Revision as of 21:15, 5 January 2008

Welcome Shortcuts WP:WPSG WT:WPSG 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

Discussion

Character-specific templates

There's recently been a rash of templates created for minor characters, detailing every single episode that character has appeared in. These templates are then being put at the bottom of the episode page for each of those episodes. Is that type of thing really necessary? This information can all be found on the character's own page, without also being on every episode page. Also, where does one draw the line? Hathor gets a template, and she was only in 3 episodes. So does every single character in more than 1 episode get their own template at the bottom of every episode they were in? That would get extremely messy and ugly looking, I think. You can find the current templates here. (Oh and as a side note, if you are going to keep them they should probably translated into North American TV-lingo instead of European, since it's a North American show... ie: season, not series). --Maelwys 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Found another large set of useless templates created by the same user, for example: Template:Series 1 of Stargate SG-1. These might be a little more usable, but still strikes me as being fairly overkill. Template:SG-1 contains all of them, and is the only place any of them are linked, and is only posted on one page. --Maelwys 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support deleting the templates, especially for characters with only a handful of episodes. There might be an argument for characters with many episodes (Jacob Carter, for instance), but even then I think the character's article is enough. --Tango 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

TFD'd here: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Excessive Stargate templates. Please add in any that I may have missed. Staecker 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a whole bunch to the list. --Ckatz_spy 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes

Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Misplaced Pages:Television episodes, it was known as Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Television episodes . Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sokar Stories

Template:Sokar Stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

System lords

Hi guys, what's new at the project? I've come across TfD for the XX stories templates. As far as I remember, a consensus was reached some time ago that only Apophis, Anubis, Ba'al and eventually Yu are the only system lords that can have own articles. The others are to be merged. Or was there another talk more recently? Brief me up, otherwise we should do the merging. --Tone 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I only vaguely remember the discussion, but your list sounds about right to be. If the others haven't already been merged, be bold and merge them. If someone reverts you, then we can have a big discussion on it, but chances are everyone will accept the merger. --Tango 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Voila, I did the basic merging. I also cut off the trivia section per new guidelines. The only problem is that the list has become quite big now. Shall we leave it as it is or is it better to split it in two lists, one for System Lords and one for the rest of them? --Tone 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging lots of characters together is done because there isn't much to say about them. Some of the characters on the list have a lot said about them. We have two options - split of some of them again (ie. decide we got the list of ones that can have their own articles wrong) or cut down what we've said about them (ie. decide the information isn't really notable enough for inclusion in that much detail - much of it is in episode articles anyway). I think the second option is best in most cases. --Tango 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to cut down the information, it would be appreciated if you could move it over to the Stargate wiki, unless we have larger articles already. That way, the information gets saved somewhere and you can link to it from here. Jaymach 06:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with cutting the details. It's all already covered in the episode articles. By the way, I let Ra his own article, he appeared in the movie after all. --Tone 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Flagisalis

I have started the article on Flagisalis chem_tom 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is really notable enough a Stargate topic. What does everyone else think? --Alfakim-- talk 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been in multiple episodes, so it's not completely non-notable. **SEASON 3 SPOILER** It's not likely to come again though, now they've left that planet. **END SPOILER** It's borderline... --Tango 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re. O'Neill and Landry

I know this isn't really the right place for asking questions about the show, rather than our articles, but I'm going to do it anyway (the answer might be worth mentioning somewhere, so it's not entirely off-topic). In Template:Sgcite, a little over half way through, O'Neill calls Landry "sir". By my understanding, they are both Major Generals, and in fact, I thought O'Neill was Landry's boss (although I'm not sure if that's been stated anywhere, it might just be fan speculation). Is this just a mistake by the writers, or am I missing something? --Tango 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Could be "habit" (O'Neill was only recently made a general), could be a mistake, could be a "well, I don't think so, no sir"-type thing...forget about it. LD 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Misplaced Pages:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Misplaced Pages:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SG-1

Template:SG-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Maelwys 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Could we maybe get a database of pics that can be used on wikipedia for stargate. It would make articles a lot more interesting with pictures, and easier for the editors instead of having to hunt for free license pics --Estrill5766 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1. There are no free license images for Stargate, only fair use images, which should not be used for decoration but for helping with critical comment.
2. Category:Screenshots of Stargate SG-1 and Category:Screenshots of Stargate Atlantis will help you find images that are already at wikipedia. Don't forget to add a fair use rationale to every image you want to use. – sgeureka 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: Delete Stargate-related articles?

I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed on Talk:Stargate Atlantis

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Stargate Atlantis regarding the Setting section. Some more opinions would be useful. --Tango 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies section

I have added a "project policies" section to the main page. Please add to it. It should include all the recommended reading on wikipedia policies relevant to us, and also any subpages where weve decided on policies for the project ourselves. I've already added a couple of the internal policies from memory of past discussions, but feel free to discuss them where you like. --Alfakim-- talk 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some things

According to the notability discussion currently going on, a huge merging of the episode articles is going to happen if there are no improvements to the style. For a start, the plots should be written more in out-of universe style (not really hard), trivia sections should be deleted and details about production and reception are welcome. In prose, of course. Besides, after merging almost all Goa'uld articles into Goa'uld characters in Stargate, I intend to do the same for at least for the Tauri ones on a separate and all other to one that I can't find a good name for at the moment. --Tone 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job with the list. I had a look at this and other SG lists recently and was surprised at how concise the information was compared to articles of other shows. I also checked the episode articles a few days ago because I also think the notability check of WP:EPISODE will sweep over them sooner or later (and I support the application of this guideline). So I checked what SG-1 episode articles may survive (I'm not so much into Atlantis). A list is provided below, with the bolded entries possibly making the cut for the reasons stated. I am only planning to work on "200" in the near future. – sgeureka 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of boredom, I checked whether a good SG-1 episode article could be written that satisfies WP:EPISODE, without the episode actually receiving much media attention (i.e. no awards or New York Times coverage etc) or even special treatment by the producers (i.e. no DVD specials other than the ordinary audio commentary). You can see the result under Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1). Neat, huh? And with a little copyediting for prose, I guess this proves that almost all SG-1 ep articles are safe from WP:EPISODE if the enforcers (e.g. me) just want to see the potential of an article. BTW, it took me about three hours to write up the "Production" and "Reception" section, including the time to read the two TV Zones and the other web sources, and to listen to the DVD commentary. – sgeureka 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SG-1 episode articles possibly worth saving

Note: Beginning with Season 4, all but 3 episodes have audio commentaries. Beginning with Season 5, TV Zone devoted two out of its 7 specials per year to Stargate (~70 pages or more; with interviews, individual episode previews and reviews). Beginning with Season 6, about six episodes per season have specific DVD episode featurettes. Beginning with Season 8, an official Stargate Magazine is/was published. Producer Joe Mallozzi blogs since Season 8. Some episodes may have received special media coverage, for examples for actors coming/leaving and episode landmarks (100th, 150th, 200th episode). Quite a few articles were nominated for awards, with a few wins.

Having said that, almost all Stargate ep articles are in a not-so-good state per content and style guidelines, and it is unlikely that they will be improved much because (1) there are just too many episodes, (2) gateworld.net is already doing a great job with them, (3) SG-1 fans have not been very active with bringing up ep articles to at least GA (not a accusation, just an observation), and (4) SG-1 is cancelled now, with fan devotion slowly going down. Below is a list of SG-1 episodes that may have notability without having their notablity established in the article. The articles that have the best chance to establish notability easily are bolded.

• 101 Children Of The Gods - pilot episode; nominated Golden Reel Award
• 107 The Nox - nominated for Emmy
• 118 Tin Man - nominated for Gemini
• 121 Within The Serpent's Grasp - nominated for Gemini
• 217 Holiday - nominated for Gemini
• 301 Into the Fire - nominated for Leo
• 306 Point of View - nominated for Leo
• 309 Forever in a Day - nominated for Leo
• 313 The Devil You Know - nominated for Leo
• 317 A Hundred Days - nominated for Leo
• 322 Nemesis - nominated for Emmy, won Leo
• 401 Small Victories - nominated for Emmy and Gemini and Leo
• 406 Window of Opportunity - a fan favorite
• 412 Tangent - nominated for Gemini
• 413 The Curse - nominated for Leo
• 418 The Light - won Leo
• 422 Exodus - nominated for Emmy
• 501 Enemies - main baddie dies (Apophis), nominated for Emmy and Gemini
• 503 Ascension - won Leo
• 512 Wormhole X-Treme! - 100th episode
• 513 Proving Ground - nominated for Leo
• 521 Meridian (Stargate SG-1) - main actor Michael Shanks (Daniel Jackson) leaves the show (controversy)
• 522 Revelations (Stargate SG-1) - new baddie comes (Anubis), nominated for Emmy and Leo and VES Award, won Gemini
• 601/602 Redemption (Stargate SG-1) - new main character Jonas Quinn, nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
• 603 Descent - nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
• 605 Nightwalkers - nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
• 612 Unnatural Selection - nominated for Leo 2x
• 616 Metamorphosis - won Leo, DVD featurette
• 619 The Warrior - nominated for Leo
• 622 Full Circle - supposed to be final episode, DVD featurette
• 705 Lifeboat - won Leo, nominated for Leo
• 706 Enemy Mine - won Leo
• 713 Grace - won Leo
• 717/718 Heroes - regular character Janet Fraiser dies; nominated for Hugo, nominated for Leo (2x), DVD featurette
• 721/722 Lost City - main baddie dies (Anubis), supposed to be final episode, Don S. Davis leaves main cast, nominated for Emmy and Gemini and VES Award, extended DVD featurette
• 801/802 New Order - actor Richard Dean steps back but remains main cast member, episode right before SG Atlantis begins; nominated for Gemini
• 806 Affinity - nominated for Leo
• 813 It's Good to be King - nominated for Leo 2x
• 816/817 Reckoning - nominated for Emmy and Leo, DVD featurette
• 818 Threads - won Leo, nominated for another Leo, DVD featurette
• 819/820 Moebius - supposed to be final episode, last episode with RDA as main cast member, won Leo, DVD featurette
• 901/902 Avalon - Ben Browder replaces RDA, Beau Bridges replaces RDA, Amanda Tapping gets replaced with Claudia Black for a few episodes, start of Ori arc, extended DVD featurette
• 903 Origin - third part of season opener, nominated for Gemini
• 906 Beachhead - Amanda Tapping rejoins the cast, nominated for Gemini
• 920 Camelot - nominated for Gemini 2x
• 1001 Flesh and Blood - Claudia Black joins main cast
• 1006 200 - 200th episode, nominated for Hugo, DVD featurette
• 1010/1011 The Quest Part 2 - nominated for Leo
• 1020 Unending - series finale

– sgeureka 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job. There is not much additional work in bringing most of the articles in a state where they pass the notability criteria. But when info like above is added, it better is in prose, otherwise it looks like another trivia section. --Tone 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks excellent sgeureka, thank you for putting so much into that. — pd_THOR | 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that double episodes (like Children of the Gods ) have a single article for both, so if one is kept the other is kept as well. The The Quest Part 1 is also in that category. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Further comments: there has been limited but some success (I can't cite an example off the top of my head) of having episodes saved due to their being plot important even if they don't have much else. I suspect that a handful of episodes such as The Enemy Within could get this argument made for them, not sure how well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Double episodes of course have some extra advantage. And I think no one is expecting all articles dealing with the episodes to be perfect right away, but it needs to be obvious for outsiders that progress is being made. I think we can let go of about half of the episode as separate articles very easily (mainly those one-offs of the first few seasons that wouldn't have much fan backing anyway), and then we need to agree on a case by case basis what other articles can/should be kept and start working on those. There is not much to be gained in being too strict in the beginning, or too lax in the end. Collaboration avoids making false decisions. – sgeureka 12:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

In the Screenshots of Stargate SG-1 Category there are a lot of images that are screen cap from the television broadcast and have a network logo. Is it worthwhile for someone to go through this category and upload DVD screenshots in their place? Ank329 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Input requested at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate/2nd nom. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

SG-1 Episode notability

As already stated a few sections above (#Some things), 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 #SG-1 episode articles possibly worth saving), or offer significant encyclopedic coverage (production, casting, reception, other noteworthy things, see Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) 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 Stargate SG-1 (Season 1), Stargate SG-1 (Season 2), and Stargate SG-1 (Season 3). 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 wikia, which would leave them outside the scope of wikipedia notability guidelines and they can get as detailed in plot as the editor wants. WT:DIGI#Transwiki (the Digimon 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 WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT and WP:WAF (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. :-) – sgeureka 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? --Ckatz_spy 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. – sgeureka 12:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we start to Transwiki?

Although there haven't been any major proposes for deletion of Stargate articles, shouldn't we start to transwiki the existing articles to in case that someday someone plans to delete f.e. the episode articles. This would also give us the opportunity to recreate the individual character articles we had in former times. Diabound (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still reading up on the transwiki procedure, but I think I/we could start in about one or two weeks. Transwiki'ing should be fairly easy, but during or after it we have to make sure that all wikia articles are properly linked from wikipedia. For a merged list of characters, this can look like Smallville characters (season 1). For a merged list of episodes, the new layout could look like this:

#	Title	Wikia link	Written by	Directed by	Original airdate (HBO)	Viewers
1	"Milfay"	Wikia:Carnivàle:Milfay	Daniel Knauf	Rodrigo Garcia	September 14, 2003	5.3 m.
Milfay, Oklahoma Dustbowl, 1934. Ben Hawkins, a young farmer and chain gang fugitive, suffers strange dreams about a :trench war and a tattooed man stalking in a cornfield. When Ben buries his mother who had just died from dust pneumonia, a traveling carnival arrives. Ben's house is about to be demolished, and the police are nearing, so the carnival picks him up and provides him shelter. Lodz, the carnival's mentalist, is suspicious of Ben's dreams. Before the carnival leaves to its next location, Ben puts his hands on a lame girl's legs and heals her, laying the surrounding field to waste. Samson, the carnival's co-manager, relays Management's comment about Ben being expected to Jonesy, the carnival's Ferris wheel operator who suffers from a crippling knee injury. • Mintern, California. The small town preacher Brother Justin Crowe makes an Okie church attendee spew coins. He also has the same dreams as Ben, and in a particular vision visits a local Chinese establishment named Chin's when it begins to rain blood. Production notes This episode marks the first appearance of the Tattooed Man in Carnivàle.

So I think that is what we have to agree on first before just blindly starting the transwiki process (if this is the preferred procedure at all). – sgeureka 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Copying existing articles to that wiki sounds like a great idea if anyone wants to do it. I don't think it should be with the assumption that the ones here will eventually be deleted - I, for one, intend to oppose any such mass deletions. The idea that only episodes that have won awards should article doesn't work - it would mean that the article should be primarily about the award and what resulted it in getting the award, rather than how it fits into the series, and I think it's the latter information which makes for a better article. A lot of improvements need to be made to many of our episode articles, sure, but that's not a deletion criterion. It's obvious, to me, that at least some episodes (for example, the award winning ones) are notable enough to deserve articles, which means either including all of them, or drawing a line somewhere, and I can't see any reasonable place to draw sucha line, which leaves me thinking they should all be kept. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) disagrees with some of your points - it's not the in-universe notability (i.e. plot) that matters for wikipedia fiction articles, but the out-of-universe notability and/or real-world coverage. Current episode reviews have been going on for several months ago, starting with minor shows, but they have already reached Angel (TV series) and Farscape. So obviously I won't sit here on my thumbs doing (or trying) nothing until SG-1 eps are under review. WP:ILIKEIT !votes get ignored if nothing happens with the articles (often because there aren't any sources to begin with), so don't expect that your opposition against merging/redirecting (not deletion) will have any weight. Episodes that don't follow the notability guidelines will get merged/redirected after the review by force, if necessary, and it seems even the admins agree that these articles may only be revived if significant real-world information has been added (arbcom will have a preliminary "final" decision about this action in about 4-6 weeks). The only improvement we can curently do is to expand the real-world content of episode articles we want to keep (as we should anyway), and merge the other ones at our own pace. The only reason why I currently consider merging the non-award episodes of the first three seasons is because the others already establish a minimum of real-world notability, or have easy accessible audio commentaries for real-world content. If my cleanup attempts turn out to not be welcome in this project (which I am trying to find out right now), I am at least preparing other SG fans of what lies ahead. – sgeureka 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

An advantage of transwiki would also be the fact that we could keep long episode summaries, while Misplaced Pages discourages them. About starting with transwikiing, I won't hav problems to copy several articles a day to the Wiki.Diabound (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons we don't like excessive plot summaries is because of copyright issues. They would apply just as much on Wikia as here. There may be a middle ground between what is accepted here and what is a copyright violation, and things in the middle ground could go on Wikia, but copyrights do need to be taken into account. --Tango (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a minor transwiki test plus more

The more I think about it, the more I think that transwiki'ing is the easiest and quickest solution for the episodes. I started a season page in my userspace for SG-1, but that was so much work that I gave up after 4 episodes. Instead, I've done the following things.

I replaced the table in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes for Season 1 with {{Episode list}}. The other seasons will follow. The major changes are that I merged the name of the writer, the director, an alternate episode number (so that there will be 1->214 and 101->1020 in the end) from the episode articles, and added a wikia link. What is left to do is

1. Decide about a line color between each episode. (I am not very creative in this matter and have found other people are happy to kill over this task. Fine by me.)
2. Decide if this will be the future layout of all episodes/seasons. I mean, for example, the wikia link can still be moved around. I need to know this now rather than later.
3. Decide if we will be going with the production code (number in which the episodes were produced), or an alternate counting system (eg. 312 means episode 12 of season 3), or both.

As a test, I transwikied The Enemy Within (Stargate SG-1) to Wikia:Stargate:The Enemy Within (the full link looks like http://stargate.wikia.com/The_Enemy_Within ) and Emancipation (Stargate SG-1) to Wikia:Stargate:Emancipation. With some preparation (completed now, no-one else has to do it again), this was surprisingly quick. The procedure is as follows:

1. Copy the {{Infobox Television episode}} from the wikipedia ep article to the top of the wikia article, and remove the "(Stargate SG-1)" from the links in "Prev =" and "Next=".
2. Copy the plot from the wikipedia article to the Summary section in the wikia article. Check beforehand if the wikia plot summary is better than what we have/had at wikipedia. Tweak accordingly.
3. Copy the notes from the wikipedia article (if there are any) to the Notes section in the wikia article.
4. Add all (relevant) {{cite web}} templates from the External Links section on wikipedia to the Sources section on wikia.
5. Delete {{SG1-stub}} from wikia because the article likely is not longer a stub.
6. Important Add {{wikipedia|}} (e.g. {{wikipedia|Hathor (Stargate SG-1)}}) to the bottom of the wikia article. This will leave the GFDL license intact.
7. Preview. Check if some of the redlinks in the plot summary can be removed.
8. Important Leave "Add content from " or something similar as an edit summary. You get the wikipedia article version link by going to the source wikipedia article, click on the history tab, click on the last date at the top (e.g. "01:56, November 13, 2007"), and copy the url (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Children_of_the_Gods&oldid=171090096 ). Click Save on the wikia article. (An anti-bot window will pop up, but it's obvious what you have to do.)
9. You're finished except that all images have to be transwikied from wikipedia. As this can be done later, no need to write about this now.

So, and what we have to do then is decide which episode we are going to keep as articles on wikipedia. I could set up a non-binding poll soon. Generally speaking, no more than five to eight episodes per season should remain on wikipedia, giving preferance to those article winning (or being nominated for) awards, fan favorites, and those articles you would personally improve (because it is your favorite). We can have another poll later to decide if we can lose a few more episode articles that don't establish notability, but this will be for a different time. – sgeureka 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All of SG-1 Season 1 is transwikied to wikia now. – sgeureka 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the admins over on the Stargate wiki, I'm just curious if you're going to be doing the same thing to the Stargate Atlantis episodes? We're more than happy to take them, as I hate seeing people's work go to waste when they've obviously spent some time writing up synopsis' for each episode. Jaymach (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no current plan to also transwiki the Atlantis episodes. If people would like me to transwiki them as well like I do with the SG-1 episodes, I'd volunteer. But then there also needs to be consensus to cut down on the ATL episodes on wikipedia as well, or all of this would be in vain. I also admit that I kind of lost interest in Atlantis in Season 2 and haven't been very involved with fandom since (although I still watch the show), and I have no idea in how far these ATL episodes would/could make for good articles per WP:EPISODE. Anyway, this would have to wait some more weeks until SG-1 is transwikied in full. It's also not a good idea to change the wiki procedure with ATL episodes while the show is on a weekly run. – sgeureka 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I used User:NedBot to move images over for Digimon Wiki, and can also do this for all of the Stargate articles. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the real problem?

Most of the discussion here doesnt seem to consider this:

"All articles on Misplaced Pages must meet notability guidelines, which state that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

"Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

I was afraid that means all episodes have to go, but Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) is indeed good work and may suffice. --Echosmoke (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that when these ep articles were created, the policies and guidelines were not as strict, and we now have to deal with these legacy articles or be overrun by time. I guess the majority of episodes with audio commentaries and a little source-digging can become like Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) (which was three hours of work, including watching the ep with the commentary on). If this inspires you to work on an ep article as well, then great. :-) But until all episodes are up to such a state (which will likely never happen), thinking about some other (reversable) options is also fine. – sgeureka 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright she acted as if they were long lost friends but i understand now. i was seeing other goofs so i thought i would add as it can be funny to notice but stargate is still #1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.117.112 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

images uploaded by Matthew

There are currently several SG-1 images listed on User:Matthew's talk page that are tagged by BetaCommandbot. Since Matthew is no longer active on Misplaced Pages, i thought I would notify the project, perhaps you guys can take care of them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems the notifications are for images that wouldn't pass current FAIRUSE regulations, so I won't bother. Thanks anyway. :-) – sgeureka 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Future of images on character and technology lists; question about infoboxes

To let you know what will be happening soon: Per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Unacceptable images, The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements is generally unacceptable because it usually fails the test for significance (criterion #8). This has been practice for many shows in the past few months now, and is currently discussed again at e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Failure_of_WP:NFC_on_character_lists, which upholds that ruling. That means that most images in SG lists, especially for characters and technology, will be removed soon. (It may be argued to make each list element its own article, but that goes against Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction) and may result in AfD. Current merge efforts attempt to avoid that, and you may encounter merge tags more often now (any input is welcome).

Kind of related is the question of infoboxes, especially for one-time characters. See Langaran characters in Stargate or Ancient characters in Stargate as examples. Without the to-be-removed images, can't we also get rid of infoboxes for the minor characters by merging the infobox information into the text? Example of how this might look: Characters of Carnivàle or Characters of Lost. This kind of layout is also encouraged by Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Notability_and_undue_weight, but I need to ask about consensus before going ahead. – sgeureka 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution for this problem is to transwiki the articles to Wikia. This has been done with a lot of SG-1 episode articles and could be done with other articles. Diabound (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As a kind of example that could work for both fans and wikipedia is what I've done with formerly Ori_characters_in_Stargate, whose Priors section got merged in full to Prior (Stargate) (which is going to stay that way for a while), Tomin got merged in full to Miscellaneous alien characters in Stargate (too major to not be covered in some way on wikipedia), and Fannis, Harrid and Sallis, Seevis and Denya were transwikied to wikia:Stargate:Anti-Ori underground, which is linked to via a {{further}} template on Ori (Stargate)#Anti-Ori underground (these latter characters are practicably real-world-insignificant and/or were only one-timers, so they would have been removed from wikipedia in any case beyond short mentions). Do we want to go that route with other one-time characters as well? We don't have to decide this immediately, but there need to be discussions anyway if we want to comply with wiki policies and guidelines and still keep all info at hand, on- and off-wikipedia. – sgeureka 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Images of characters on a List of Characters page are quite clearly significant - they aid recognition of the character. If people want to get rid of the articles, they know where AFD is, but if the characters are worth describing, they are worth having a picture of. I will resist any attempt to remove the pictures. --Tango (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you understate current AfD and deletion-minded (content and images) practices, and policies and guidelines currently work against fiction cruft that has no secondary sources (and almost no SG articles have secondary sources to establish notability). WP:ILIKEIT protests are often ignored now, even GA and FA articles got stripped of their many images. I don't want to speak of the devil, but if someone took Langaran characters in Stargate to AfD, it would certainly end in a trim&merge (best case) or delete (worst-case), so the image question would be even more moot. So we can wait in the hope that no-one notices, or we can do something about it and bring these articles closer to encyclopedic standard. I made my standpoint clear, but I cannot do anything unless I know that this wikiproject is willing to work from the perspective of existing policies and guidelines, not one from fandom (and I am a fan, but I'm also a wikipedian). Wikia is more mindful of fandom approach, so I guess this could be our big hope. – sgeureka 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying they wouldn't get deleted. I'm saying they should either be deleted, or kept with images, they shouldn't be kept without images. As for the Langaran list - I would vote to trim it, there are characters there that only appeared in one episode, they don't need any more mention than a sentence with a link to the episode article (of course, if it's been transwikied, it's a little more difficult, which is one of the reasons for keeping episode articles). --Tango (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding. Even without the episode articles, these characters can still be covered in Langara (Stargate) (?). If we go the transwiki route however, we can have a link to the wikia page there for more detail like I suggested above for the Anti-Ori underground. IMO, the only important Langaran worth going into detail is Jonas Quinn, who may even have enough reliable secondary sources to keep his own article. But what to finally do with the Langaran character list is not my call, and needs a separate merge discussion. – sgeureka 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We can merge the character list and the planet article, but that doesn't really help - if the list isn't allowed pictures when it's in its own article, why would it be allowed pictures when it's as part of another article? I agree Jonas is the only character that warrants any great detail (ie. his own article), but there are other characters that appear in multiple episodes and should get at least some description. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, that doesn't save the images, but it would save the characters info (for now). Now the question is how detailed we want to keep the character info, i.e. if we still want to leave everything unchanged and continue the use of infoboxes, or trim the info into three sentences each for a merge, or whether we hand everything over to wikia. And this was my initial question in this thread because I am unsure how to procede. :-S – sgeureka 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are essential to the article, so they should be kept - call it ignoring all rules if you like, although I'm going to keep trying to get the rules fixed. If the pictures are being kept, it makes sense to keep the infoboxes, since they don't take up much more space are make it easier to find key details. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you already started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_images, which may explain things better than I can. I agree that images and plot summaries are very helpful with recognizing fictional things, but the recent trend is to make wikipedia an encyclopedia focused on the real world, and go away from fansite coverage. That also means either cutting down on unwanted stuff (number of articles, images, plot), or expansion (conception, production, recepetion and keeping an image). There has only been limited progress in the latter, so we can only do the former or wait until others do it for us. – sgeureka 19:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted by whom? --Tango (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines. WP:FICT wants as few non-notability-establishing articles as possible, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF want existing articles to have real-world context and sourced analysis, WP:OR and WP:RS require sources, and WP:NFC wants as few images as possible. The only problem that most SG articles don't have is WP:RS because of the easily available primary sources. Still, most articles have major problems with WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources and WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)