Talk:Stargate Atlantis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Stargate Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Stargate, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to the Stargate franchise. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian TV shows
This article is part of the Canadian TV shows WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004 - March 2007


Contents

[edit] K'Dargo/Farscape

What the hell is the point of constantly adding this? The same anon user adds this at least once a day and i have no idea where it comes from, why is he so insistant? Is it an old april fools prank by scifi or what? - Count23 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He did it again, can't we block 80.213.90.42 from editing this article? - MrEvers 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A good starting point would be to leave warnings on his talk page when you revert the vandalism; I noticed that nobody had bothered to put any warnings on his talk page prior to today. The admins like a nice paper-trail when considering blocks. See the dealing with vandalism section, and act accordingly. -- GJD 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian or American?

I'm just wondering why the very first sentence of the article states that this is an American television programme, and the second sentence states that it is produced/shot in Canada (and there are references on the talk page to it being part of a project on Canadian television). What's the criterion used to determine the nationality of a TV programme? Is there any consistent standard being applied? I'm curious to know what others think. Accounting4Taste 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

its an American show, funded by an American company, but it is filmed in Canada... wow, i didnt think that was too hard to understand... -Xornok 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This point has come up quite often. There is a certain amount of disagreement over how you define the country of origin of a TV show - I think the best bet is to say "American/Canadian". --Tango 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tango. I was sufficiently curious to try to find the actual ownership of the production companies concerned, since I suspected that Canadian companies may have to be in charge for tax purposes. No luck on Acme Shark, and MGM Television works through a set of nested and interlocking companies, some of which may be Canadian. I'm wondering if there is much point in defining the country of origin of a TV programme at the end of the day. I'll investigate this further through the Canadian television project for my own curiosity's sake and will leave this article as it stands. Accounting4Taste 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Tango's suggestion, it's most appropriately described and categorized as being both Canadian and American. For one thing, the Stargates all count as Canadian for the purposes of both the Gemini Awards and the Canadian content obligations of the Canadian broadcasters. So if the CRTC and the Gemini Awards both consider SGA to be Canadian, it would actually violate WP:NOR for Wikipedia to say it isn't. It can be both; it doesn't have to be just one or the other. Bearcat 08:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

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)

Warning 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 its 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Template:Dated episode notability

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) 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure Changes

Okay, I want to make some structure changes to the article. You can view what the following changes would look like here (Note: i've commented out the images for the time being).

Overview:

  • Combined the Regular and Recurring character tables
  • Integrated the setting section into the article / integrated plot 2nd paragraph into the lead
  • made the race section a subsection of cast and characters - because it describes types of characters
  • added alternative naming for the main/see also links

--88wolfmaster 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I was concerned at first that you were proposing to put the main and recurring characters together (i.e. all combined), but I like the neat way you've married the two tables while keeping those groupings. The other changes seem OK, with the exception of the renamed "main article" titles. I strongly feel that "main article" should list the proper name of the linked article. ("See also" links, however, might allow a bit more latitude.) Good work. --Ckatzchatspy 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem i had with those was that they linked to subsections and if you didn't know that the code is artilce#subsection then one might get confused (i know i had to take a second look at some of them). What i like about the renaming is they have a more clean-cut, polished appearance.--88wolfmaster 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to show the subsection; it is better to have "Main article: Characters in Stargate" (which uses the proper title) instead of using "Main article: Characters in Stargate Atlantis". The former takes you to the relevant information, while also revealing the proper name of the article. The latter, on the other hand, can create confusion as the article title in the title bar doesn't match with what the reader thought they were clicking on. --Ckatzchatspy 07:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
i didn't think of converting it from the main template. i've fix it though. anything else?--88wolfmaster 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Combining tables is confusing. Separate tables with proper headers make everything easier to follow. It's done that way elsewhere on Wikipedia too.
  • Setting and plot are not the same. Do not combine them.
  • Race is NOT a subsection of cast and characters. It's a part of the setting, of the world. Merging it with characters is confusing.

Andromeda 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think i've been pretty resonable with my edits. I've given up on some of my original edit ideas in the spirit of compromise, but what these last version I feel with improve the flow of the article. Since your issues directly contradict my edits, I can not adjust the my proposal to account for your issues. All I can do is try and make you see reason. You are the only one who seems to not agree with my version.

  1. I combined the tables because really and truely I don't think we should even have recurring characters on the main page. Or most of the information in the tables. I don't see how the combined table is confusing becuase they are clearing seperated by headers. And as for done elsewhere on Wiki Stargate SG-1, Stargate: The Ark of Truth, and Stargate: Continuum only lists the names of major characters and who played them - and thats just the stargate articles.
  2. Well duh setting and plot are different. But what is the point of the setting section, I see none. So I integrated the pertinent informtion where it would belong - and by that i mean i kept anything that was background, introductory, or related to the plot. the stuff i cut was about technology (which doesn't relate to setting).
  3. and Races are TYPES of CHARACTERS how could it be confusing to describe types of characters under cast and characters. I could understand if the setting was more of an about the universe section but its not - it describes the setting of the show not the stargate universe as it pertains to Atlantis.

--88wolfmaster 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • They are NOT "clearing seperated by headers". The headers are small and easily overlooked.
  • The setting section describes the background so people can get an idea of the universe of the story. It is not the same as the plot, which is the storyline itself.
  • Merging races with cast is misleading. Most of these races don't even have characters listed. That information is part of the setting.

--Andromeda 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. They are in their own row and are setup using standard header/title format. Ckatz doesn't seem to have a problem with this.
  2. all the background information in the setting section was kept. The section is in the middle of the article and does not serve the purpose you say it does. So I made it more of a Plot Summary to serve as a setup/introduction to each season's plot overview. Setting is not a standard section so live without it.
  3. Fine. It gets to be its own section now so don't complain about it.

Have you honestly even read through my version --88wolfmaster 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I still think the Setting section should stay. --Andromeda 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question: why is there a table in the first place? which is full of in-universe information (which *drum roll* is better suited to the character articles); a list would be fine. On the subject of the setting section, I tend to agree with Andromeda, primarily because I've not seen a compelling reason to remove it. Matthew 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the setting information its kinda redundant and/or doesn't really need to be in the article for you to actually understand the show. NONE of the other Stargate articles contain a setting section. That is why it should be integrated into the article. As for the List instead of a table Andromeda reverted that edit too.--88wolfmaster 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
to explain a little better, the information that is cut out from the article that came from said section was a mini history of atlantis (thw war b/w the wraith and the ancients) and some information on the technology nothing really to do with the setting of the story (or at least nothing that could not be moved elsewhere).--88wolfmaster 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the setting section. --Andromeda 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Asking nicely isn't going to help anything. Try giving a reason. --Tango 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've protected this page for 48 hours to force some discussion. Please reach a consensus before editing the page again. --Tango 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andromeda I have been trying to compromise: if you just look at what i originally intended an what I prose now I've definately conseated points as per other wiki user's suggestions. I am not acting on my own. Ckatz doesn't seem to have a problem with my version (correct me if i'm wrong here Ckatz). In addition, I've gotten some of my friends (non-wiki users) to take a quick look at what I'm saying - and they believe i have a valid point about the content of said section. But I'm not going to get into an arguement over this - can we jsut please figure something out?

That being said, the only thing left to sort out is the settings section. This section is NOT important or relavant to the main article, in my opinion. Can you honestly tell me what Technology has to do with setting? And do you really think that a brief history of Atalantis belongs under setting as well? In addition, the second paragraph (the one I pretty much kept) is more of a plot overview than anything else. I'm not deleting information for the sake of page size, or being too in-verse, etc. I TURELY belive that this information is better suited ELSEWHERE and doing so would raise the standard of the article. Stargate SG-1 doesn't have a setting section, why do we need one? Even if you where to somehow rework the section I doubt it would warrent its own section. --88wolfmaster 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's important. It gives people context to understand the plot. --Andromeda 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The information may give context to understand the plot BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SETTING. Is their any sort of compromise you'd be willing to accept, or are we just going to argue over this until the end of time?--88wolfmaster 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've compromised on several things. Yet I think the setting section is important to give context and should stay. --Andromeda 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The information does not properly pertain to the setting. The information is better suited elsewhere. Again I ask: IS their any sort of compromise we can make?--88wolfmaster 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this?--88wolfmaster 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Different races are part of the setting. That this universe has different races is part of the setting of this universe.--Andromeda 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda and 88wolfmaster, stop edit warring on this page. I'm glad to see you have started a slightly more constructive discussion - let that discussion reach a conclusion *before* making any further edits to the article. Any further reverts by either of you before a consensus is reached will result in a 1 week block. You have been warned. --Tango 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda did you even look at my new proposition? Its the only fair compromise I can come up with: it keeps the information from the section section while not actually being called setting, placing it in the article where people might actually read it before plot, and i get to have races as an expansion on characters (as a type of character type) - what could you possible have against it.--88wolfmaster 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The same thing I've already said and it seems you are unwilling to hear. --Andromeda 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
and i think that where the race section is isn't as big a deal as the removal of the setting section so you should give up that point. COMPROMISE doesn't mean you get everything you want but this way we both get a version of one thing that we want - i've long ago stop trying to place Races under Cast and characters.--88wolfmaster 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And I think the setting section is important and, therefore, it should not be removed. I gave up on the formatting of the Cast and Other media sections and several of your rewrites, but I think this one is important. --Andromeda 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not deleting the information any more. If you read through my latest version, you would have seen it there (maybe rewriten a little and in a different location, but it was still there).--88wolfmaster 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the top

Ok, let's start again. Could the two of you each please state, in one (or possibly two) paragraphs, what you think should be done and why? Then we can work out precisely which points are in dispute, and can then go and get some more opinions. Thanks! --Tango 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be done. I like the article as it is. --Andromeda 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what do you think *shouldn't* be done, and why? I'm trying to get both sides of the argument in one place. --Tango 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the setting section should be removed. I think it gives valuable context information. Also, I don't like 88wolfmaster proposal. It's just a name change, and I think "setting" is more informational than "background", since this info is not background information, but information on the setting. --Andromeda 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And thats where I would say that it doesn't explain the setting as much as it describes the background/universe and plot(History of Atlantis, Overview of story setup, and starts to go into technology ).--88wolfmaster 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My lastest compromise/proposal is this. Race as its own stand alone section right after cast & the setting section revamped by editing it into a background section and the plot section. The bulk of the information is merely moved.--88wolfmaster 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lame edit war

Really, who cares if it's Canadian-American or American-Canadian? You both say you don't want to edit war, yet you're doing it anyway, and over something extremely trivial. Just leave it alone... --Tango 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this article is still battered from the last content disagreement. Apologies for my part. --Ckatzchatspy 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - there are more important things you can fight over.--88wolfmaster 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Command Structure

I have always been unclear on the command structure of the show. So, Weir is at the top, then Sheppard and I guest Mckay. So, after him who is it. Apparently Teyla and Ronan can lead teams and give out command. When they are in a 4 man group the pecking order is Shepard. The problem is he is incapactated than who is in charge. Would it be Mckay because no one respects hi authority. It wouldn't be fair for Ronan or teyla to take over because they are aliens and not part of the military or civilian government structure of Atlantis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum17x (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcasters

Removed this section entirely. This section changes constantly, and can never be encyclopedic. Relevant policies:

Similar sections certainly can be found in other articles. Without addressing any specific article, these should probably all be removed as well. -- Wikipedical 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you.--88wolfmaster 04:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

Someone should edit the cast, Rainbow sun, Paul McGillion and Torri Higginson are no longer regular cast and yet they are listed as such in two sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.76.13 (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the entire history of a show. To help achieve this, the cast list reflects main characters both past and present. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 08:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Moreover, the title for the lists are regular and recurring CHARACTERS respectfully, so even if the actor/actress is no longer a cast member the character was still a regular (or recurring) character during his or her time with the show. The only debateable character is Ford (Rainbow Sun Francks) since he was only there for the first season.--88wolfmaster 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's no cause for debate - RSF was a main character. It doesn't matter for how long, just what sort of contract he had. -Ckatzchatspy 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that jewel statie appears in the starring section, but she has always been a regular. Guess it must be changed--Mr.Amonra 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Season 5

Scifi announced today that they have renewed Atlantis for season 5.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=38658

Vala M 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

added reference--Mr.Amonra 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Atlantis cut off from Earth, or isn't it?

I've seen a couple of episodes (and many more of SG-1), and I've enjoyed them all. I came to these Wiki pages tonight to learn something about the basic premise of the show and what the writers used to spawn the new show.

One thing that confuses me mightily upon reading this page in particular (and some of the other pages in the tree) is this: The article says that Atlantis is cut off from Earth, and yet there are references to SGC (Star Gate Command) and people from Earth in contact with Atlantis. I realise that things can change over the course of a show's timeline, and certainly that there is the possibility of temporary re-establishment of contact, and that "contact" could be used in various contexts to mean "communication" as well as "people meeting". I also read that the two Galaxies' SG networks are basically not connected (with the possibility of making one specific connection by putting a particular crystal into an SG's cntrols).

So ... can anyone answer my basic curiosity about the ongoing nature of any contact between Earth and Atlantis, and why (in-universe) the Atlantis Expedition doesn't go home? Do they have the ability, but not the desire? Or why Earth doesn't send them a lot more resources (people, stuff, power...)? [Or maybe Earth does, and I just haven't learned that yet.]

And if these answers can be provided ... Is it worth including that sort of information in the article, in whatever section or fashion is deemed appropriate?

134.48.176.175 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (You all can call me Carlos)

For the first season, they were completely cut off. Since then, they've had ships going between the two (which resupply with equipment and people) and most of the time they've had a ZPM which allows them to dial Earth from Atlantis. They are still there by choice, they could leave at pretty much any time, but they still think they do useful stuff there. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WGA Strike

The Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television article says that this show is unaffected by the strike because it uses WGC writers and not WGA writers, even though it is an American show... this should be in the season section. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rainbow Sun Francks

Why is he still being listed as a major cast member in {{Stargate Atlantis Major Cast}} and in the Stargate Atlantis infobox. He hasn't appeared on the show since season 2 (which was only a few episodes anyways). Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is about the series as a whole, not just the most recent season. --Tango (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)