Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 4

message: User:MatthewFenton deleted the entire "Themes" section, which another editor had been contributing to recently. While I have no strong opinion either way about the edit itself, I find the method used to be uncollegial. If I were going to delete an entire section like that, I would, first, announce that I was going to do so, and if I thought an active editor would object I would wait at least a day; second, I would paste the deleted section into the Talk page (or if it's big enough, onto a Talk subpage). Consensus is a critical component of neutrality. I would be in favor of restoring the section, at least for the duration of a "section for deletion" discussion here. Avt tor 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree - sorry Matt.  Morphh  (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: at the very least it needs some cleaning up--88wolfmaster 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete without discussion

message: Under the Cast section there are references to MacGuyver and Wizard of Oz shouldnt this be under its own section (notable references/allusion in the show or something).  In addition, the cast section explains how two Chiefs of Staff have appeared in the show shouldn't this paragraph go below the other characters? --88wolfmaster 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: I think if the sections were order as follows they would flow better:
1 Show summary , 2 Plot Summary, 3 Themes, 4 Cast, 5 Show history, 6 Cancellation, 7 Differences between the film and series, 8 Broadcasters, 9 Spin-offs, 10 Fictional universe, 11 DVD releases, 12 References, 13 External links --88wolfmaster 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold! :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorder Sections 

message: I would really like to address several more actors in some way, shape, or form.  They are:
Dr. Fraiser (Teryl Rothery)
Dr. Carolyn Lam (Lexa Doig)
Master Bra'tac (Tony Amendola)
Selmak / Jacob Carter (Carmen Argenziano)
Dr. Bill Lee (Bill Dow)
Major Paul Davis (Colin Cunningham)
Apophis (Peter Williams)
Ba'al (Cliff Simon)
Anubis (David Palffy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88wolfmaster (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessary - that's what the sub-articles are for. Otherwise, this article becomes unfocused. (Extensive character lists in main articles have a tendency to become magnets for every character that ever appears.) --Ckatzchatspy 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even under a common reoccuring guests (sub)section?; if not thats ok it seems we have more pressing issues to attend to.--88wolfmaster 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see i'm outnumbered on this issue.--88wolfmaster 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Actors 

message: Just minor things where I see need to comment.
1. I deleted the following paragraph from Stargate SG-1#Movies (direct to video) because it was without sources (and if it is in fact true, it should rather be included in Stargate: Continuum):
While SG-1 attends the execution of Ba'al, the last of the Goa'uld System Lords, Teal'c and Vala inexplicably disappear into thin air. Carter, Daniel and Mitchell race back to a world where history has been changed: the Stargate program has been erased from the timeline. As they try to convince the authorities of what's happened, a fleet of Goa'uld motherships arrives in orbit, led by Ba'al, his queen, Katesh (Vala) and his first prime, Teal'c. SG-1 must find the Stargate and set things right before the world is enslaved by the Goa'uld.
2. Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 (which had just been split off from the main Stargate page) had a prod notice stay for over five days. If it gets deleted, you can still access its former version here (and see if we really need to have such a list anywhere on wikipedia).
3. I also noticed that the Stargate SG-1#Broadcasters list is getting rather long and unencyclopedic. Neither the main articles for Lost (TV series) nor Buffy the Vampire Slayer have such a list, so I suggest deleting it. (I'm just waiting for consensus.) – sgeureka t•c 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some just removed the prod, so I imagine it'll go to AFD next, where it'll probably get deleted. It couldn't hurt to have a few examples in a section about the origins of the show. Koweja 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: prod. I didn't know that removing the prod tag was allowed after five days have passed, or I would have done so myself. I also added some new info/behind-the-scenes comments to the once-prodded page to get away from the pure listcruft style (it's all from memory though since the info probably comes from DVD commentaries -  so that means a  tag for now). – sgeureka t•c 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion note + prod notice + suggestion 

message: Does anyone know why the animation of the opening credits dosent work???? it would be really cool if we could use it 
Nathan  NFM 03:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gif help 

message: There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes 

message: A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard]] 

message: I'm just letting you know that I've prodded List of Stargate SG-1 seasons. If someone feels the deletion would be controversial and removes the prod template, I'd consider AfD. See the reasons/discussion at Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 seasons. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|prod}} [[List of Stargate SG-1 seasons]] 

message: Someone has to put in spoiler tags on this page. I think i just ruined 21% of the storyline for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.155.120 (talk • contribs) 
:Which section? Sections like "Plot" and "Story arcs" are going to contain spoilers - spoiler tags there are redundant. If there are spoilers in other sections, please let me know and I'll take a look. --Tango 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say spoilers are to be expected in a section on story arcs. It's impossible to discuss the story arcs without saying what they are. --Tango 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilertags 

message: :Image:Stargate SG-1 Season 9 Short Title.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to address this by adding a couple Fair Use rationale points. Morphh  (talk) 14:30, 06 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate SG-1 Season 9 Short Title.jpg

message: The first episode was broadcast on July 27, 1997 on Showtime in the US and December 3, 1997 on the Seven Network in Australia.
I'm considering removing the part in italics, the Australian air date doesn't seem very relevant to me. Perhaps a note could be made on the episode page, personally I don't like the thought of a "International broadcasts" section on every episode page, as Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. Any opinions? Matthew 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian première 

message: An editor has requested deletion review on this template after a decision was made to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate in the discussion at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Dated episode notability 

message: Has been tagged as lacking secondary sources to establish notability... though it's clear to me the episode (and other episodes of television series ) are notable for being episodes of their shows (a reason why I nominated that template for deletion). Anybody interested in working with me to add some sources? Matthew 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see our episode articles improved and am happy to devote a little time to doing that, but I'm not really sure what we can do. The only relevant secondary sources we're going to be able to find are reviews. I don't think an episode being reviewed establishes notability. The episodes are notable, as you say, because of their association with the parent program (for which I can find numerous sources to establish notability in a few minutes). I don't think there is anything we can do on the level of individual episodes - we have to work to establish an appropriate general policy. --Tango 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A review from a notable third-party source would qualify. For example, a newspaper, TV Guide, etc. Personal blogs, fan sites (except for the larger, well-established ones) and user forums wouldn't. --Ckatzchatspy 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newspapers review hundreds of things, I wouldn't say they were all notable. They don't generally review TV episodes, anyway. --Tango 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Children of the Gods]] 

message: There seems to be a consensus of sorts emerging in weak support of including Canada in the phrase.  To that end, and in consideration of the other articles in the Canadian TV Shows category, I propose the following.
:The current phrase is as follows:
It begins one year after the events of the 1994 science fiction film Stargate. It was produced in and around Vancouver, Canada.
:I propose that it be changed to say:
It begins one year after the events of the 1994 science fiction film Stargate and was produced in the Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada.
Could I request an informal straw poll to establish an actual consensus that we could cite? =David(talk)(contribs) 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the phrase "Vancouver area", since as far as I know, only the city is called Vancouver, not the area around it (which is the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" according to Vancouver). How about "produced in Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada."? I would prefer just "Vancouver, Canada", though. --Tango 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vancouver, Canada" as "city, province, country" is too wordy. (Unless there are plans to start using "Los Angeles, California, United States" and so on. --Ckatzchatspy 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, three words is "too wordy?" Since when? It it'll resolve this dispute, so be it, otherwise "Vancouver, Canada" is the generally accepted spelling.--ZXCVBNM 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the second "in" to make it a bit less clunky.  Ckatz: I don't think your comparison to Los Angeles applies here.  Los Angeles is more populated and likely far more widely known internationally than Vancouver.  I could be wrong, though... =David(talk)(contribs) 00:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: L.A. is more widely known than Vancouver, of course. In the same fashion, Vancouver is probably more widely known than British Columbia - and so adding B.C. lengthens the description without helping to help identify the city. --Ckatzchatspy 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your opinion does not reflect consensus.  I'm reverting it. (Never mind, it's already been done...)  We value your opinion, but until a consensus arises, reverting it is violating policy. =David(talk)(contribs) 17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said above, what Canadians do is irrelevant. I doubt there are many Canadians that don't know where Vancouver is. Any extra information we give is for the benefit of people that don't already know where Vancouver is. Now, we could assume they are small enough in number that we can just leave them to click the link and not give any extra information, but what harm does adding one or two extra words do? None. So, we might as well give more information. Just putting "British Columbia" is completely pointless. If someone doesn't already know were Vancouver is, then saying it is in British Columbia isn't likely to help them much. So, "Vancouver, British Columbia" is no better than just "Vancouver". So, it's a decision between "Vancouver", "Vancouver, Canada" or "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada". I would say the last one is too long, but I don't see any reason to choose the first over the second. That is why I'm saying we should stick with "Vancouver, Canada". Once we've reached a consensus here, I will go to the Smallville article and change it there too. --Tango 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then presumably you won't mind if I edit Mork & Mindy to say that the show was set in "Boulder, United States". If what Canadians say for Canadian cities is irrelevant, then what Americans say for American cities is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways — it's either "City, State" for the US and "City, Province" for Canada, or "City, Canada" and "City, United States". It cannot be "City, State" but "City, Canada". Same format for both countries, period. Bearcat 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not rejecting anything.  I don't have an opinion in this, I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion so we don't have an edit war.  I asked for a Canadian to add their opinion so we'd have an idea of how things are typically done.  I didn't say that we'd go with what they said with no more discussion.  Your opinion does not reflect consensus; until it does, the discussion needs to continue.  =David(talk)(contribs) 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is more to the world than North America... --Tango 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - Robin, North Americans don't refer to the country because we're already here - if you're in the U.S., you presumably know that Seattle or Dallas or Omaha (etc.) is too. Likewise for Canadians - we don't need to remind ourselves what country Montreal, Calgary or Whitehorse is in. --Ckatzchatspy 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please remember that Wikipedia has a global audience. You have to stop looking at this from a local perspective, and structure the information to reflect international readers. --Ckatzchatspy 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then American articles have to be structured the same way. But you'd have a pitchfork-wielding mob after you if you insisted on changing American city references to "City, United States" on the grounds that international users might get confused by the state name. Bearcat 10:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just going to drop this in here because of recent activity on the Smallville page, whatever the decision eventually is, please don't link Vancouver, British Columbia. That is not the title of the page. It's simply Vancouver. If you must, link each name separately. This unnecessary redirection just to make a point that Vancouver is in BC is not helpful. There's no need to pipe it either, since Vancouver's page clearly mentions both BC and Canada.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that in spite of your comment above, I am not American, I am British. Secondly, as I believe I've already said above, "City, US" doesn't work very well, since city names in the US are far from unique. In many cases you have to specify the state to make it clear which city you mean. So, the options for US cities are "City, State" or "City, State, US", just "City, US" is not an option (in many cases - for the few cities that have a unique name, it's fine). My "vote" would be for "City, Canada" and "City, State, US". Countries can be dropped when obvious from context. --Tango 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus?