From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Charles Kawalsky commentary

I know the character is only in the series in 5 episodes and plays a minor role, but there is much information about him i can't reach since i don't or plan to own a SG-1 release. He was actually suppose to be a main character played by the guy from 1994 film. But his sch. got screwed up so he couldn't fill the role, so Jay Acovone got the role, but since the producers and writter staff didn't want him they killed him off. This is the short version of the information. Do any of you owe a copy of Stargate SG-1 were this comment is available? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Future of technology articles/lists

The fictional technology of the Stargate universe is currently covered in the following lists and articles:

• Technology in Stargate
• Ancient technology in Stargate
• Earth technology in Stargate
• Goa'uld technology in Stargate
• List of starships in Stargate
• List of Earth starships in Stargate
• Stargate (device)
• Atlantis (Stargate)

Fiction lists have so far always been kept at AfDs, but it seems the tide is turning, as there were a couple of AfDs for fictional item lists of popular franchises recently:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of objects in Pirates of the Caribbean - result: delete. Such a list is not notable in itself; independent, reliable third-party sources are required for inclusion. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Buffyverse objects - result: delete. Per arguments on lack of non-trivial coverage. May be useful for the Buffy Wikia, but we don't have a template for that and I don't know any of the admins on that wiki to do an import.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons technology in the Honorverse is heading towards deletion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorverse concepts and terminology (two articles) is heading towards a no consensus or deletion

If an AfD for the SG tech articles and lists came up, I don't know how good their chances would be to avoid deletion nowadays. From my reviewing of countless sources for the current Stargate SG-1 article, I did not come across much actual real-world discussion (production, impact, relevance) of SG tech – SG mythology, on the other hand, garnered plenty of attention from scholars and some from the producers. I'd guess Stargate (device), List of starships in Stargate, List of Earth starships in Stargate and likely Atlantis (Stargate) have the highest potential to be improved to WP:GA or WP:FL quality (I am confident I have enough non-trivial real-world info to improve the first three to GA or FL myself) and therefore do likely not have to fear much from an AfD. But the rest has little raison d'être apart from a section here and there.

A solution could be to stop focusing on listing technology for the sake of listing them, and instead remove technology that has self-explanatory titles ("Life signs detector", "Memory device", "Pain stick"), remove technology that has no relevance for the overarching plot ("Tacuchnatagamuntoron", "Nish'ta"), and merge one-time technology ("Ark of Truth", "Vocuum") or arch- or race-specific technology ("Thor's Hammer", "Sangraal", "Attero device") into the prose of respective episode summaries or the arch/race article where relevant. There would only be a few fictional technology items that should be covered in a little more depth elsewhere ("Zero Point Module" or "Naquada" come to mind), and those could e.g. be covered in Mythology of Stargate in their own sections. Scholars have also focused on the military aspect of SG-1, so weapons and parts of Earth technology in Stargate may be covered in a new Military in Stargate article if done right. There would be technical need for a separate technology article/list anymore.

Mind you, I have no problem admitting my lack of interest in technology (both real-world tech and fictional) and therefore am much harder on this topic than than other fans would be. I also do not have the time to do anything with the SG tech articles before I have finished a lot of other wiki work. But I want to initiate this wikiproject to think about the future of its articles before the community sets a seven-day limit to decide their fate. A first step is to ask how many editors here have strong attachments to the stand-alone technology lists and would oppose any move to get rid of them (as I said, the mentionworthy content would be merged elsewhere). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like technology (both fictional and real) but I tend to agree with you. We really don't need lots of miscellaneous lists, and tidying them up would be a good idea. Like you, however I also have a bias, but in my case it's a bias against lists of trivia on wikipedia in general. Whatever we do we don't add to miscellany and trivia like this: List of fictional ducks. Personally I don't think that it's particularly encyclopedic, so merging them into more substantial articles sounds like nothing but a good idea to me. VJ (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the technologies in Stargate as well. And I amy have some good ideas to trim them (since I once spent lots of time trimming the Ancient tech page, and now it has grown again;

1. Keep all the main technolgies, merge the one-time ones to the episodes/characters, and then merge the technology articles to Technology in Stargate.
2. Some of the main technologies from the series were found on the spaceships (hyperdrives, shields, Asgard plasma beam weapons), so those technologies can be merged to the spaceship articles.
3. Keep the guns, since there is some real-world info out there (I know from an Atlantis DVD extra somewhere that they use P90s because the bullet cartridges go down, instead of flying everywhere and hit people, and in some other extra, they use certain blanks to avoid fire risks)
4. Concerning the techs that would stay like Naquadah, there could be just a sentence or so about Naquadriah, since I remember is the upgraded version.
5. The Stargate article should stay, since that is the most important part of the series of all, and there are some real-world info there, though it could still do with trimming here and there.

I hope this could be of some help. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your second point, which I hadn't considered at all. But what do you suggest a common sense exclusion criterion for your version of (main) Technology in Stargate? I've had a similar thought of keeping one tech list around, but even renaming the article List of recurring technology in Stargate still leaves a crufty-looking 100kB list behind, or leaves the floodgates open for unexperienced fans to expand it again (my first cut-and-paste-and-nottrimmed attempt of a recurring tech list in Feb09). I agree on the rest of your points. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can just explain the main technologies in just a maximum of two or three sentences. For instance, though we could reword it;

• Drone weapons are cross projectile/energy weapons designed to cut through and destroy its targets including starships. They are found on various Ancient outposts and ships, and require an individual with the ATA gene to fire them. The Ancients once experimented on a mini version.

I also have no objection to removing the self-explanatory techs, including the drone weapons dare I say :) The way I see it, if the tech is to have just one page, for the Ancient tech section, the technologies that could stay would be ZPMs, drones, ATA gene and the Dakara superweapon, maybe a couple more? I also like your idea of arcing technolgies, like Janus's work. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just been going through the list on Earth technology in Stargate. This is what I have considered, just a thought;

• Real or semi real – keep
• Anti-Prior device – seems self-explanatory, though it could be merged to Ori (Stargate)
• Anti-Wraith retrovirus – keep to an odd sentence or two?
• Anti-Replicator gun – merge to Replicator Disruptor
• ATA gene therapy – merge to ATA gene
• Chimera – insignificant, remove/merge to "Covenant" and "Bounty"
• Dialing computer – merge to Stargate (device)
• FRED – seems insignificant, could remove to which episode it comes
• GDO – merge to Stargate
• Iris – merge to Stargate
• Holographic projectors – insignificant, remove/merge to "Smoke and Mirrors"
• Kull disruptor – not decided, could keep to just one sentence or two
• Locator beacon – seems self-explanatory
• McKay-Carter Intergalactic Gate Bridge – merge to Stargate
• MALP – keep
• Naquadah generator – seems self-explanatory, merge to naquadah?
• Nuclear weapons – most seem one-off technologies, could remove
• Portable scanners – seems insignificant, remove
• Prior Plage vaccine – merge to Ori, just give it a mention there?
• PWARW – insignificant, one off, mentioned only, remove
• Railgun – ship based tech, merge to the starship articles
• Spacecraft – merge to Earth starships in Stargate or remove altogether
• Staff blast armour – not mentioned much, so it could be removed
• X-699 – one-off, merge to "Bounty"

If this happens to the other technology by Goa'uld/Ancients articles, it could work to be cut down to around 5-10kb each. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the list. One thing we should be careful of, however, is that some tech that's self-explanatory: e.g Anti-replicator gun is only self-explanatory if you know what a replicator is, so we'll have to be extra careful to work at this from an out of universe perspective. It might make more sense to merge all anti-replicator weapons to the main replicator article, all anti Wraith weapons to the main Wraith article etc. The Stargate (device) article is very notable (many non fans might not know the show but they'll recognise a stargate) so I agree with the keep there, but obviously move Iris, DHD, GDO, Dialing computer and any stuff like that there, and create re-directs. VJ (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that techs that are self-explanatory that are unknown to non-SG fans (if they have an interest to read SG related articles) should deserve a mention of somesort. But techs like "portable scanner" can go, because that is obviously self-explantory and even the non-fans would know what it is (it is a scanner that's portable). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're all in agreement I'm going to make a start on removing some of this stuff. I'll start on the Ancient technology in Stargate article as that has such gems as "healing device", which er... heals people, and a "life signs detector" which shockingly detects lifesigns VJ (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. It might help though for later if you could make a list of fictional tech elements that you removed (1) to give a transparent overview of what has been done and (2) to later find the redirects which should be retargeted, or be removed from articles and then be RfDed. You could use the talkpage of the main tech list or of the tech sublist for that. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done that, I've also provided links to the relevant diff should someone want to take something I've deleted and merge it with an episode article, or restore it if they disagree with me. Furthermore, God that article's a mess. Once I'm finished removing the junk and moving sections out, I'm only going to be left with the ZPM, Control chair, Hyperdrives (which should possibly be in the spacecraft article) and various weapons and little else. If the other lists are the same, I can see it all tech being merged into three articles Technology in stargate, Weapons in Stargate and Spacecraft in Stargate. Where we can put the major recurring tech, It appears as if everything else can be farmed out to the episode articles, or deleted. VJ (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, on my sandbox I have managed to have experimented and turned the Earth technology in Stargate article to this. Note it is just around 5kb. Do you guys think it's alright or am I taking this to far? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good Mathew, the Ancient Tech article will probably end up that short as well, as I said in my previous comment. Perhaps we should merge all the Tech articles into down into three Good ones instead of the mess we have now VJ (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I envision the race articles to be turned into story arc articles down the road (not much unlike Stargate SG-1#Plot overview), which wouldn't require that much of change. Therefore, I'd argue that Anti-Prior Device could be merged into Ori (Stargate)#Priors, and Anti-Wraith Retrovirus could be merged into Wraith (Stargate). Naquadah generators seems very much related to Naquadah, where it could be easily mentioned. MALP is one of the more notable Earth technologies, but I wonder whether it couldn't also find a home at Stargate (device) or Stargate Program. I am completely unsure what to do with Locator beacons - the name is already self-explanatory, and if I remember correctly, it's also only used by SG teams (e.g. the part of Stargate Program discussing the SG teams might be a suitable merge target), and it's only used to beam the SG teams or objects up to Earth spaceships and probably only the Deadalus-class ships (i.e. List of Earth starships in Stargate as a merge target). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you are on about now. I am neutral about merging the Earth technologies to other articles. Though to be honest, this is about my umpteenth attempt on how to reply, and I have no idea what else to say for now. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT#PLOT

WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re-open Stargate portal

I wish and to re-open the Stargate portal, but i need support from you guys. can i get some? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was closed was because it was badly out of date. I also feel it is fairly redundant given the fairly small number of articles we now have, thanks to Sgeureka and other's excellent cleanup efforts, and fairly unnecessary, given there is only SGU upcoming...right now, there isn't even any firm info on future movies. If you want to reopen it, there has to be some statement or agreement that you or others will be responsible for keeping it up to date. Otherwise, it'll simply be killed off again. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate episode infobox

"Rising"
Stargate Atlantis episode
John Sheppard arrives in Atlantis
Production
Writer	Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright
Director	Martin Wood
Producer	MGM and Sci Fi Channel?
Executive producer(s)	Brad Wright and Robert C. Cooper
Music	Joel Goldsmith
Budget	5 million USD
Production no.	101 and 102
Length	43min (each episode) 86min (put together)
Original airdate(s)	July 16, 2004
TV rating(s)	3.2 in Nielsen Rating 0.9 in Syndication Rating
Cast
Joe Flanigan as John Sheppard Rachel Luttrell as Teyla Emmagan Rainbow Sun Francks as Aiden Ford Torri Higginson as Elizabeth Weir David Hewlett as Rodney McKay
Guest stars
Robert Patrick as Marshall Sumner Richard Dean Anderson as Jack O'Neill Michael Shanks as Daniel Jackson Ona Grauer as Ayiana Paul McGillion as Carson Beckett Craig Veroni as Peter Grodin Garwin Sanford as Simon Christopher Heyerdahl as Halling Dan Shea as Siler Reece Thompson as Jinto Dean Marshall as Bates James Lafazanos as Wraith Andee Frizzell as The Keeper
Chronology
← Preceded by	Followed by →
—	"Hide and Seek"
List of season 1 episodes List of Stargate Atlantis episodes

Recently, Trust Is All You Need created a new episode infobox specifically for Stargate-related episodes. While the effort is appreciated, I have removed the infoboxes for now pending the outcome of this discussion. By implementing this, we end up with what is effectively a fork of the standard box, which means that any improvements to that template have to be manually identified and updated in the SG 'box. As well, it appears that some of the fields in the SG-specific box are non-standard, which adds a needless level of complexity to the process without any substantial benefit. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TIAYN has now (twice) restored the infoboxes, despite a request to discuss first, so I'll wait to hear what others think before removing it again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to discuss, but i don't understand why you would remove them NOW, when you could do it when wer are finished with this discussion. You are also removing promotional episode images which i uploaded. Why remove? --TIAYN (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion was inadvertent, as demonstrated by several of the pages where I incorporated content changes other than the template call. Apologies if I missed something. However, given the concerns over the template, it is more appropriate to remove it and discuss, as it can always be reinstated if consensus dictates. (Otherwise, it might be added to more pages during the course of the discussion, which would only complicate removal.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm generally not in favour of forked infoboxes of any kind. Somewhere in the archives is the discussion where we abandoned a Stargate-specific character infobox for the standard {{infobox character}}. (a) I (and others, apparently) prefer the standardization across the Wikipedia, (b) For the technical reasons Ckatz brought up, and (c) it makes things easier for people not familiar with the project to work on project-covered articles if we don't have special variables and criteria for our articles.

As for the potential edit warring going on; why don't both participants stop here and now and just discuss? Remember, there's no wrong version. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a reason for Stargate characters removal, it was identical to the main character template... But the same can't be said about this template, it has different build up and different points on it such as Budget which the main don't have. Just to make it clear, most of the Stargate episode articles re-created after the merges of Sgeureka has been established by established users not newbees. As said the template is different, and many other "big" series' has their own episode templates, such as Template:Infobox The Wire episode and Template:Infobox Jericho episode among others. --TIAYN (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my point of contention is that we don't need separate Stargate episode infobox. If it does have additional variables such as "budget" (which I can't find at Template:Infobox Stargate episode, btw), will those variables be used every time so as to necessitate their inclusion in an infobox? Do those variables specifically define the base of the episode in some fashion the default does not? Why do Stargate episodes need a separate template?

You're right, in that primarily WikiProject members have been editing the few remaining actual episode articles, but we don't want a new template with new/esoteric variables to be barriers to anybody who wishes to in the future. It's not a catastrophic point, I realize, but one nonetheless.

There's also the unaddressed technical aspects that Ckatz brought up.

Eschew obfuscation, I say. My 3¢. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for this new 'box. Any additional information can be covered in the prose. An infobox is not intended to be the end-all resource for data, it is simply meant to summarise the key data points. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This infobox does not "end-all" resources, most of it is copied from the Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode, and as seen here, its more tidy then the original and another pluss is that you can edit this infobox. Seen as the main infobox is protected from being edited. All those section headers can be used perfectly. You can use all of those section without summarising to much which is what Huntster is afraid about... This is a simple infobox that is more tidy and is easier to control seen as the other one is close for editing. The Stargate franchise is a "Big" and evolving one, its getting new spin off series and is the longest running science fiction franchise in the US... This is one of the reason why IT should get its own infobox.... See at the Doctor Who episodes all of them uses the specific Doctor who episode templaet because as said before, wikiproject members are those that usually creates these templates... And if you are a member of this project it will make sure its easy to notice this infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the right you see the Stargate episode template in work.

Erm, my point was that your infobox contains too much information. The reason the main infobox is protected is precisely to keep editors from adding more and more fields. Bloat is bad, which is why I oppose this 'box. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Stargate is a long-running franchise doesn't seem to hold off much weight since compared to the likes of Star Trek and Battlestar among others, Stargate is a pretty obscure and ignored one. I too oppose this box for the same reason as Huntster, that there's too much information, and with that, then there seems to be not much point in the production (apart from behind-the-scenes) and reception (apart from reviews) sections, which is bad. So far, it seems that only the infobox's creator, while the other users in this discussion seem to oppose it. As far as the wikiproject members are those that usually creates these templates goes, in most cases, just about all the members are on board for the idea, but in this case, most of us seem against it. At the end, the consensus may be that the infobox isn't worthy of keeping. Also, certain articles (like Lifeline) are currently a GAN, so the reviewer may also say something negatively towards the infobox. If that does happen during the review, I will swtich back to the conventional infobox. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lemme try and keep myself from getting tl;dr. (a) It's a very nice infobox. (b) Some aspects of it would be awesome if implemented in {{infobox television episode}}. (c) I don't think they're likely to be, although I would certainly support the initiative. (d) I want to maintain aesthetic and technical cohesion with the Wikipedia. That other people aren't doesn't really concern me at this juncture. (e) The inclusion of additional fields is not enough for me to discount d. (f) I am not trying to dissuade further discussion, far from it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gateworld Stargate fandom?

Something that someone should take a look at - Trust Is All You Need has competely moved and merged Gateworld into one article now called Stargate Fandom - this seems inappropriate - the article on the website alone seemed fine and was well referenced, and while I can see a mention along with a link in this "fandom" article would be appropriate, completely taking over the page history of the original seems excessive. Comments? I'm tempted to move things back to their original locations... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't think I have any objections to the combination. The website article had 10 references, five of which were primary sources, and one was plainly unreliable as a Yahoo! Group. As a standalone article it seems rather tenuous for meeting the muster of Wikipedia:Notability, but this combined article is an apropos place for information about the website, and builds upon it to make a larger, more appropriate article. My 3¢ — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TheRealFennShysa Gateworld and Stargate Fandom should be separate articles. Powergate92Talk 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, the reliable sources available for GateWorld are very, very slim.

• "GateWorld.net is to Stargate followers what the ancient circular rings are to the premise of the show: a portal (duh!). Back in 1999, SG-1 fanatic and recent college grad Darren Sumner founded the fansite out of his tiny apartment. Since then, it's become the most respected Stargate gathering spot on the Web — 19,000 people are registered members."
• "There are fan websites like the amazingly-detailed Gateworld..."
• "... GateWorld was honored as Best Genre Web Site."
• Mallozzi's blog: "I have always been a supporter of Gateworld and consider it the premiere site for Stargate fans online. In fact, I was the one who suggested to MGM Marketing several years back, that they look toward establishing some sort of working relationship with Darren and Gateworld. As I explained to Darren in a recent email – My comment in yesterday’s blog entry was not intended as a blast at Gateworld, but as an example of how fan expectations can be raised or unintentionally misguided by a misinterpretation of the source. Gateworld’s attributing of the non-existent quote was simply another link in a developing chain. While I could have contacted them about the article in question, at that point it was already too late. It had been published and my apparent words officially reinforced. The point of my commentary was not to critique Gateworld but to go on record now, before the episode airs, and make it clear that I had been misquoted. Asking for a quiet retraction would not have solved the problem."

That's it. Everything else is a primary source to the website itself or its forums, or an unreliable source like Yahoo Groups. While I understand the desire to have an article devited to the website, we need to make sure it meets the muster of the Notability guideline, just like our episodic articles do.

For a comparison, check out Talk:Memory Alpha; that article has 29 secondary sources and has had six AfD nominations, one of which was a redirect, but was overturned at DRV. I'm not saying "if they can have an article, so can we", so much as "they have twenty-nine! reliable, secondary sources versus our three-to-four and look how much contention there has been there." I think we should assume good faith on TIAYN's part, and see how this topical article turns out. My 3¢ — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has an interesting in finding more potential sources for a Gateworld article, I suggest you start here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the Google archives some times now and i can't find a thing... --TIAYN (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you were looking at, since the link I gave above shows about 300 mentions of GateWorld in other media sources. Of course I can't vouch for the quality/reliability/etc of those sources, but it is a place to start. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All the articles goes in the same manor, they state from a report from GateWorld, according to GateWorld... etc. They don't actually talk about GateWorld but GateWorld's reports. --TIAYN (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

THe GateWorld article was merged because of lack of notability... The article itself could never become a GA of any kind because of lack of notability outside the Stargate community. The Stargate franchise already lacks media coverage, what makes you think that they are than going to coverage GateWorld? (no harm ment) When merging it into Stargate Fandom we can include much more information from reliable third party sources, which mean if we work hard enough it can become a GA. It's a chance to include the GateWorld article itself, since its notable enough to have its own section but not its own article..--TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, you should have either redirected the Gateworld artcile to a new article at Stargate Fandom, or put the original up for deletion, if you believe it to be that non-notable. As it is, you've made a mess of things, in regards to edit histories. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, i'll give you a point for that one.... but still the article should stay were it is!--TIAYN (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gateworld and Stargate Fandom should be separate articles per WP:OFFTOPIC as Stargate fandom is "a community of people actively interested in the military science fiction film Stargate and the television shows" and GateWorld is "an English-language news site-based webpage for British-Canadian-American science fiction shows". Powergate92Talk 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As GateWorld has insufficient evidence of having received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (meeting the Notability guideline), the information should preferably go somewhere (see WP:PRESERVE). I think it fits fine in the fandom article as the website is an evidence of the topic; however, merging it into the overarching Stargate article would also make sense. For now, since TIAYN is still working on the fandom article, I think we should assume good faith and see how it turns out before demanding its dismantling. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

GateWorld is a fansite (and new site) but most recogzised as a fansite, meaning it those fit in the Stargate Fandom article. --TIAYN (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Refimprove tag at List of Stargate Infinity episodes

I added the refimprove tag to the List of Stargate Infinity episodes article as the article needs more references per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research but Trust Is All You Need keeps removing the refimprove tag saying "You don't need references for episode summaries" see my talk page and his talk page. Powergate92Talk 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is related to a particular article, how about it get discussed centrally at Talk:List of Stargate Infinity episodes? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody really cares about Stargate Infinity, its kind of "Ground zero" of some sort... --TIAYN (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest we delete all reference of it from wikipedia and pretend it never existed? :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

hehe, good one --TIAYN (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CRUFT - removal suggestions

Bah, the cruft just never ends!

Kull Warriors were no more than a plot arc. They don't deserve a place in the main stargate template, and nor do they deserve an article!

Ancient technology · Earth technology · Goa'uld technology · Starships (Atlantis · Earth ships) --- all of these should just be Technology in Stargate. NOT NOTABLE ARTICLES! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather disagree...even in their minimal forms, there is still enough material to justify separate articles. One single article would be far too big. Just because there's a lot of material doesn't necessarily mean there is always excess cruft...just that there is a lot of material to cover. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on this before. The Kull warrior article has real-world behind the scenes info, and hence not that crufty. The technology articles I agree with, but merging them together would mean the page would be far too big. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd merge them together and majorly cut them down. Seriously, the most we're looking at is a line or two per notable piece of technology. It's FICTION, guys! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much out-of-world stuff you add to a crufty article, the very idea of the article is crufty, and hence it's cruft. It's cruft on notability grounds, not verifiability grounds. Kull Warriors just aren't important. They're a minor plot arc in one season of a science fiction show. It's just not worthy of a whole article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Powergate92's disturbing edits

Powergate92 is adding reference tags to all the main stargate pages without having a clue of what he is doing. He is even adding ref improvement tags on FL's and the Stargate SG-1 page which is the best sourced article in the stargate wikiproject. Powergate92 has this belief that we should reference plot overviews, while not a dumb idea, it has never been done, see Lost (TV series) and Star Wars, which are both two featured articles. Can somebody talk to him, he is not listening to reason. --TIAYN (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not listening to reason no your not listening to reason! As i said on your WP:Verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." and WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says plot overview don't need to be referenced. Also after i am done here i will report you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for removing the refimprove tag, removing references (see this edit) and edit warring. Powergate92Talk 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Call it WP:IAR, if you like. A plot summary is obviously sourced from the fictional work itself, it serves no purpose to make that explicit. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority if not all of the wiki articles follow my rules, you can't expect Stargate related articles are going to be the only ones that follows your stupid guidelines can you? --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Also your rules are not the Wikipedia rules. Powergate92Talk 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Powergate over here is not listening to reason, while i see the need for guidelines. I follow how FA are written and all them share on thing in common. Plot or overview section are not referenced, while i know this goes against the guidelines. It seems to me that this particurlar one is not followed. I've asked powergate92 to start a discussion about this many times, but he denies and rejects and wants to continue edit warring instead. My reason for doing this, is that most of those rules when referencing guidelines and list of episode articles are that the majority of them are refernced the same way i reference them. See FA Star Wars, Doctor Who and Lost (TV series) among others. Here are FL List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Lost episodes and List of Doctor Who episodes. All those FA and FL and more are referenced the same way i reference them, but he is bent on following these guidelines which no one follows, at least the majority as i've noticed.

Just a note, i'm note the only one that disagrees with this guys edits, an example is this. I would love to discuss this, so we can get to a conclusion about this guidelines which is not being followed. So any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not guidelines these are Wikipedia policys. Powergate92Talk 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are not followed by the majority of the wikipedia community. --TIAYN (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that this argument is about no references on the plot overview? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well more, but the most important being not referencing the episodes sections in the season articles and list of .... episodes articles and plot overiews in main articles and episode articles among others. We should not reference either of these because the majority of FL and FA content does not reference this way. According to Powergate92 its a wikipedia policiy, but as i've noticed with these FL and FA's no one seem to care about that rule, its seems to have been forgotten or simple been seen as idiotic. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Certain policies maybe ingnored and stupid, but they are there. I'm not saying a totally agree with Powergate, but the user does have a point. As far as plot is concerned, this little thing I found states that "plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." However, users could argue that this guideline refers to the episodes, but I think this does deserve some merit. WP:Verifiability doesn't give out context to fiction in general, but does refer to more or less everything. I sense that there may not be an end to this discussion anytime soon. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Stargate Infinity characters

Do we need a List of Stargate Infinity characters article as that article has the same info that is in the Cast and characters section of Stargate Infinity article. Powergate92Talk 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there seems a need to it, no, since the page is just cut 'n' pasted from the characters section on the Infinity article. Unless someone with knowledge on Infinity could expand on it somehow, then I believe it should be merged again to the Infinity article. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge the list back into the main article. Too small and non-notable to stand on its own. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I just merged the List of Stargate Infinity characters article back into the Stargate Infinity article. Powergate92Talk 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)