Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stargate (device)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stargate (device)

[edit]

I am resubmitting this article for featured article status, I was not around the first time it went through but it has now become a self-nomination. I feel that it probably should have gone through the first time it was nominated, but the two main complaints were of now references and too many images. The references have been added (by someone else) and I have tighted up the article's images in addition to the entire article itself. I feel that it is ready for FA status. The Filmaker 05:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object, for the following reasons:
    • WP:LEAD section is too long, both technically, and visually. Technically, it should not be more than three paragraphs. Visually, in 1024x768 resolution, I like to be able to see the top of the table of contents from the top of the page, but that's a personal rule for me, not a hard-and-set rule. I'd like to see the lead section pared down a little bit... at the very least to comply with the three-paragraph standard.
    • There is a huge imbalance in the article towards describing the stargate in terms of suspension of disbelief... that is to say, it reads mostly like an encyclopedia article about the stargate in the series' universe, not in our own. There is a section detailing things from the real-world's point of view, but this section is dwarfed considerably by the fictional part. While in-story depictions need to be described, the bulk of the article should be about -real- things, not fictional things.
    • Because you should be focusing more on the real world, there should be more references than simply the episodes in question.
    • "Other uses of the Stargate concept" consists of a list. Please convert to "Brilliant Prose".
  • The fictionality issue is the main one, but all need to be taken care of. Fieari 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I strongly disagree. This article is so great because it covers everything there is on the topic. It is one of the most comprehnsional articles we have. The reason why most of the article is fictional, is because there is more fictional information on the topic than real information. The other uses section should be a list. It makes far more sense that way. This is one of the greatest articles we have. I and many others have worked hard on it. Tobyk777 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object per Fierari (especially the long lead), and lack of non-episodic information. Look at the stuff in FA - Media, most of which is fictional. You have to drive a balance between reality and fiction. Staxringold 12:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. I agree with Fierari at all points. In addition, you need to add a detailed fair use rationale for every single non-free picture you use. You can't just use a copyrighted image because it looks good. You need to explain why it is necessary for the article or the particular section. A good example you can follow is Ran (film). --BorgQueen 13:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Tobyk but although I still Support as before, I knew others would object and for the same reasons. We haven't yet passed the criteria of having outside sources and more "real" stuff. Of course, I agree with you and support for the same reasons as you, which are that there just is more fictional information on the gate than real information, and that episode references are all you're going to get or need for information taken from the episodes, but these guys at FA are a tough bunch, so I'd have held back this nomination.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per previous FAC, the article is original research and lacks reliable secondary sources -- Gnetwerker 16:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely no original research in there. Honestly, I can't believe this keeps cropping up. Point me to one place where there is original research. Everything is taken from episodes, and in nearly all cases the episode is cited.-- Alfakim --  talk  18:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's there. Take this passage for instance: The easiest way is using a Dial-Home Device (an Ancient control console usually found accompanying Stargates). With a DHD all the user has to do is punch in the address like hitting keys on a keyboard. The power will then automaticaly be provided. Puddle Jumpers seem to have an on-board DHD panel, this functions as a remote control to the gate. (the gate does not have to have a DHD for this to work, as evidenced by the DHD-less Earth Stargate being dialled with a puddle jumper in "Moebius") So, how do we, in the real world, know what an easier or harder method of using a Stargate is? How do we know that Dial-Home Devices are "usually found accompanying Stargates"? We as the television viewers are only allowed to see the Stargates the creators want us to see, correct? Unless a character on the show has said as much, "Puddle Jumpers seem to have an on-board DHD panel" is patent OR; it may seem that way to a viewer, but that viewer's inferences have no place on Wikipedia. "[T]he gate does not have to have a DHD for this to work, as evidenced by the DHD-less Earth Stargate being dialled with a puddle jumper in "Moebius"" is another example of an inference being made based on a single observation; OR. And this was only a random passage at which I chose to start reading. — Amcaja 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was what I was afraid. Like Alfakim I can't understand why so many of you are hung up on the idea that there needs to be more information on the creation of the Stargate. The creation of the Stargate was not that complicated and all of the information on it is provided in the article. Like Alfakim said, there simply is not much information on the creation of the Stargate, much less MORE information than on the complexities of it in the Stargate universe. The Filmaker 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for your point on "original research": Suppose one character on a TV series shoots a another character, killing him. He does not confess to the crime and no one else on the show arrives to the conclusion that the character in question was the murder. Now there is no indication that the event could have been in a dream or an alternate reality of any kind. Should it not be written on Wikipedia that the character killed the other character? Nobody has ever directly referenced it, but the event did take place on the show. Therefore, it is an observation. Let's go one step further, say that I am a expert on firearms and I notice that the gun the murder is holding is a Heckler & Koch USP Tactical handgun. Now no one on the show has refered to it by this name, but the weapon is quite obviously this company's firearm. It's just an observation, but could it not be put down in an article? The Filmaker 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your first example falls under simple plot synopsis, so no, it's not inherently OR. However, the creators can always say that it was a dream sequence, or that the murderer was actually a clone or a bodysnatcher, or bring the apparently dead character back to life. Fiction is slippery! As for your second example, it's not as clear cut. If you put this fact in an out-of-universe perspective, it's probably fine: "In Episode 383, a Heckler & Koch USP Tactical handgun was used as a prop in the murder scene." If you infer that Heckler & Koch must exist in the (say) Star Wars universe because you saw that gun in Attack of the Clones, I'd call that OR. Really, though, a lot of the problems with this article would disappear if you reframed things to more directly discuss episodes and the like and got away from the whole in-universe description of how these fictional devices (appear to) work. — Amcaja 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid the above sounds ludicrous, and shout as you might it is not implied by WP:OR. your second example about inferring a H&G in Star Wars works because Star Wars is set in "a galaxy far far away" and hence no H&G could possibly be there. We know very well from the show's collaboration with the military and frequent technical info (as well as being set in the present) that if we see an H&G its because there is an H&G (although MP5's are more often spoken about).
        • Anyway, as for original research, pertaining to what makes a Stargate easier to dial or whether or not all gates have DHDs, this is indeed inferred, but then so much is in everything. Every single gate ever encountered in the show has had a DHD, and from what we know about the gate system and their builders (and their intentions), every gate should, indeed, come with one; the gates that dont have it missing by accident (Carter ep101: "this is what was missing!"). How do i know what makes a gate easier to dial? Well, when they dial by hand it takes ages and Teal'c puts on a funny face of exertion, whereas dialing by remote Jumper DHD takes on average about 2 seconds. We've seen it in the show, been shown that all Jumpers are the same, and make an inference that the writers intend their audience to make!!-- Alfakim --  talk  01:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - The hodgepodge list under 'Other uses of the Stargate concept' should be transformed into a first paragraph that properly reflects where the concept of 'gate' interstellar travel comes from. Additionally, statements like "there has been contention as to whether they plagiarised the idea from a previous script submission" need citation, you can't just say that without attributing it. --zippedmartin 21:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The filmmakers have never openly admitted that the idea for the Stargate was based off of any of the points on that list. As far as we know, it was a completely original idea on their part. There have been lightsaber like swords before in cinema, but George Lucas has never said he was directly inspired by them. The Filmaker 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that sentence is now sourced (though from IMDB trivia... people might learn what 'research' is, one day...) - and it says they were sued and settled out of court - surely that deserves more attention, with some proper sources backing it up.
      However, the other point has nothing to do with what if anything the story is 'based off' - the concept of interstellar travel via gates is indisputably and uncontroversially one that existed before they made the film, a little bit of history behind the idea is certainly required near the start. --zippedmartin 18:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article's subject is not on the Stargate in all media. It's subject is the Stargate in the Stargate universe. While I agree that the "sued and settled out of court" problem needs to be addressed. I can't agree to providing history "behind the idea" simply because there is no information out there (and believe me, I've been trying). Not every popular idea is inspired by some old TV show or by the filmmaker looking at the window of a moving car. It just didn't happen that way, and if it did, then nobody has ever heard of it before. The Filmaker 20:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The article is well written and informative and has my support. The Fading Light 5:33. 31 March 2006
  • Support, I think this article is really good. Just make the images a bit larger on the page, a bit brighter, and maybe try to get rid of the sci-fi logoed ones (replacing, or airbrushing - if the source allows it). CaptainVindaloo 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Obviously since I'm nominating it. The Filmaker 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree wholeheartedly with Fieari's assessment, plus I suspect much OR in the article. One of the authors have admitted to making "inference[s] that the writers intend their audience to make" (how do we know what the writers intend without citing a source that says one thing or the other?). Most importantly, though, Wikipedia articles should be about the real world, not fictional ones. Specifically, if all references to "stargates do this" need to be reframed from a real-world perspective: "To use a stargate, characters on the show usually do this. On the DVD commentary, actor So-and-so said this is really difficult to do, because the props are so big", etc. — Amcaja 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object as per the others and the fact that referencing is extremely poor, consisting only of program episodes and websites of varying reputability. Secondary sources please. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support The article accurately portrays the Stargate as it is used within the world of the show, and I believe that most of the inferences made are valid within the context of the show. While the ties to the real world are relevant, the Stargate is a fictional artifact, and thus I believe that the article regarding it should focus on the Stargate's role within its fictional world. I agree that Wikipedia articles should be about the real world, not fictional realities, as per Amcaja, to a point. Surely, in the case of only real-world Wikipedia articles being valid, articles regarding any fictional universe, whether it be that of a novel, a television show, a game, or something else entirely, would truly belong on Wikipedia. I believe that this article, and others regarding fictional universes, are valid as long as they do not claim that the phenomena, characters, etc. of their world "carry over" to the real world. In this case, discussion of the workings of the Stargate as described by the show is valid, but a claim that Stargates exist in our universe is not, although speculation regarding the validity of the Stargate science in our universe would be valid. I agree with Fieari, however, in that there are some formatting issues with the articles, such as the section on other uses of the Stargate. Surely, this can be expressed in a better way than as a list. Abhorsen327 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just altered the section on other uses of the Stargate to prose form, from its previous list form. Abhorsen327 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think the article is ready now. --Tone 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object, contains original research per the above objectors. Tuf-Kat 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, can anyone give an example of a specific point in the article that is referenced by only an episode that should have some other reference? Would you prefer citations of an unofficial transcript that could easilly contain mistakes and is far less verifiable than the episode itself?
    • Here's one: "Stargates are typically 22 feet in diameter" -- this is in the intro (not elsewhere, a violation of WP:LEAD), and is sourced by a single citation -- to the front page of a fan site. I could go on. This article is original research, not encyclopedic. Obsessive-compulsive original research, perhaps, but OR nonetheless. --Gnetwerker 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a citation - I said somewhere with only an episode as a citation. If the citations aren't very good, that's another matter, I was responding to the point that there weren't citations at all for many things. I will try and find a better citation for the diameter, though. --Tango 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barly Object: For the most part, I support this article, as I see the episodes themselves as resource enough for the most part (Don't the Star Wars films count as resources for Star Wars articles? Don't Spiderman Comics count as resources for Spiderman?). While it's possible that things arn't as they appear in the Stargate universe, for the meantime, we must assume that what we've seen is what has happened, as any twists that havn't appeared on screen havn't happened yet, and thus really don't exist. I also don't see why it has to be written so much from a real world perspective. Granted, it would be nice if there were a couple of commentary or magazine article resources that confirm some of the things that are seen.
There are a couple of things I can see that need to be fixed first before I can actually support.
  1. At the top, it says "Despite numbering in the millions, only a select number of races understand how to use these relics, including, most recently, Stargate Command of Earth." As we've seen, other planets have learned how to use their Stargates since then. Change to show this.
  2. Under DHD, there are two "Citation Needed". Either remove, or find an example for each you can represent.
  3. Under Matter Transmision, there is a "Citation Needed". Remove, or give an example.
  4. In certain instances, you use e.g. instead of citing. Perhaps you should use the number system and cite these instead (Or explain here why you're doing it that way).
Fix these, and I'll support. Dr. B 01:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Simply because I'm tired of Wikipedia being used as a dumping ground for fanboys. A serious encyclopedia has better things to worry about than devices in minor sci-fi programs.--Mark 2000 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to define "minor"? --Tango 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Tango, how do you define "minor?" To me, a series with one movie, nine seasons of the main television show, and two seasons of a spinoff show is not minor, any more than the Star Trek series are minor. Abhorsen327 17:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I define any show that has a worldwide audience that is smaller than Will and Grace's US audience to be minor. I consider any currently running show that the average man on the street can't name to be minor.--Mark 2000 18:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the source of your audience numbers? I would think most people in the English speaking world (I'm not sure if stargate is dubbed into (many) other languages) have heard of stargate. Anyway, you said "minor sci-fi program" not "minor program", so you should be comparing to other sci-fi, not Will and Grace. --Tango 22:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a minor sci fi show. It's one of the biggest if not the biggest sci fi show on the air Here are it's stats: [1] These clearly show that it has more than 10 million viewers a week. It has sold more than 30 million DVDs alone. It's a huge sci fi show. Tobyk777 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have asked random people on the street about it. The response was about 1 in 10 to one in 15 had seen it. One in 3 to one in 4 had heard of it. Tobyk777 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's definitive! Case closed. -- Gnetwerker 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 million world wide audience is pathetic. Leno gets that much a day in the US. Next time you sample "random people" dont do it at a comic book convention. And don't you have more of a life than to harass strangers about a minor scifi show? Geez! --Mark 2000 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the people I asked were on a train. Unless it was the convention train and there were no signs posted, they were just random people on a train. Tobyk777 23:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many people did you ask? And were they like "Yeah of course!" or "Sure whatever, stop breathing on me like that."?--Mark 2000 05:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many people have heard of a topic is not a requirement for an article on Wikipedia. Nor is it a requirement of an FA. Besides that, can you explain what exactly your issue with fancruft being on Wikipedia is? Fans of religious topics that are arguably fictional create articles, work on them and bring them up to FA quality. Fans of obscure biological creatures that hardly anyone would have heard of create articles, work on them and bring them up to FA quality. Why should Stargate be an exception? Whether you like the topic or not has absolutely nothing to do with me, the articles creators or Joe and Jane Wikipedian. Stick to the FA guidelines please. --darkliighttalk 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10 million isn't much in general, but for sci-fi it's good (I'm not sure how good, nor am I sure how accurate those stats are). Prehaps you'd be justified in saying sci-fi is a minor genre, but stargate isn't minor sci-fi. --Tango 00:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you people having this discussion?? I think any closing admin will disregard a vote justified with something like "Simply because I'm tired of Wikipedia being used as a dumping ground for fanboys. A serious encyclopedia has better things to worry about than devices in minor sci-fi programs." You categorically can not oppose a FA nomination on the importance or nature of its topic.

An article on the most obscure charecter from the most obscure TV show can have a FA written about him if it conforms to FA criterias like Brilliant Prose and informativeness. It doesn't matter if only 5 person in the whole world have ever heard about the topic, it's not a valid objection to a FA nomination if only because it can not "be fixed", which is a criteria for making a valid objection.Loom91 13:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support. In the absense of secondary sources, facts from the primary source that are obvious to all should not be counted as Original Research. In any case, implementing NOR in a straightjacket fashion would require us to write articles in quotations instead of prose.

This article is informative and as referenced as is possible for such a topic, nobody writes papers in peer-reviewed journals about a TV show. We must judge references in the basis of what is available for this topic, not what is available for other topics. I for one couldn't have imagined that it was possible to write such a detailed article on such a topic. However the point of perspective is a valid one and it would be good if the prose was from a real-world perspective. I doubt this attempt will suceed, but don't lose heart and keep up the good work!Loom91 13:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stargate_(device)/archive2&oldid=1140250787"