonging to the Lucian Alliance. Factions solely made up of humans will keep their place in the Human Civilization articles. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd be fine with the renaming. I've thought about what to do with ] too and I think that ] is the best merge target. -- ] (]) 20:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I can't say that I'd be all that happy with the name change but i'd have to agree that Races does seem to be place to merge.--] (]) 02:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	::This merger is not high on my current todo list, but if you (or someone else) can think of a better name for the article, don't be shy to let me know. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

	] is a pure fancruft page. It needs to be got rid of. Merge it anywhere. Why not rename ] to ]? --]-- (]) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
	:From a real-world perspective, it is easier to justify a Races article (concept&creation, make-up) than a Factions article (only in-universe differences)... at least I associate political differences with the word "faction" in my native tongue ("Fraktion"), but I could be wrong and it just means "group" in English (would ] be an alternative?). If the word "races" is completely omitted, then the Genii, the Tollan and a few other dominant human civilizations would need to be mentioned as well, but I can't tell whether that's a can of worms or something that would help to give a better overview. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 14:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

	::"Faction" has a similar meaning to "group", yes. To be honest though, now I think about it, "Races", "Factions", "Groups", etc., are ALL far too in-universe. Because from an out of universe perspective, there is no race, group or faction at all, only characters in a TV series. Perhaps we need to do something even more radical, and merge all Race information into a unified CHARACTER article. The character article (]?) will list all the major characters in subsections for each race or faction. There really needn't be a Races or Factions article at all. --]-- (]) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

	:::] comes to mind, which (IIRC) looked exactly like your suggestion and was deleted. (Of course, the wikipedia coverage of Stargate at that time was five times as crufty and redundant as what we now have, so it's like comparing apples and oranges). I'll take a good look around on wikipedia how other scifi/fantasy article groups deal with the "Races" problem, and I'll summarize my findings here then (I won't tackle this before the next weekend, at the earliest). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 11:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

	::::The closest I can think of to the "combined race/character" article that ] suggests is ] (imagine it combined with ] for a better picture), which might work for them (because the combined "monsters and aliens" idea has precedent in DW reference literature), but IMO would turn into a real mess if we attempted it. I wouldn't support getting rid of the race articles anyway, because they are topics separate from the characters they contain. A good example is ], in which there aren't really any "characters" to speak of (unless "non-speaking killing machine #1, 2, 3, etc" counts as being a character, in which case Teal'c's staff weapon probably has more of a story arc) and it's the concept of the ''race'' itself that's significant (with real-life info). While it may not be pretty, I think ] is still the best and least-controversial option. -- ] (]) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Image:StargateWest.jpg listed for deletion ==
	An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|Thank you.}} – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) <!-- Template:Idw --> – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Scope of this wikiproject ==

	In December 2007, I removed the {{tl\|stargateproject}} template (signalling that an article is part of this wikiproject) from who appeared once or twice in minor roles in the series (such as ], ], ], ...), because if even their characters are not notable enough to get more than a line (or a mention in the first place), there is certainly nothing to say about the actors from a Stargate perspective. I did the same for a few other people in the production business. Now that almost all characters are trimmed to non-crufty detail, I removed another yesterday who appeared in less than five episodes, because that's about the level when a Stargate role has impact on the career of an actor and impact on the plot of the series. (And yes, I could have asked here before performing the untagging, but there is barely enough interest to add real-world information to the fictional elements, and even less interest in adding career information to actor articles, so why make a big bureaucratic deal out of it.) All "important" real people that IMO should be part of this wikiproject are listed under ].

	Anyway, I removed the stargateproject template from ] (Egyptologist on the SG film) and ] (production designer on the SG film) again today after I had already removed them in December. Each time, another user immediately added the tags again, and he now pointed to ]. As always, I am trying to not push my views on others when I feel a significant and well-reasoned resistance, but I wonder, what scope do we want to have for this wikiproject? If we keep Smith and Tatopoulos, we might as well tag all actors and people (VisFX, costume designers, cameramen, DOPs, ...) working in the Vancouver television and film business to this project because almost all of them have appeared in or collaborated on the Stargate series at some point in the last 12 years, because in the end the series are just as significant as the film. I wouldn't have a terrible problem with adding these tags, but I consider a ~100/100 (fictional/people) article ratio more desirable for the scope of this wikiproject than a ~100/5000 ratio (wild guess), especially when those 5000 are only vaguely related stubs. Comments? – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I am said other editor, and I argue that '''the guy that created the whole non-English dialogue for the movie''' and '''the guy that designed the pyramid and the city''' are not incidental like some lighting or makeup artist, and most definitely fall within the sphere of this Project, even if you want to tag them of low importance. I hand it to you for broadening the dialogue, and would accept what others decide. ] (]) 09:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

	:The key thing isn't how significant they were to Stargate, it's how significant Stargate was to them. If Stargate is a significant part of what makes them notable enough to get an article, then they should get the tag, otherwise they shouldn't. --] (]) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

	::Point taken. With that in mind, I'd argue that ] has worked on many successful films, so SG doesn't seem banner-worthy for him. And ] seems to draw his (inclusion-worthy) notability from ], not from working on two films, although I may be wrong about that. As far as my (potentially misguided) backward-arguing goes, neither person is mentioned in ] (which I admit is an article of rather poor shape), so that doesn't earn them a banner either. And I am back to square one. (But I'll rather drop this issue not in my favor, than obsess about it for the rest of my wiki involvement until I get my will...) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 19:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I think I was a little simplistic in my description. I think Stargate probably is significant to Patrick Tatopoulos' notability because it's equally significant to his other films (at least, roughly). He's not primarily known for one film, he's known for a whole collection of films, so each of those films is significant. If Dr. Smith's article is to be believed, he's best known for his work on the films, rather than his academic work (he's probably known in academic circles for his academic work, but not among the general population), so he should also get a tag. This issue is nowhere near as simple as I made out, sorry! --] (]) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			== Proposed AfD for Ancient Technology in Stargate ==
	Sorry to be a pain, but the question of this thread somewhat remains: Should this project cover the creative decisions for the fictional topics, or cover the (biographies of the) creators? If we decide on the creative decisions, which has also always been the wording of the scope of this wikiproject, then that information belongs first and foremost in the articles for the fictional topics (like most of the content of GA-] belongs in that article and not ]), and thus the fiction articles get tagged over the creators. I think that's where I am coming from. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
	: I would say the former moreso than the latter, much as we (coughyoucough) have been. In your example of Vala vs. Ms. Black, the articles need to be respectively (I feel): (a) the character and everything that went into developing, marketing, and writing said character, and everything that the character, in turn, affected of importance; and (b) the actress and everything about her specifically. Stargate would probably be a large part of that at this time, but in as much saying: this is what Stargate did to/for Ms. Black, and this is what Ms. Black did to and received from Stargate as it matters to her.<p>Am I rambling? I'm rambling. I'll go now. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I agree, but I didn't want to imply that Black shouldn't be tagged (she should, because that role is far from a blip in her career), but rather illustrate that less than 20% of the 15 real-world info paragraphs of the (very comprehensive) Vala article are suited for the article on the actress. I imagine a similar ratio for other people, which could serve as a basis for deciding what creators (actors, producers, writers,...) get tagged. If all we get for the creators then is one or two sentences in their article, it should really be considered to tag the creators in the first place. Which is the case for the two guys mentioned above. (My ramblings are getting repetitive, so I'll shut up now.) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 06:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			For those not aware, it has been proposed to delete the ] article. The reasons stated are:
	== Articles flagged for cleanup ==

			<blockquote>Completely un-referenced original research and synthesis. The provided references are to Misplaced Pages itself. No viable third-party references are forthcoming, so this piece should be removed as its subject matter is non-notable and therefore the title is not salvageable.</blockquote>
	Currently, 241 articles are assigned to this project, of which 96, or 39.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of {{date\|2008-07-14}}.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See ] for details. More than 150 projects and work groups ], and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

			Personally, I think a lot of good information would be lost if this was deleted, but I am new enough and not familiar enough with wikipedia's policies for any sort of argument on the subject. For those of you who feel it should remain and are able to provide good reasoning, check out the ]. Thanks! --] (]) 18:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
	:<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{#ifeq:Stargateproject\|{{PAGENAME}}\|User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription\|User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription{{!}}banner{{=}}Stargateproject}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>

			== James Spader ==
	If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at ]; I'm not watching this page. --] (]) 17:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			Hi
	== Merger of ] into ] ==

			Hopefully this is not a ghost ship!
	Before everyone screams ''no'', please read this proposal carefully.

			I found some copyvio on the James SPader Article.
	As through the ongoing efforts to reduce the ] in ''Stargate'' articles, the articles ], ], ], ] and ] were merged into one pretty comprehensive (new) article named ]. I have found some real-world info for this article in audio commentaries, magazines, and Joe Mallozzi's production notes, and I think it passes/could pass ] and notability criteria now so that no more up-merging is necessary. Now, after performing this merge, I noticed that there is a significant overlap between this article and ], which I was not aware of before. Both articles are not necessary at the same time. Thus, I have merged some bits from ] into ] that I thought were missing, like the million years of backstory and the starship program. The latter article has a (hopefully) low lowel of fancrufty detail and synthesis, is still rather comprehensive, and has a size of "only" 31kB.

			I have noted it on the talk page, and corrected the paragraph I found.
	Now, there are three ways to go:
	# Merge ] into ]
	# Merge ] into ] (or should I say redirect, since I already merged what I deemed necessary)
	# Keep the two articles separate, but that's the lazy solution and will sooner or later lead to a re-assessment ''and'' a merger, as that is just redundant.

			I will go through it at some point to check the rest, but it looks like just one (then-new) editor so far. ] (]) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	The pros and cons are (not all my opinions, but I think other people hold them):
	* Pro Option#1 and con Option#2:
	:#All other races in Stargate have their own article, and so should the Tau'ri, for the sake of consistancy.
	:#Things like ], ] and ] have more in common with ] (from where they can be linked via hatnotes) and not predominantly the ], where such hatnotes would/could seem rather forced.
	:#] doesn't cover the achievements of the Tau'ri, so the ] article is needed to document that.
	:#Stargate is popular and notable, so we shouldn't worry about the real-world notability of sub-topics, fancruft and AfDs.
	* Pro Option#2 and con Option#1:
	:#Work is mostly done already
	:#Notability is not really a problem, (a) because there are already some real-world info sources present in ] and (b) because it can be reasonably claimed that the real-world (fan) conspiracy of "Is there a real Stargate Program?" has some real-world notability, which can further be added to establish notability
	:#The Tau'ri are essentially humans from Earth, and wikipedia already has two articles on those subjects, ] and ], to which ] ''should'' redirect if we wanted a 100% real-world perspective. The thing that makes the Tau'ri "note-worthy" is the Stargate Program, not the other way around.
	:#There is nothing that could be added to the "Concept and creation" section necessary to turn ] into a GA. If there is, it can and should be added to ] and ] first.
	:#"Tau'ri" is a stupid article title, since only the Goa'uld and the Jaffa refer to humans from Earth that way; this name isn't even mentioned in ''Atlantis'', and ] or ] are just as stupid article titles.
	:#The interactions of the Tau'ri and other races can be documented in the articles of the other races and the season articles, so there's no need to for that in the Tau'ri nor the SG Program article.

			== Request for information on WP1.0 web tool ==
	I've had some weeks to think about it and am really in favor of Option #2, with a redirect of Tau'ri to SG Project. I would have boldly redirected already if I didn't assume this would lead to controversy and edit-warring. I still ask for comments, and will bow to the majority. I think two to four weeks is enough time for discussion. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

			Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the ]! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the ] that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
	:As I've mentioned elsewhere I'm also in favor of merging Tau'ri into Stargate Program; the simple fact is that there's nothing to be said about the history or nature of Earth humans in the ''Stargate'' franchise that isn't related to the Stargate Program in some way. There's also the fact that the significance of the word "Tau'ri" is simply blown all out of proportion in these ''Stargate''-related articles, when it really only appears in maybe a third or less of all ''SG-1'' episodes and is nothing but a flavor term to make the Goa'uld and Jaffa more alien. So, support Option #2. -- ] (]) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

			We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at where you can leave your response. ] (]) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
	:Firstly, the work "Tau'ri" ought to be removed from all Misplaced Pages article titles, it's a completely in-universe term and is an alien word, not a word actually used by the main characters (except Teal'c occasionally). Secondly, I see a 4th option - two articles, ] and ] (better title suggestions welcome). The only information about the Tau'ri that isn't appropriate to an article on the Stargate Program is stuff that happened before the Stargate Program began (ie. backstory) - that includes all the "millions of years ago" stuff with the ancients and the "thousands of years ago" stuff with the Goa'uld. The article could probably be made quite good by comparing the fictional backstory with real world history and mythology (sources are required, but I expect they exist somewhere). --] (]) 19:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:JJMC89@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/ListOfProjects&oldid=923068486 -->
	::]? (I wrote {{GA-icon}} ] last year from scratch, but that was also the damn-hardest article that I ever wrote). Robert C. Cooper likes talking about the mythology of the Ori and how that works with the Ancients (and by extension humans, see ]), so that's a plus. However, after ] (deleted at Deletion Review), a separate article for just the backstory might be a little dangerous if we don't have sufficient real-world info right away. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::I'm not in favour of a single mythology article, since there is so much. For example, the mythology behind the creation of the Jaffa should so in ], the mythology behind the Ori/Alteran split should go in ], etc. (I think, for the most part, that is what we do). I think there is enough mythology about Earth to warrant an article, although I agree we need to make sure we have enough real world info so it doesn't just turn into another timeline article (which has already been deleted once). --] (]) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
	::::I agree that mythologies of respective races belong on their respective pages. With that, I disagree that there is enough for a complete article on Earth mythology; the backstory of Earth humans before the Stargate Program happened can be covered in a single paragraph. I'm also skeptical that there is a great deal of real-world information available that can be sourced; a history versus fiction comparison of the type you're suggesting runs a high risk of incurring original research. I wouldn't support the creation of any article until these sources can be found first. At present, I think that the best place to put it should be on the main ] article itself, since it's a very basic part of the mythology in all the shows and movies. -- ] (]) 21:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::::I am more in favour of option one, as all race articles have the name of the race, such as Asgard, Ancient, Goa'uld etc, so when users search for "Tau'ri", they get redirected to "Stargate Programme" instead? Personally, this isn't very logical, so I think that Stargate Programme should be merged with Tau'ri instead. ] (]) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
	I vote in favor of option 2. However, I would like a note Asgard, Goa'uld, Jaffa, and Tok'ra pages (the ones who use this name) stating that these races refer to humans as the Tau'ri.--] (]) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

			== Merging more fictional element articles ==
	I '''strongly support''' this merger of Tau'ri into Stargate Program. The Stargate Program page can simply mention that "Tau'ri" is the word for earth humans. There's very little more to say about the phrase! This merger is one more step along the way of removing fancruft. --]-- (]) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

			This taskforce is probably dead, but I'll leave this note for anyone who is interested.
	I had another thought for the Earth humans mythology info; I'm thinking that the ] and ] articles could perhaps be combined into one article (] or simply ]), akin to ]. The combined article wouldn't be too long (I've been pruning excessive details a bunch), and it would have a "People of Earth" section on top that would contain the backstory that ] referred to. ] could be redirected there, with a seealso link to ] and the various character lists. Thoughts? -- ] (]) 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

			I currently see a lot fictional element-based articles successfully deleted/redirected/merged via ], mostly fictional locations, technology and races/fictional organisations, usually for ], ] and ] reasons. As an SG fan back in the days, I've had a good look at WP's SG coverage, and I see a bunch of articles that likely wouldn't survive AfD either. To avoid the taxing AfD process, I've already begun to merge/redirect a few of SG's low-hanging fruit, and plan to do so for other SG articles in the future to make them AfD-proof, see below. If anyone has better ideas than me, please say so.
	:I've been thinking about this as well, but never had the time to perform the trim and see with which article size we'd have to deal (answer: 35-40 kB of readable prose after the merger). I'd have rearranged the civilizations in the same way you have done now. Some quick notes though:
	:#I support the merger in general, but I am somewhat wary about the resulting article size. Some real-world info might still be added, and when ] gets the green light, the list grows even larger, and we're getting into ] issues. Of course, this is ] balling, and we can worry about that later. I just have to point out the obvious before someone else does. ;-)
	:#] could also imply a list of characters, whereas ] leaves no doubt what is meant.
	:#The list of recurring civilizations in the SG-1 article spans 3.5 pages on a medium-sized computer screen. This is hard to read and hard to edit. Some subheaders (either alphabetical, by season, or, again, by industrial levels) are necessary in some form.
	:#I like the idea of merging/redirecting ] (three paragraphs of backstory and a hatnote to the ]) there.
	:– ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

			'']''
	::One compromise could be merging just the important civs and leaving the longer ''SG-1'' and ''Atlantis'' lists where they are, i.e. turn ] into a proper parent list. My personal inclination though is towards longer, more complete lists despite ], because I think (1) longer lists encourages people to be concise and cuts down on cruft, (2) long lists tend to be more readable than long prose, (3) complete lists offer a better picture of the topic when it comes to multi-series/movie franchises, and (4) the technical issues with ] will probably diminish over time with technological progress. At any rate the current merger wouldn't get there yet and it'll likely be years before it does, depending on when ''Universe'' comes along. -- ] (]) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
			*] {{icon\|LIST}}
	:::Well, as implied above, I'd be fine with a merger as long as long as we're keeping an eye on article sizes. I should have made it clearer that a 60kB article doesn't pose a problem in my eyes yet, but there is a trend in de.wiki to combine fiction lists to up to 235kB (see ]) just for the sake of a unified top-level topic, which is IMO the wrong direction. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|GA}}
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim ] and expand
			**] {{icon\|GA}}
			**] {{icon\|GA}}
			**] {{icon\|C}}
			**] {{icon\|GA}}
			**] {{icon\|C}}
			**<s>] {{icon\|LIST}}</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			**<s>] {{icon\|LIST}}</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]

			'']''
	::I've merged the Tau'ri myth info into ] as a separate section instead, which maintains just the single parent page and I think is a good solution for all. -- ] (]) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
			*] {{icon\|LIST}}
	:::Nice. It looks good. --] (]) 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and maybe merge into ] for length
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and maybe merge into ] for length
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|GA}}
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim ] and expand
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim ] and expand
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and maybe merge into ] for length
			**] {{icon\|C}}
			**] {{icon\|GA}}

			'']''
	After twelve days, there seems to be a 5:1 consensus to do ''something'' with the ] article; the Tau'ri article content seems to be fully redundant with ], ], and a section in ] now, which are all interlinked where necessary. So now that the actual merging is more or less off the table, should we discuss now where to ''redirect'' ]? I think ] with all the hatnotes seems the best solution (a viable alternate solution I am less fond of is a section in a possible unified ] article in the future). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 07:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
			*] {{icon\|LIST}}
	:No reply after one week, so I was ] and have '''redirected''' ] to ] as that seemed the best solution. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
			**] {{icon\|C}} => merge into ] for length
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and merge into ]
			**] {{icon\|B}}
			**] {{icon\|C}}
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and merge into ]
			**] {{icon\|start}} => trim and merge into ]

			] {{icon\|?}} => may serve as a merge target for franchise-spanning fictional elements <strike>would need a full rewrite to be a proper ], can be merged into ] until then</strike>
	== WikiProject Media franchises ==
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|redirected}} to ], where its all covered now
			** <s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|merged}} into ] <s>and maybe ]</s>
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ] and/or maybe ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ] <s>]</s>
			** <s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> {{icon\|C}} => {{done\|merged}} into ] <s>maybe merge into ] or ]</s>
			* ] {{icon\|C}}{{icon\|?}} => merge into ] and ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ]

			<s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|deleted}} via ] <s>would need a full rewrite to be a proper ]</s>
	'''Dear WikiProject Stargate participants'''...] needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let {{User\|Lady Aleena}} know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up ] if you wish. Thank you. ] @ 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
			* ] {{icon\|?}} => trim ] and maybe merge into <strike>]</strike> ]
			* <s>]</s> => {{done\|merged}} into ] <s>] or ]</s>
			* <s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|deleted}} via ]
			* <s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|dealt with}} at ] <s>would likely get deleted in an AfD</s>
			** <s>]</s> {{icon\|LIST}} => {{done\|merged}} into ] and ]

			– ] <sup>]•]</sup> 10:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
	== Audio commentary for "The Storm" (Atlantis episode 1x10) ==

			* updated: – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 13:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
	If someone has season 1 of ''Atlantis'' on DVD with audio commentaries, can he please check out a thing for me? (I stupidly sold my Atlantis DVDs in December without making back-up copies for real-world information.) I want to get the article of ] to ] soon-ish, and I remember that Martin Gero elaborated on how he brought the character back for "The Storm". Gero says this, I believe, in the audio commentary for "The Storm" around the time when McKay and Zelenka run to Weir in the control room and are all excited about their idea of let's-use-lightning-as-a-power-source. If someone could provide a transcript or a summary of this information, this would be a big help. (I can also ask at two off-wiki places, but I thought I should ask here first). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
			* updated: – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 14:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
			:Deleting 90% of article is NOT merge!!!] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
			::''Stargate'' is a key element of entire franchise, even it is a fictional element , it's design, idea and role in the franchise isn't! The work you do by creating, splitting, merging or editing must be of good quality. Right now I don't see any good quality of what you have done so far. ''Fictional'' can not be only reason for deleting of work that was made for 20 years, other way you have to delete most of ''Star Trek'', ''Star Wars'', ''Firefly'', ''NCIS'', ''Marvel'', ''DC Comics'' ....... articles! ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 17:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|Vilnisr}} Per ], ''A merger is done by copying '''some''' or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page'' (emphasis mine). Now, if in a hypothetical case 90% in a to-be-merged article is ] ], then merging the other 10% is still a fine merger. ] explains very well how fiction should be covered on wikipedia. Of course, I am human and occasionally make mistakes, so could you point me to a performed merger where I did anything wrong? I'll gladly fix it. (BTW, have a look at my userpage to see some quality work I have done on fiction, including ''Stargate''.) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
			::I'm not saying that there is no need for merge, i agree that there is no need for zpm article or article with every single starship name, but is 6 sentences enough for key race without any illustration of it, wasn't better to make separate article with key races with about 3-4 paragraph and a small illustration about design, just to know what you read about? I see no sense in 6 sentence race description at all, it gives you nothing! In my opinion there is difference between irrelevant fictional information and key fictional information. Is it so big violation to keep some pictures? As about Stargate universe characters i would try to keep at least Nicholas Rush, Eli Wallace, Everett Young and Matthew Scott pages. And at least keep separate Stargate(device) article.
			::P.S there have to be a balance between large separate articles with too much irrelevant information and merged article with few sentences that don't make sense at all. ] <sup>] \| ]</sup> 18:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
			:::I don't think 6 sentences are enough to describe key races either, and I never claimed otherwise. By all means, feel invited to expand expand expand. But per ] and ], expansion should happen with sourced real-world information is mind, and not be a mere reiteration of plot, or even worse, ] of plot information. I already noted several possible sources for expansion at ] a while ago. Illustrations of fictional races are tricky, as they are usually non-free and as such are covered by ]. At the end, have a look at ] to see how a proper article on fictional mythology could be done. The ] article has its problems but is not too bad either, that why I noted it as ''maybe'' merge here a month ago and haven't initiated a proper merge discussion either (and I don't know yet if I actually will initiate one). – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 20:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

			== ] of ] ==
	==Franchise naming convention discussion at ]==
			]
	'''Dear WikiProject Stargate participants'''...] is currently ] for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! ] (]) @ 23:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== Bold GA delisting of ] ==
			<blockquote>'''Consists of naught but ], without a single reliable secondary source, for its entire 19.24-year history.'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	Just to keep everyone informed, I have boldy delisted ] from GA for wildly failing almost each of the ] and because fixing it would need significantly longer than an official ]. See my more-detailed reasoning at ]. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	:I see the "death of a thousand cuts" is ongoing as I said it would be months ago . It would be altogether more quick to put up everything for deletion now .] (]) 21:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> — '''] \| ] \|''' 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
	::It is rather unfortunate that you seem to believe that Sgeureka is trying to harm the project, when the truth is completely opposite of this. The SG articles ''were'' havens of fanboy wankery, and have now been appropriately trimmed to more readily fall in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. As I'm sure has been said many times before, if you want a place to detail every little piece of lore, you can always head over to stargate.wikia.com or stargate-sg1-solutions.com. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small></span> 22:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:34, 21 July 2024

Welcome

Shortcuts

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

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.

Create New Thread

Archives

Archive 1 (August 2005—February 2006)
Archive 2 (February 2006—March 2006)
Archive 3 (April 2006—May 2006)
Archive 4 (May 2006—June 2006)
Archive 5 (June 2006—July 2006)
Archive 6 (July 2006—August 2006)
Archive 7 (August 2006—September 2006)
Archive 8 (September 2006—October 2006)
Archive 9 (November 2006—December 2007)
Archive 10 (January 2008—February 2008)
Archive 11 (September 2008—June 2009)
Archive 12 (April 2009—present)
Edit

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Discussion

New sister project proposal

Hi, you may want to see this proposal for new project based on fiction. --213.155.255.148 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed AfD for Ancient Technology in Stargate

For those not aware, it has been proposed to delete the Ancient technology in Stargate article. The reasons stated are:

Completely un-referenced original research and synthesis. The provided references are to Misplaced Pages itself. No viable third-party references are forthcoming, so this piece should be removed as its subject matter is non-notable and therefore the title is not salvageable.

Personally, I think a lot of good information would be lost if this was deleted, but I am new enough and not familiar enough with wikipedia's policies for any sort of argument on the subject. For those of you who feel it should remain and are able to provide good reasoning, check out the proposal. Thanks! --Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

James Spader

Hopefully this is not a ghost ship!

I found some copyvio on the James SPader Article.

I have noted it on the talk page, and corrected the paragraph I found.

I will go through it at some point to check the rest, but it looks like just one (then-new) editor so far. Chaosdruid (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging more fictional element articles

This taskforce is probably dead, but I'll leave this note for anyone who is interested.

I currently see a lot fictional element-based articles successfully deleted/redirected/merged via WP:Articles for deletion, mostly fictional locations, technology and races/fictional organisations, usually for WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:LISTN and WP:GNC reasons. As an SG fan back in the days, I've had a good look at WP's SG coverage, and I see a bunch of articles that likely wouldn't survive AfD either. To avoid the taxing AfD process, I've already begun to merge/redirect a few of SG's low-hanging fruit, and plan to do so for other SG articles in the future to make them AfD-proof, see below. If anyone has better ideas than me, please say so.

Stargate SG-1

List of Stargate SG-1 characters
- Samantha Carter
- George Hammond
- Daniel Jackson => trim WP:PLOT and expand
- Vala Mal Doran
- Cameron Mitchell
- Jack O'Neill
- Jonas Quinn
- Teal'c
- ~~List of recurring Earth characters in Stargate SG-1~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters
- ~~List of recurring alien characters in Stargate SG-1~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters

Stargate Atlantis

List of Stargate Atlantis characters
- Carson Beckett
- Samantha Carter
- Ronon Dex => trim and maybe merge into List of Stargate Atlantis characters for length
- Teyla Emmagan => trim and maybe merge into List of Stargate Atlantis characters for length
- Aiden Ford
- Jennifer Keller
- Evan Lorne
- Rodney McKay => trim WP:PLOT and expand
- John Sheppard => trim WP:PLOT and expand
- Elizabeth Weir => trim and maybe merge into List of Stargate Atlantis characters for length
- Richard Woolsey
- Radek Zelenka

Stargate Universe

List of Stargate Universe characters
- Ronald Greer => merge into List of Stargate Universe characters for length
- Tamara Johansen => trim and merge into List of Stargate Universe characters
- Nicholas Rush
- Matthew Scott
- Eli Wallace => trim and merge into List of Stargate Universe characters
- Everett Young => trim and merge into List of Stargate Universe characters

Mythology of Stargate => may serve as a merge target for franchise-spanning fictional elements ~~would need a full rewrite to be a proper WP:SPINOUT, can be merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters until then~~

~~Stargate Program~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters
~~Ancients~~ => redirected to Mythology of Stargate, where its all covered now
- ~~Ancient characters in Stargate~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters ~~and maybe List of Stargate Atlantis characters~~
~~Asgard~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters and/or maybe Mythology of Stargate
~~Asuran~~ => merged into List of Stargate Atlantis characters
~~Genii (Stargate)~~ => merged into List of Stargate Atlantis characters
~~Goa'uld~~ => merged into Mythology of Stargate ~~List of Stargate SG-1 characters~~
- ~~Goa'uld characters in Stargate~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters
~~Kull Warrior~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Kull Warrior ~~maybe merge into Technology in Stargate or Stargate SG-1 (season 7)#Production~~
Ori => merge into Mythology of Stargate and List of Stargate SG-1 characters
~~Replicators~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters
~~Tok'ra~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters
~~Wraith (Stargate)~~ => merged into List of Stargate Atlantis characters

~~Technology in Stargate~~ => deleted via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technology in Stargate (2nd nomination) ~~would need a full rewrite to be a proper WP:SPINOUT~~

Stargate (device) => trim WP:PLOT and maybe merge into ~~Stargate~~ Mythology of Stargate
~~Atlantis (Stargate)~~ => merged into Mythology of Stargate ~~Stargate Atlantis or List of starships in Stargate~~
~~Goa'uld technology in Stargate~~ => deleted via Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Technology in Stargate (2nd nomination)
~~List of starships in Stargate~~ => dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of starships in Stargate (2nd nomination) ~~would likely get deleted in an AfD~~
- ~~List of Earth starships in Stargate~~ => merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Earth ship crew characters and List of starships in Stargate

– sgeureka 10:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

updated: – sgeureka 13:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
updated: – sgeureka 14:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting 90% of article is NOT merge!!!– Vilnisr 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Stargate is a key element of entire franchise, even it is a fictional element , it's design, idea and role in the franchise isn't! The work you do by creating, splitting, merging or editing must be of good quality. Right now I don't see any good quality of what you have done so far. Fictional can not be only reason for deleting of work that was made for 20 years, other way you have to delete most of Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, NCIS, Marvel, DC Comics ....... articles! – Vilnisr 17:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vilnisr: Per WP:MERGE, A merger is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page (emphasis mine). Now, if in a hypothetical case 90% in a to-be-merged article is WP:UNDUE WP:PLOT, then merging the other 10% is still a fine merger. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction explains very well how fiction should be covered on wikipedia. Of course, I am human and occasionally make mistakes, so could you point me to a performed merger where I did anything wrong? I'll gladly fix it. (BTW, have a look at my userpage to see some quality work I have done on fiction, including Stargate.) – sgeureka 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there is no need for merge, i agree that there is no need for zpm article or article with every single starship name, but is 6 sentences enough for key race without any illustration of it, wasn't better to make separate article with key races with about 3-4 paragraph and a small illustration about design, just to know what you read about? I see no sense in 6 sentence race description at all, it gives you nothing! In my opinion there is difference between irrelevant fictional information and key fictional information. Is it so big violation to keep some pictures? As about Stargate universe characters i would try to keep at least Nicholas Rush, Eli Wallace, Everett Young and Matthew Scott pages. And at least keep separate Stargate(device) article.

P.S there have to be a balance between large separate articles with too much irrelevant information and merged article with few sentences that don't make sense at all. – Vilnisr 18:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think 6 sentences are enough to describe key races either, and I never claimed otherwise. By all means, feel invited to expand expand expand. But per WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT, expansion should happen with sourced real-world information is mind, and not be a mere reiteration of plot, or even worse, WP:SYNTHESIS of plot information. I already noted several possible sources for expansion at Talk:Mythology of Stargate#Possible sources for improvement a while ago. Illustrations of fictional races are tricky, as they are usually non-free and as such are covered by WP:NFC. At the end, have a look at Mythology of Carnivàle to see how a proper article on fictional mythology could be done. The Stargate (device) article has its problems but is not too bad either, that why I noted it as maybe merge here a month ago and haven't initiated a proper merge discussion either (and I don't know yet if I actually will initiate one). – sgeureka 20:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Sheppard (Stargate)

The article John Sheppard (Stargate) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Consists of naught but plot summary, without a single reliable secondary source, for its entire 19.24-year history.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)