Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 20 August 2021 (Archiving 27 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 12) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Shortcuts

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

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

Discussion

New sister project proposal

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

Proposed AfD for Ancient Technology in Stargate

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

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

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

James Spader

Hi

Hopefully this is not a ghost ship!

I found some copyvio on the James SPader Article.

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

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

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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

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

Merging more fictional element articles

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

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

Stargate SG-1

Stargate Atlantis

Stargate Universe

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

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

– sgeureka t•c 10:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting 90% of article is NOT merge!!!– Vilnisr T | C 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stargate is a key element of entire franchise, even it is a fictional element , it's design, idea and role in the franchise isn't! The work you do by creating, splitting, merging or editing must be of good quality. Right now I don't see any good quality of what you have done so far. Fictional can not be only reason for deleting of work that was made for 20 years, other way you have to delete most of Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, NCIS, Marvel, DC Comics ....... articles! – Vilnisr T | C 17:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vilnisr: Per WP:MERGE, A merger [...] is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page (emphasis mine). Now, if in a hypothetical case 90% in a to-be-merged article is WP:UNDUE WP:PLOT, then merging the other 10% is still a fine merger. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction explains very well how fiction should be covered on wikipedia. Of course, I am human and occasionally make mistakes, so could you point me to a performed merger where I did anything wrong? I'll gladly fix it. (BTW, have a look at my userpage to see some quality work I have done on fiction, including Stargate.) – sgeureka t•c 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there is no need for merge, i agree that there is no need for zpm article or article with every single starship name, but is 6 sentences enough for key race without any illustration of it, wasn't better to make separate article with key races with about 3-4 paragraph and a small illustration about design, just to know what you read about? I see no sense in 6 sentence race description at all, it gives you nothing! In my opinion there is difference between irrelevant fictional information and key fictional information. Is it so big violation to keep some pictures? As about Stargate universe characters i would try to keep at least Nicholas Rush, Eli Wallace, Everett Young and Matthew Scott pages. And at least keep separate Stargate(device) article.
P.S there have to be a balance between large separate articles with too much irrelevant information and merged article with few sentences that don't make sense at all. – Vilnisr T | C 18:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 6 sentences are enough to describe key races either, and I never claimed otherwise. By all means, feel invited to expand expand expand. But per WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT, expansion should happen with sourced real-world information is mind, and not be a mere reiteration of plot, or even worse, WP:SYNTHESIS of plot information. I already noted several possible sources for expansion at Talk:Mythology of Stargate#Possible sources for improvement a while ago. Illustrations of fictional races are tricky, as they are usually non-free and as such are covered by WP:NFC. At the end, have a look at Mythology of Carnivàle to see how a proper article on fictional mythology could be done. The Stargate (device) article has its problems but is not too bad either, that why I noted it as maybe merge here a month ago and haven't initiated a proper merge discussion either (and I don't know yet if I actually will initiate one). – sgeureka t•c 20:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Stargate_task_force&oldid=1039676810"