Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Mass deletion/merging

Following Tobyks discussion, why dont we list all the articles we can find that are too small here, then discuss and enact mergers, and finally put through a big afd. there IS a lot of tidying up that needs to be done. --Alfakim-- talk 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Tobyk777 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The list

Add new entires to the list if you feel they are too minor to be articles. Prefix "--" for disputed items. Tobyk777 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles which have already been nominated for deletion by the project should marked with ^Del-Proj; articles which have been nominated from outside the project should be marked with ^Del-Ext

1. --Orilla (Stargate)
2. Runner (Stargate)
3. --Project Arcturus
4. Ernest Littlefield * Merged with Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1
5. --Zipacna
6. Tac's (Stargate)^Del-Proj
7. Hanka
8. Reynolds (Stargate)
9. K'tano

Disputed entries

The following have been nominated in the list above, but have had their nomination disputed. LD 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Project Arcturus
   • Objection - I completely disagree with Project Arcturus being on this list... Also, I expanded Orilla into an acceptable article... Triad was merged into Tollan (Stargate) weeks ago so I removed it from the list Maartentje 19:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
   • Weak Objection - I'm mixed about this. I also think this has become a pretty good article that has grown to a size to justify it being on its own. One of our best articles (and Tobyk777's baby) is also about just a single technology. I can't see merging it into ZPM (doesn't seem to fit as it is a competing technology) and Ancient Technology (too big to include). If we can find a good place to put it then maybe but for now I object. Morphh 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

     Prehaps now there are 2 episodes that mention it, it might be more worthy of an article. --Tango 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This list was created before the last ep with it aired. At that time it was very minor. Since the last episosde of SGA it has become much more major. Since it has appeared twice and appears to be becoming a major componet of the show I now think that the article should be off the list and kept. And in response to morph, I have become a little to obbsesed an atached to DNA Resequencer. I have backed down. Tobyk777 00:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Zapacna appears in many eps. Tobyk777 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

   Never as a major character, though - he's more of a recurring extra. There's no character development, no background. --Tango 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

   The same could be said for a lot of Tau'ri characters who DO have a seperate page... And btw, he is a major character in "Pretense". Maartentje 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

   I wouldn't say he was a major character in Pretense. The same role could have been played by any other Gou'ld without changing the script at all. There was nothing in the episode about his character. If there are Tau'ri chars with articles that are no more important than Zipacna, I suggest you add them to this list. --Tango 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This has remained stale for a while - shall we go ahead and AfD the list so far, do it in batches, or wait for the list to build? Anytime you come across a miniature silly article just add it here. --Alfakim-- talk 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just merged Ernest Littlefield with Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1. I also merged Young Jack O'Neill and Henry Hayes in.--Andromeda 13:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just gradually work though and merge them and make the old ones redirects. I'm not sure it's worth deleting them - they're notable enough to get a redirect, I think. --Tango 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect templates

I've just fixed Template:Stargate character after an anonymous user tried to add a Homepage attribute unsuccessfully. Before I fixed it, every page that uses that template had "Homepage: {{{site}}}" in the infobox (as no pages actually had a site listed), and if they had any key episodes listed other than the first appearence, they would have been duplicated (I think, I didn't see any such pages, but that's what I'd expect from looking at the code).

Now, I don't generally have a problem with users, including anonymous ones, being bold, but when it breaks dozens of pages, it's a problem. I'm considering requesting all the projects templates to be semi-protected as they're too complicated to be edited by people that don't know what they're doing. I'd like some opinions here before I do that, though. --Tango 13:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the site attribute. It's not useful in a character template. --Andromeda 14:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of actors have homepages - I think that was the intention of the attribute. I'm not sure it's very useful either, though - the link to the actors article which will then link to the homepage is enough. --Tango 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we need to protect them. mistakes can always easily be removed. --Alfakim-- talk 14:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say protect, I said semi-protect. There's a big difference. Mistakes can be easilly removed, but it takes time, and until it's fixed there can be dozens of pages messed up. --Tango 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary CopyVio's

This is something I caught in the two most recent episode summary's for SG-1 and Atlantis. Both the summary's for Company of Thieves and Phantoms are direct lifts from other websites (Gateworld and Sci-Fi.com respectivley). I've checked a few random episodes from both shows and nothing else seems to have been copyvio'd, so I'm not sure if this is an isolated event, or a common one that hasn't been caught yet. Either way, it's something to look out for in the future. No Way Back 22:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone went through replacing all our summaries with copied ones a while back. Whoever reverted them all might have missed a couple. Check the histories - see how long they've been like that. --Tango 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Novels/Comics, etc.

Just out of curiosity...would you be willing to accept any information from the novels/comics/roleplaying books/etc. on any of the articles relating to Stargate? I only ask because they generally contain a lot more information (eg. the Marduk entry I wrote over on the Stargate Wikia) about each character, though I'm not entirely sure of their canon status in the Stargate universe (as can be seen by the fact that I was forced to put non-canon tags on the Marduk entry), though at the very least the novel writers think of their novels as "secondary canon" ie. canon unless overwritten by the show, and the roleplaying guys have outright stated that this is the case with their books, as MGM gave them authorization to say so. 195.153.219.170 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means add any relavant points (plot summaries probably aren't useful). I suggest you get round the canon issue by phrasing it as: "In the book, XYZ by ABC, it is said that..." --Tango 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Righto...thanks for that. :) Sorry about the different IP this time, but the other one is when I'm at work...usually I'd create my standard Jaymach account, but I can't log in when at work anyway so there seems little point at this time. Anyway, just to clarify the position of the Stargate Roleplaying game, here is a thread which deals with it (look for posts by StargateBrandManager), in which it's said that the RPG is considered canon. For the novels, please see my own thread over here in which I've pasted a quote from Karen Miller (the author of one of the upcoming novels), which states her own opinion though not hte official answer. I may still work over on the Stargate Wikia primarily, but I think I'll also drop by here once every so often to contribute. 87.82.24.58 03:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would refer to the RPG in the same way as books ("The Roleplaying game manual says..."). We shouldn't really state anything as fact, as none of it is - it's all fiction, so everything should be said in the form "X says Y", unless it's absolutely obvious from context. --Tango 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stargate Star userbox

I recently did a userbox for the Mortal Kombat WikiProject's award and figured I'd share the love. So, I present to you Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Award/userbox. EVula 06:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I already put it on my page. Tobyk777 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Near completion

Recently, my edits regarding Stargate have vastly decreased. This is because while editing Stargate articles, I have been having a harder and harder time finding problems to fix. I have also been having a difficult time finding places where adding information is necisary. It seems to me, that the project is very near total completetion. (Except for information from unaired episodes of course). Almost every one of our pages looks prefectly formated and complete. The tasks on the "things you can do" board are virtualy done. I think we should make a list of final things needed to be done to complete wikipedia's coverage of Stargate. (Then do them obviously). I think we might be the first qikiproject ever to actualy fully acomplish its goal. Has there ever been another project that compeleted its mission? Tobyk777 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude this project isn't complete at all. Hardly any Stargate articles are written from out-of-universe perspectives, no way near enough have verifiable sources, and those that do don't have enough or don't have a wide enough range of reference. It was also our mission to feature at least 1 article, and complete the entire episode listing (close on that though!). I'm not sure if many WikiProjects "end" as such, and there'll always be a bit more to add, but this one isn't there yet.

We're at a stage where our articles have a lotr of information and raw material, and now what we need to do is organise it, format it, and in many places rewrite it. We're a good Stargate database, yes, but not one that fits well, yet, into an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

That said, this project has come miles since it began. We've done massive amounts of quality work and should be really quite proud. But no, it ain't over yet.

What would be good would be to make a list of operations that need to be performed on all articles to complete the final stages. So, like I said, they've all got lots of material but some extra things need to be done to each (checklisted) to bring them up to the final standard. I've mocked this up below. --Alfakim-- talk 11:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Steps to Completion

For any article with a decent amount of material and information, but that doesn't conform to the following, the following steps should be taken to bring it up to a final high-quality standard:

1. Copyedit (spell-check, grammar-check, brilliant prose, etc.)
   1. Standardise (e.g. "Ba'al", not "Baal", "SG-1" [italics], not "SG-1")
   2. Wikify (create links, sections, formatting, etc.)
   3. Images (add appropriate images with full fair use rationales)
2. Trim (strip unsourced material, original research, excess or irrelevent information)
3. Out-of-universe (give the article a factual, encyclopedic tone)
4. References (use <ref>...</ref> tags to cite verifiable sources from a wide range)
5. Footer (Stargate articles should end with: External links, See also, References and at least a {{StargateTopics}} template)

Episode Articles

Indeed, we're nowhere near finished. Almost all the episode articles are still listed as stubs (we need to decide what an episode article needs so we can go through and destub them), we have no featured articles (the project isn't really complete until every article than can be written has been written and is featured - in theory, any article can be featured, so every article should be featured). There's plenty of work to do. --Tango 16:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of our episode articles meet the definition of stub. All of them are high quality and complete. They should all be de-stubbed. Tobyk777 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested checklist: --Alfakim-- talk 01:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1. All of the above
2. Full plot information (full story)
3. Directorial/producer notes or information (making of, reasons for portrayal x, etc.)
4. Links to other episodes/arcs (e.g. "is part of the controversial Daniel arc")
5. General reaction (GateWorld, Nielson, etc)
6. Notable elements

Atlantis DVD

i just want to let you guys know that the the Stargate Atlantis DVD page has been deleted. i dont know why, seeing as how we have one for Stargate SG-1, but just a headsup, cause im not going to redo the page again... -Xornok 17:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear anything about it or I would have voted. Not all is lost - one of the admins can still look at the history if we want to revive it. Here is the voting from the AFD. Morphh ^(talk) 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not dvd shopping guide websites--Andd 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Users can find DVD info through the central article's links - Richfife 04:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crufty and of ephemeral relevance. ENeville 05:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. MER-C 08:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary info, no encyclopaedic content, ad.--Húsönd 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Stargate Atlantis. Alba 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stargate Atlantis. RFerreira 22:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

cool, but it was set up exactly like the SG-1 DVD page, so what gives? damn deletionists... -Xornok 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't we hear about this. We all could have voted and showed the viewpoint of the project. Also, some of these comments don't even makes sense. How is it orginial reasearch? Tobyk777 17:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets put this one on deletion review. Tobyk777 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If that fails, ask them to move it to the User or Wikipedia namespace so we can make sure it's at least well-referenced, and take care of any other fixable concerns. (Then you can put it through deletion review again.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 18:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack O'Neill

I've been working on rewriting Jack O'Neill and would like some comments. I've done the first basic rewrite of all the sections up to and including Other Appearences. I still need to rewrite the other sections, and add some more sections - primarilly an "Importance" section. I have a few references in mind to show how important the character is - interviews and comments from the cast, for example. I know even the sections I've done aren't finished (it's barely referenced, for a start), but any comments would be helpful at this point. --Tango 15:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it distracting to have one spelling for references to the movie and another spelling for references to the television show. My personal preference would be to have the same spelling throughout with a note on the difference in the introduction. Did this project ever formulate an official policy on the spelling differences between the movie and show? ----

um, I believe so, one L when talking about the movie and 2 L's when talking about the show... -Xornok 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please refer me to the page where that was decided? --Bark 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article uses the 2 l's spelling throughout (other than where it's explaining the difference), I think - if any 1 l's have slipped through, please correct them. The most recent spelling, and more commonly used spelling, should take precedence, I think. --Tango 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll recheck. --Bark 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember an episode where Jack joked about another Jack O'Neil that was always being confused with him. I think this was directed at that name difference between the movie and the show. Morphh ^(talk) 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I can't remember the name of the episode, but he said to a reporter (roughly, from memory) "O'Neill, 2 l's! There's another Jack O'Neil with one l and he has no sense of humour at all!" --Tango 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That happened in a couple of episodes. I'm not sure, but "Smoke and Mirrors" or "Chain Reaction" might be candidates. I always used 1 l for ref to movie, 2 for show... that seems to work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfakim (talk • contribs)

"Secrets" had the first "One 'L', Two 'L's" comment I remember. --Bark 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note, his name in "Stargate The Movie" is Jonathan O'Neil however in "Stargate SG-1" he is John O'Neill (Season Four's "Entity" can varify that). (Pulled from article talk - IP 84.66.62.139). Morphh ^(talk) 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis DVD Deletion Review

Please comment here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Stargate_Atlantis_DVD to have this article restored.--Alfakim-- talk 22:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Or not restored, if that's what you think should happen. Just make sure this wikiproject is accurately represented. We don't do official opinions, so asking people to vote a particular way isn't really wise. --Tango 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Or restored temporarily so we can merge its content (whatever it may be) elsewhere. --Bark 14:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The review suceeded - now we get a chance to debate whether or not it should be kept. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stargate_Atlantis_DVD_(second_nomination) and contribute to the discussion. --Tango 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the deletion discussion I added a paragraph to the article about the uniqueness of the dvds. I was up late when I wrote it so i tried to add levity to the deletion discussion by calling it poorley written. Please feel free to improve it.EnsRedShirt 10:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article came out of the relist with a Keep or Merge. EnsRedShirt 00:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First Strike

some person keeps changing it, saying the entire thing is a copy violation of a gateworld page, when nothing is. Everything was rewritten and the gateworld page was sourced, and i keep asking the person to point out where the copyvio is and they dont, they just keep reverting it. some help here would be appreciated... -Xornok 14:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was originlly a copyvio, then it should be deleted and have the good non copyvio info restored. American Patriot 1776 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's been marked as a copyvio, you should leave it marked until an admin gets a chance to review it. Leave a note somewhere explaining that it isn't copied (the talk page, or somewhere). --Tango 18:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Stargate race" template

I notice that {{Stargate race}} puts quotes around its argument "first" argument (i.e. 'key episodes'), on the assumption that it's a single episode, with no other text. Of course, often it's a not a single episode, and/or has additional text by way of a gloss of same, in which case the quotes are All Wrong. I fixed the appearance of one of these by substing it, but that's obviously not a great solution. Would anyone object to this being recoded to avoid this: perhaps an extra parameter ("key"? "firsts?"), to be used if "first" isn't defined? Alai 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The "first" argument should only be one episode. There is another argument for the other key episodes, as the talk page for the template explains. --Tango 09:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I lie. I'm thinking about the character template, not the race template. I'll fix the race template so it works the same way as the character one. --Tango 09:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I lie again, it already works the same way, the talk page just doesn't know anything about, so I've fixed the talk page. Use "first" for the first episode (with no formatting - it's all done automatically) and "key" for any others, putting in your own formatting, including line breaks. --Tango 09:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I should have looked a bit closer in the first instance.  :)

Actually, there is a problem: the Jaffa and Goa'uld both first appeared in the italicized film Stargate. LD 15:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made them both italic - you can add formatting to the first appearence, it just isn't generally required. --Tango 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the problem. Not only should they be italicized, they should not be put in quotation marks. LD 17:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

LD is right. Both the race and character templates should be changed to NOT have quotes around the first parameter, and indeed no automatic formatting - for both his reasons, and also just for pure simplicity and intuitiveness. The templates should, however, be filled out like this:

{{stargate race
 |blah=blah
 |foo=bar
 |first={{sgcite|Lost City}}
 |key={{sgcite|Chimera}}<br />{{sgcite|Rising|A}}
 |bar=foo
 |blah=blah
 }}

i.e. episode fields should be filled out with the {{sgcite}} template, which automatically gives an episode link in the correct form (i.e. with quotes).--Alfakim-- talk 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you need to put line breaks in between the key episodes so they look right (they'll end up splitting episodes over two lines otherwise), you're probably right. There are quite a lot of pages to change, though - do you want to do it with AWB? --Tango 10:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If the above changes are made, the "first" field will just lose its quotes thats all. There's no way AWB could change all the citations to {{sgcite}}s. So AWB isn't good on this, it'll have to be manual. --Alfakim-- talk 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't AWB do regexp search and replaces? Replacing the key ones might be hard, as you don't know how many there are, but the first ones should be easy enough. --Tango 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is doable in AWB. At the least, if the template is changed to remove the formatting from the "first" parameter, to add that back around the first argument in each case, so that the formatting appears as it does at present. Any actual re-formatting would have to be done by hand. Alai 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Notification that articles are being considered for preemptive deletion

The list in the section dealing with articles we really ought to delete is growing larger, and I think that we really ought to develop a notification to go on either the top of the page or the talk page of the nominated article, perhaps reading as follows:

• This article is being considered by WikiProject Stargate for preemptive deletion as part of its anti-fancruft efforts. Please do not nominate this article for deletion yet as a recommendation from within the project is still pending. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.

How about it? LD

"Please do not nominate this article for deletion yet" sounds rather like ownership. Perhaps, "If you think this article should be deleted, it may not be necessary, since it is likely WikiProject Stargate will nominate it anyways, see the discussion for more details." Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Consider it changed. LD 10:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Notice. --Alfakim-- talk 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It should definately go on the talk page, not the article page, but it seems like a good idea. --Tango 13:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Going ahead and adding the suggested content to the talk pages of the articles in question, with minor stylistic changes. Please go ahead and edit the message if you don't think it's a good one. Lockesdonkey 15:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the statement that we have an anti-fancruft effort. I don't want to give any legitimacy to those that nominate or delete articles based on what they term as "cruft". I'd just say "as part of the group's cleanup efforts". Morphh ^(talk) 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. I just nocticed that Tac (Stargate) has been AFDed. Tobyk777 17:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)