Talk:Tau'ri technology in Stargate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] X-699
How about adding the X-699?
Well, it depends. What is it?JBK405 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fn_p90_right.jpg
Image:Fn_p90_right.jpg is a fair-use image, and we have some fairly stringent rules on how fair-use images can be used. In particular, they can't be used where there isn't any critical commentary on the image and may be used extremely sparingly (never using two images where one suffices) for identification, but they can never, ever be used where a free alternative could be produced or found. For example, the image of the battlecruiser at the top of the page is fine as a single example of the subject of the article, and there aren't going to be any free images showing the visual style of the (copyrighted) show.
The P90 image, on the other hand, I've removed as pure decoration. There's no reason the P90 needs to be visually identified in this article, and the image is not released under a free license. (I tagged the image as an orphan to be deleted because it has been replaced with a free alternative in the only article where one could possibly justify fair use, FN P90.) I've left the MP5 image as it's free (and can be used however we like). If someone wants, Image:P90 Cyprus.jpg could be used in this article, as long as nobody minds that it's pictured being held by a Cypriot soldier. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] McKay-Carter Intergalactic Gate Bridge
I would think that since the pallbearers carrying Becketts casket in Sunday didn't need to use a puddle jumper to get to Earth, we can safely assume that the MCIGB midway station has more or less been completed.
Atlantis has a ZPM, they can dial Earth directly. JBK405 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weapons of the SGC
How many of these weapons have been correctly identified as being used by the SGC? I'm considering adding the weapons from this list - http://members.cox.net/cjarmstrongjr/index.html - and removing those that haven't been visually confirmed. Thoughts? Oldsk3wl 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger of Tauri starships
I propose to merge the F-302, Prometheus (Stargate) and Daedalus class battlecruiser into Tau'ri starships in Stargate because I doubt that they are individually notable as defined per WP:Notability (fiction) (i.e. they don't seem to have significant coverage in third-party sources). I do however believe that they are notable enough as a group. I think I remember that the Prometheus appeared in one of the early Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining) episodes because these two shows have the same VisFX company. The set of the Prometheus also appeared in Hewlett's film A Dog's Breakfast. Finally, I guess it's possible to squeeze out some interesting real-world information (two paragraphs about the set and the VisFX) from various audio commentaries and fan magazines. I also think that having all the Tauri spaceships in one article outlines the Tauri tech development nicely. Because it is likely that some plot and original research will be lost in the merge, I propose to transwiki this material to wikia:Stargate. Otherwise, I am pretty certain that merging is the way to go according to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – sgeureka t•c 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it. However it would require a major rewrite of the Daedalus page. Terryrayc (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Rest assured that I will do this properly when/if I do the merge. I will probably start with the work in my userspace and will only move it to mainspace when I am confortable with the result. If this will take a few weeks, so be it. :-) – sgeureka t•c 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you want to do this. Theses articles are often used as sources by stargate fans from the entire world, why do you went to merge them and loose some of the content ? The Daedalus class article is already quite long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.125.21.54 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I fear these articles will be deleted in a few months/years otherwise for not being in line with WP:Notability (fiction), and I may no longer be around to save them. Merging makes them pass this guideline for inclusion, at least in the foreseeable future. – sgeureka t•c 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then again the class of ship might be notable enough for it's own page. Remember the Daedalus class ship is the second most used platform in both series. It appears in more episodes then any other item save Atlantis and stargate command. The ship line is viewed as a major plot element on both shows. The Daedalus itself if not shown is named in a lot of episodes and one of the ships plays a key role in the Ark of Truth. It is not a one off stage prop, it is a key item in Atlantis. Terryrayc (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- And the Farscape One and the Prowler were two of the most used spaceships in Farscape, and were still still redirected/deleted. What I mean to say is that the in-universe significance of Stargate spaceships is completely irrelevant on wikipedia. We either need to cite reliable third-party sources for each spaceship to establish WP:Notability, or these spaceships should be merged into lists to at least satisfy WP:Notability (fiction) (WP:FICT). I don't have the companion guide and hence don't know if they have anything to say about sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise (WP:FICT) that would justify separate articles. But all the fan material I have (DVDs and about a dozen TV Zone Stargate-related magazines) is pretty weak on spaceshippy stuff. (Edit: I guess the Daedalus class page can stand on its own as it already is a list, but the question remains what to do with the other two articles.) – sgeureka t•c 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then again the class of ship might be notable enough for it's own page. Remember the Daedalus class ship is the second most used platform in both series. It appears in more episodes then any other item save Atlantis and stargate command. The ship line is viewed as a major plot element on both shows. The Daedalus itself if not shown is named in a lot of episodes and one of the ships plays a key role in the Ark of Truth. It is not a one off stage prop, it is a key item in Atlantis. Terryrayc (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because I fear these articles will be deleted in a few months/years otherwise for not being in line with WP:Notability (fiction), and I may no longer be around to save them. Merging makes them pass this guideline for inclusion, at least in the foreseeable future. – sgeureka t•c 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- ← While I don't necessarily oppose merging these articles, I don't see any valid point in doing so, since the resulting article would be no more notable than the individual articles it replaced. Further, each of the articles provides a fairly authoritative review of the subject material, unlike, say, multiple stub articles about the different types of weapons in Stargate. I do believe each of the articles could stand on their own, however, each needs to be extensively reworked to remove the blow-by-blow, episode-by-episode review of their on-screen activities. We don't need a new section for every appearance, when a single brief multi-paragraph section would work just as well. As to the point made about the Farscape ships, remember that Stargate is a far better known and, at least in my mind being a fan of both series, is intrinsically more notable of the two series. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- WP:FICT (currently) allows non-notable lists per summary style, and non-notable lists are better than non-notable articles (IMO). I don't think we should use Stargate's popularity to justify keeping "bad" articles (as in, they are in major violation of WP:WAF and possibly WP:FICT) as they are. I agree with you that a rewrite is ultimately necessary independent of if we go with separate articles or lists, but in my experience, it is easier to rewrite and establish notability when you have lists (others are free to disagree). Until someone does this kind of work, which could take years or will never be done, we might as well go with the lists, which gives us all the time in the world while preventing AfDs for non-notability. I again apologize for my AfD paranoia. (Do the Star Trek people have any fictional spaceship GAs so that we can see how a good spaceship article looks? I have no idea.) – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok if this merge happens i think that instead of having alot of infomation on the individual ships missions they have been on, the section on this proposed article for the BC304's should concentrate on the actual layouts, systems, areas of the ships, a large table could be used to list each ship, any unique or notable functions (ie. odyssey has a cloak, appolo was the first ship to use horizon weapons platform, ect ect) the table could contain;
- Ship Name
- Ship ID
- Ship Commanders
- A full list of episodes that the ship has actually appeared in
I'm sure there are other things that could also be included, put mainly the article should look at the design as all BC304's are pretty much (with some exceptions) the same ship. And the list of all episodes that the ship has been included in would be more practical in terms of requiring less space, however it is more than likely many episodes articles will be deleted very soon, but yes thought i would suggest this. (86.154.242.202 (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
- While a list of definite-include items needs to be thought up, I disagree that they should be in table form when it can just as easily be in prose. The major problem with the current Daedalus article is the extreme depth each mission is discussed, when most everything could be condensed into a paragraph or two per ship. Remember that there is no need to "conserve" space, so long as everything flows logically and can be easily located. However, I do like the idea of a simple list of episodes the ships have been seen in, so long as the list is just the episodes and not any sort of description of the events therein. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 15:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- This article covers a part of Stargate that is used in many plots. Merging it makes no sense. Mrld (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The Daedalus is a pretty important ship on Stargate, and yet is already part of a list. It is merely suggested to expand the list with two more Earth ships, and change the name of the list accordingly. Nothing would get lost, except maybe some things that shouldn't have been included per several policies and guidelines anyway. Some information is also currently included in all three articles, so some of the redundance would be trimmed, I guess. – sgeureka t•c 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
As much as I'm against this move, if it has to happen, can we have a better title than Tau'ri ships? That itself is odd to me.
Vala M (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree, Tau'ri ships would be needed to enforce the understanding that these are earth ships and not ships belonging to the dozens if not hundreds of other human worlds. Terryrayc (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Tau'ri ships" is not optimal, but it's the best I could come up with. We already have Tau'ri characters in Stargate, Tau'ri technology in Stargate and Tau'ri organizations in Stargate (the last name was my poor choice as well). This keeps with the naming convention of RACE foo in Stargate. – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also oppose this merger. I believe these articles are both long enough and substantial enough to meet notabilty per that policy with some slight tweaking if they don't already (which I'd argue they do). Merging won't solve any issues that may or may not exist with these articles... Also the policy we're talking about, isn't even a ratified policy yet. It's only proposed. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- This was the last version of WP:FICT before its "new" proposed status. The only thing that changed in the new version is that it says to attempt merging first before going to AfD. Which I am doing here. And as long as no third-party sources are provided, these fictional spaceships have by definition not established notability and can be challenged to demonstrate that notability. (The guidelines are much laxer about notability for lists). So, if you believe the articles have sufficient notability, please WP:PROVEIT by finding third-party sources to have the article pass WP:Notability, or add significant amount of real-world information from the producers etc. to have the article pass WP:Notability (fiction). As I've said, I only have a few sources to support a list, but nowhere near enough to support articles for single spaceships. – sgeureka t•c 00:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Did we stop talking about this? Terryrayc (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- This (userspace) is how far I was into the trim&merge until real-life and various wiki-disruption elsewhere needed my attention. I still need to trim the mission plot retelling of the Odyssey, the Korelev and the Apollo, then I guess the article has an appropriate size. – sgeureka t•c 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, my merger attempt in userspace is finished (including a major plot trim), and I believe the result is acceptable. If I had paid more attention to technology in the series, I would also maybe have trimmed and copyedited the tech sections, but I left them alone. I'll wait for further comment for about a week, and then procede with exchanging the three articles with the "new" merged one. I can't tell yet when I'll add the real-world info section like WP:FICT and WP:WAF encourage. – sgeureka t•c 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger of Iris (Stargate)
While the iris is an often-seen piece of technology in Stargate, it is not particularly notable from a real-world perspective. The article currently has two sentences of real-world information amidst many paragraphs sourced from the shows itself, which is undesireable per WP:WAF. I am not aware of much more real-world information that could be added to the Iris article. I therefore propose to trim some plot where it is not needed, and merge the rest with Tau'ri technology in Stargate#Iris and Ancient_technology_in_Stargate#Stargate_Iris_Shield. Another merge target would be Stargate (device), but I think that would overwhelm that article. Comments? – sgeureka t•c 15:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
