Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 6

602:

disingenuous under these circumstances. I also note that most readers of Knowledge (XXG) (and Knowledge (XXG) is for its readers, is it not?) would not see these discussions until it is too late. How often do you look up a SG episode? I stumbled upon sgeureka's efforts completely by accident, when I was looking for information about some Outer Limits episodes and found details in Google's cache that were no longer on Knowledge (XXG) itself. A few days or weeks later and Google's cache would have been updated, the details gone, leaving me none the wiser. All I'd have seen are the merged episode lists, and I'd never have known that a merger had taken place. And how is that my fault? This reminds me of the famous beginning of Douglas Adams' Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which somehow it becomes Arthur Dent's fault that he did not visit the basement of his local council's planning office, find a hidden cupboard, and dig up the plans about bulldozing his house.

985:? The speed of evolution of articles is in proportion to their size. Great articles grows quickly, and the small articles grows slowly. Merging of any articles into the list of episodes means to stop their further evolution for a long time. For example, no one will add posters and other additional information for films, if these films are already merged to the list of episodes. On contrary, usually images becomes deleted from the original articles while merging. You can propose articles to merging/deletion only if these articles was created by yourself. And in such a case you can also propose these articles to deletion, without merging, - and without any explanations to other editors. 653:

just accidentally, if at all, before their work is removed. For instance, the first SG-1 episode that was merged, The Enemy Within, has many editors: the history of the page goes back to 2005. I suspect that the same is true for many of the other episode pages concerned. Were these people notified that their work is about to be deleted? Were they given an opportunity to contribute to the discussion (that is, a real opportunity that doesn't involve going to the basement of the local council office and finding a dusty cupboard there?)

1496:. Just replace my username with yours and work to your heart's content) on the episodes. That said, it isn't really a question of how much work you put into the episode articles, it's a question of finding the sources that prove adequate notability. For instance, if you found an review of "Cold Lazarus" from a reliable, independent source and showed it here, then you would have a compelling argument to unmerge the article. It's really as simple as that. Why people here are bickering about other irrelevant topics is beyond me. — 31: 1564:) then maybe there is a case for creating those articles on a case by case basis. However this is only likely to be possible for the season premieres, finales, and milestone episodes almost all of which were not redirected in the first place. Unmerging them all to create lots of unbalanced, non-neutral, plot based, in-universe episode articles is a bad idea. We are not TV.com. If you really want to write about the unnotable episodes try 641:

people arguing against a deletion fans in a disparaging way is highly inappropriate and, in my view, totally against the spirit of Knowledge (XXG). In any case, a fan doesn't need Knowledge (XXG)... a fan knows his or her "fancruft" by heart. For the rest of us, who merely enjoy a show but aren't necessarily devoted fans, Knowledge (XXG) is a useful resource... but less useful than it used to be, because of these mergers.

1432:, which notes that editors should not create pages that do not follow our notability guideline. In any case, this is the end of the line. Show sources that prove the notability of these articles or don't and they stay merged. Those are really your only two options at this point. Continuing your blather about the necessity of having these episode articles is a bunch of hot air without concrete evidence of notability. — 1526:(Maybe im just silly but i have a hard time finding these histories and Im sure new users not so famillar with wikipedia would expereince the same, but just might not be thinking correctly where to look). But agreed many of these articles need some valid sources to stay (or become) notable which basically sets them up for deletion anyway if theyre unmerged. 1111:, there was no consensus to merge beyond a consensus of one. Sgeureka BOLDly redirected, anyone who disagrees can revert and then a proper discussion can be had as to the merits of these articles. In my opinion the episodes of a TV show like this, that has been syndicated to dozens of countries, are by definition notable and merit standalone articles. 794:. I agree with vttoth. As it was mentioned above, merging breaks the goodwill principles and spirit of Knowledge (XXG). For example, Garda40 said in his last comment, that he knows where else to go to get the information. It means, that due to such users like Sgeureka, Knowledge (XXG) turns to place, where such information already can not be found. 950:. At first, there are no reasons to include 2, 3 or 5 stub templates mentioned above in article together. One stub template is quite enough. At second, why do you think, that such articles will not be evoluted in future? There are many articles of films/episodes that was stubs for a long time, and then was increased by new editors to good state. 1474:

if it can be. Challenge these editors (and new ones) to improve the articles. I still stand by the belief that the articles can only improve if they are accesible. Theres always going to be some sort of bickering about this as whenever you look on the talk pages here theres something about this merge and someone complaining about it.

972:: Why do you think these specific articles will evolve to a minimum standard of quality? You can neither cite precedent for improvement of this set of articles (unless you cite my work and Matthew's, but ooops, the two of us think an unmerger is a bad idea) nor do volunteer for improving them to minimum standards yourself. – 203:"The Stargate concept was first proposed by Amelius, an Alteran in the first migration to Earth. His conceptual drawings depict the premise of a 6 symbol coordinate system to describe points in three dimensional space using constellations, and a circular frame to generate a stable wormhole event horizon." 1241:

articles (just my two cents). Perhaps a trial could be done maybe un merge the last season for a duration of time since its slightly newer and see if the articles can be brought up to snuff, if not in the time given then merge and redirect, if so start on season 9 and work the way down (just a thought)

1473:

Again how bout a compromise? For the people who want unmerge, de- merge the last season, give a few months, if the articles are not brought up to snuff by then accept the merge, if they are, start on season 9 and work the way down. For those who want the merge your given a chance to proove your point

1306:

isn't controversial, nor is it being disputed. Until I see a giant discussion with a somewhat plausible possibility of overturning NOTE (aka there's a giant "disputed" tag on the top and a significant, ongoing discussion), then it stands and things are expected to abide by it. The fact that it's used

724:

are being used again and alphabet soups quoted and the last time I contributed to Stargate pages the ridiculous situation of an 8 season character page being deleted ( who the producers decided to honor in the last Atlantis episode ) was being discussed and leaving one season characters pages intact

646:

Sixth, one rationale I have often seen was the issue of notability. Well, I submit that any television show, be it an episode or a stand-alone work, that is seen by millions, seen by further millions in reruns, and then even more millions when the show is exported, dubbed, or subtitled, is notable by

107:

I believe some of it had to do with the cost of production. After a while, the costs of the actors go up (they are being held back from other projects to do this show, so a little monetary incentive is in order). Additionally, Sci-Fi apparently felt it was time to move on/the story was getting stale.

1325:

All the "merging" suppositions consists from two different ideas. The first is "merging", i.e. adding plot summaries into lists of episodes, - and in such a case almost no one is against. But the second supposition is to remove the original articles, considering as "nonnotable" or as "stubs" by some

435:

No strawpoll was ever conducted about this merge, those who participated the most actively in supporting the merge were three editors: Tone, Tango, and Sgeureka. This is the overwhelming consensus talked about here. Editor Sgeureka tedious edits on these article talk pages was more than all editors

1125:

Since the merger was proposed and discussed for weeks and months before actions were taken, and since consensus was to keep the articles merged for nearly a year, it's in fact unmerging that's revertable per BRD if consensus to do so hasn't been gained first. Opinions on notability (like yours) are

1013:

But in any case, some information from the original articles can not be included into such lists. I am not against to adding of short plot summaries and other information to lists of episodes - without removing the original articles. So, the lists would be greater and may be, they would also expand

769:

is ("a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question"), and I have written a couple GAs about this franchise to know what an article should look like to not be considered fancruft. I think this puts me into a pretty good position to

607:

Second, these mergers destroy information. The reason why I became interested in sgeureka's efforts is because the pages he decided to merge contained information that was no longer present on the merged episode lists. Whether it was the name of a guest star, the opening narration of an episode, or

358:

for excellent articles to see what I mean), but the current article has practically nothing (except an outdated timeline of the cancellation, an overdetailed plot summary, originally researched themes, and context-free lists that border on indiscriminate). In the meantime, I'll keep working on this

652:

Lastly, when despite all of the above, a merger is seriously proposed, at the very least the original authors and major contributors to the episode articles in question should be invited to participate in the decision-making process. They shouldn't be expected to stumble upon the proposal to merge

421:

beginning with October 2007. The merger happened after long discussions, and coming in 1.5 years after the fact and demanding things to get reversed is a little late, no? May I ask for your encyclopedic reasons for requesting an unmerge that do not involve ill feeling towards a certain editor? And

126:

I'm not sure about this, but I think it may have had to do something with the similarities between the Ori, and the Christian religion. A lot of people probably didn't like the Ori being portrayed as evil. They probably got a lot of "Stop Insulting my Religion" letters. 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1348:

does not give you carte blanche to create articles that are non-notable. You're also confusing the concept of stubs with a lack of notability. A stub is simply a very short article that is in need of expansion; a stub by itself can be notable if it has significant coverage in independent sources.

1240:

How can the articles improve if they`re not accesable to average or new editors? If the page article isnt worth keeping nominate it for deletion and go through the process for each episodes criteria. Seems a good amount of discussion has been generated from this, maybe it will spill over into the

1151:

As we all know, the issue with episode articles is the lack of any reliable sources for anything more than plot summaries. Such sources do exist for some episodes (DVD commentaries, critical reviews, interviews, etc.), and those episodes may well warrant articles. If anyone has such sources, they

640:

Fifth, the rationale for deletion should not include insults. Calling the material fancruft is insulting to the people who devoted considerable time and effort to the creation of these episode pages, even if the material is truly fancruft (in most of the cases under discussion it wasn't). Calling

487:

But why are you doing what amounts , because of the redirects , a one person AfD on them.I can't spot an actual AfD for these articles anywhere .Yes maybe there will be one in the future and the articles will be deleted off wikipedia but you seem to be deciding yourself per the guidelines whether

1311:

is disputed or not is entirely irrelevant, as all articles are expected to comply with NOTE. And citing the E&C case and the Arbs' very generalized statements does not grant you license to ignore notability guidelines either. Until you take your head out of the clouds and stop believing NOTE

1188:

the episode discussions of October2007-March2008. The merger did have consensus at the time it was performed, and thinking about how consensus may change after that is crystalballing. But as this straw poll shows, there is no consensus to unmerge either, and the status quo is to keep them merged

967:

Because they were created in 2004 and haven't been improved since then? Because they were tagged with several cleanup templates for a couple of months before the merger happened and weren't improved? Because the three editors who actually have improved the articles, support to keep the articles

613:

Third, shouldn't deletion be a last resort? Were these articles really so bad that deleting/merging them was necessary for the sake of the integrity of Knowledge (XXG)? I think that these mergers are accomplishing the exact opposite: they deprive casual users (emphatically, not fans!) of useful

678:

as there is no rational reason to restore old fancruft that clearly violates policies and guidelines and that is already covered in lists (the season articles). Don't bother to involve me in a discussion beyond this; my opinion won't change, and my time is better spent working on articles than

601:

First, I note that the SG episode mergers were, in fact, discussed prior to execution. That is good. Unfortunately, I also note that often, the only participant in the discussion was sgeureka, who proposed the merger. This is not so good. To argue that the merger was a result of "consensus" is

732:

Will I unmerge them myself . No because I know we'll get a pile of alphabet soup and they will be remerged and frankly I've got other things to do with my time than argue over whether something is notable or not or indeed what does notable mean .And frankly I know where else to go to get the

199:

very clearly suggests Amelius as the designer of the Stargate through a flashback. Would it be appropriate to include this? Should it be just under the SG1 provenance since it clearly doesn't pertain to the original movie? Under the section on the gate itself? I'd propose a paragraph such as:

1045:, there are like 200 odd episode articles, and after having them all back with barely any real world info, you might as well ask all the merged characters, races and technologies back. What Sgeureka says, you can bring them back if you establish notability, like I have recently done with 747:

Sgeruka, I do not call your edits vandalism, I do not call you a deletionist, or a troll, so I would appreciate it if you refrain from calling thousands of editors contributions "fancruft". It does not help your case, it only exposes your own biases. I think this page explains it nicely:

146:

I only wish they had cancelled the show 2 years earlier, the entire Ori arc feels like a bad joke. "We have killed all original bad guys, now we change almost the entire cast and create a new foe thats even worse. To bad we have to contradict half the old background story to do it"

273:

Note the scene where Amelius is programming the Ark just prior to the moment Alterans' ship bursts out of the mountain. He's halfway out the door and the goes to the table,where the notebook is sitting just next to the Ark after which he says "I had a wonderful idea last night"

461:

Worst of all, there has been little or no attempt to find any sort of middle ground; those who oppose merges are dismissed as "fans", or of being ignorant of Knowledge (XXG)'s conventions. Editors who oppose "merges" are told - often quite rudely - that their opinions don't

595:

I've been asked to comment on Inclusionist's request to reopen the debate about the merging of SG episodes. As I told Inclusionist, this is not really a windmill that I wish to fight, but here are my views anyhow, if you have the patience to read them. Feel free to ignore

728:

I've always opposed the death of a thousands cuts and said be honest and delete everything if you believe fiction is fancruft .I don't believe in the theory that some fiction is fancruft and some isn't myself which I see happening here and in some other locations

1330:

be removed in any case, - they will be just saved somewhere in archives of Knowledge (XXG). And the only result of their deleting will be that these articles will be just keeped out from display, making them invisible, especially for watching by new editors.

224:

Just because Amelius had a sketch of a Stargate in his notebook doesn't necessarily mean that he was the first to come up with the idea, or that it was well-developed enough to construct a working prototype. Although I think it still deserves a mention. -

344:

that it seems to pass is #5 (stability), and in the case of this article, that is actually bad. Improving this article to meet the minimum GA requirements would take much longer (a few dedicated weeks) than an "official" GA review would last, so I hereby

1057:

episode articles, and considering that PB is a more recognisable TV show than Stargate, not even shows like that are immune. I'd rather have a handful of good articles, than have most episodes with several notability, trivia and reference tags. --

1126:

pretty much void when there are policies and guidelines that disagree with these opinions. If I have to, I'll make use of my right to revert any bold unmergers that don't address the reasons why the mergers were performed in the first place (

928:

What should happed is to leave them as they are—lacking any content/verifiability/notability warnings—and spun out individually iff the secondary sources and substantive real-world information are available at the time of re-creation. —

353:

route then, which will result in a delisting just the same). I have already added some tags for what the article needs to get back to GA, but what it mostly needs is a developed Production, Themes and Reception section with sources (see

131:

Seems unlikely - the crusades are generally considered to be a low point in the history of Christianity, so I can't see too many people complaining about something similar to them being portrayed as evil (I expect some did, of course).

1262:

for any of these episodes, then they should remain merged. Simple as that. Pandering around here arguing the semantics of what was the original consensus is silly. If there are sources, find them. If there are not, they stay merged. —

647:

default: every six or seven million viewers represent 0.1% of our planet's population. Further, episode pages offer space for encyclopedic details (e.g., guest stars) that cannot be placed conveniently on an episode list page.

102:

I'm very much interested why did SciFi put an end to the show. This article claims it had nothing to do with ratings. What did it have to do with? If it's secret, nevertheless a note should be put up explaining why. -- J7n

292:

Point taken about the in-universe aspect, although I'd argue that when it only takes a replacement of the name of a fictional character with a real person, the sentence is not written from a real-world perspective as

1134:, and others), and I do not fear an RFC, RFC/U or getting reported to AN/I or arbcom, as it may in fact highlight that it's not me who is incapable of working collaboratively (as the E&C RFARs had admonished). – 920:

over the course of time, they will then sit there in such a state until another editor realizes that neither anonymous editors nor the existing community are going to rectify these problems and they'll either be

277:

As for your reference to Devlin or Emmerich, I'm referring to the 'in-universe' aspect of its creation. Further, I made a very clear distinction between the original movie and SG1 canon in my original post.

1326:

editors. And even if they are "stubs", what is the reason to remove them? Is it an attempt to economy the hard disc's memory? But, at first, disk space is cheap, and at second, this articles's information

635:, in order to respond in the same Kafkaesque fashion. Decisions concerning the fate of an article should be based on thoughtful discussion, not on which contributor can quote more Wikilegalese by acronym. 1053:. It's better to have a handful of good articles, than a hundred bad ones, like that saying; "it's not the quantity, but the quality", a saying which I previously used regarding the merging proposals of 240:

Yes, you're right... its much more an implication than anything else and the drawings are nothing more than conceptual. I would like to give it a mention, Sikon... how do you think we can best do it?

1152:

should go ahead and unmerge the relevant episode article and write a half decent article about it. If you don't have any such sources, then you'll never be able to write an article worth keeping. --

536: 478:

As one of those who does not read this portal I came here after finding that the episode articles I often refer to have suddenly vanished...Noting my strong objection to this merge/delete/migration.

374: 301:

here. You can say how his conceptual drawings look, but for the conclusion that the character invented the Stargate, you need a direct reference in plot dialog or a confirmation from a producer. –

1285: 1085:

Merging and deleting articles makes the chance of these bad articles becoming good, much harder, because editors will have to start over from scratch. (if they don't know the article was merged).

469:

Sgeureka, again, I appreciate the effort you're making. However, I think it is only fair to note that the whole "Wikia is the best place for this stuff" argument just doesn't hold water.

608:

other relevant detail doesn't matter... what matters is that after the merger, the information is gone, except for the select few who know how to find an old version of the merged page.

1288:: "An ideal response to such situations would be broader discussion of the guideline among editors with varying editing interest, with consensus achieved prior to widespread changes." 1372:

There is a feasible limit for article size that depends on page download size for Knowledge (XXG)'s dial-up and microbrowser readers and readability considerations for everybody (see

1488:

You do realize the article don't have to be unmerged for someone to work on them, right? They're not deleted, they're redirects. For instance, for the "Cold Lazarus" episode, the

1078:

You seem to be arguing that "handful of good articles (and) a hundred bad (articles)" is mutually exclusive, as if it is an either or. It is not. You can have "good" articles,

999:

Yes, but your argument on exponential law is a little flawed in one sense, the episodes are merged into lists, making them bigger, so the lists would also expand greatly. --

1216: 810:

For what it's worth, I think the episodes should stay in the seasonal lists they're currently within and only spin-out individual episodic articles when they have both

1581: 1387:

As you can see, it does not proves deletionist's position. On contrary, it recommends to split (=unmerge) articles to make possible their's further growth.

1280:

Notability is a incredibly controversial guideline, probably because it is the number one tool that editors use to delete other editors contributions.

749: 658:

As I said, this is not my windmill to fight, but hopefully the above makes it clear why I feel troubled by these wholesale episode mergers.

387:

Consensus is not reached when you are the only person in the room. The Wikiproject this editor quoted in merging these articles is a farce.

1376:). After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic (see 1545: 515: 844:

support the unilateral unmerging of these articles, because the majority of them do not meet the muster for such as detailed above by

341: 543: 390: 818: 770:

use the word "fancruft" in relation to this set of articles. I have no problem with publicly admitting my bias against fancrufty

1281: 855: 614:

information, while they discourage volunteers (who may or may not be fans) who contributed the material in the first place.

815: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 162: 1493: 422:

are you sure you checked the editor's userpage before claiming "he has never contributed anything to any episode"? –

1574: 1492:

is freely accessible. Anyone is free to make a userspace draft (for instance, if I was doing the draft, it would be

1046: 38: 1377: 822: 894: 108:

While I disagree, it wasn't picked up. Nothing acn be done about it. If anyone has additional info, please post.

1417:: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars. 1373: 632: 1063: 1004: 884: 674:

If it hasn't been clear before: Feel free to unmerge any episode article that you wish to work on, otherwise,

1401:

I did answer your question. The reason we don't have articles on the episodes is because they don't pass our

1228: 1175: 1090: 1050: 756: 551: 402: 1429: 628: 389:

A large portion of this editors edit history is involving the merging of television episodes. Recently on

150: 1409:

argument. In any case, as you probably missed the bolded sentence in WP:PAPER, I'll point it out for you:

624: 377:, he is the only person to have commented on this wikiproject. He then used this "Wikiproject" to justify 1569: 1531: 1479: 1307:

in AfDs (as it should be!) as a "delete" rationale does not mean that it's an invalid argument. Whether

1246: 1189:(unless an article is improved to minimum standards, which automatically turns this discussion moot for 499: 393:

the consensus (no consensus keep) was to keep and unmerge these articles. This editor also merged many

319: 1224: 1171: 1086: 766: 752: 547: 418: 398: 340:

is still one of my all-time favorite shows, but only now do I realize how bad the article is. The only

1380:)... This also means you do not have to redirect one topic to an equivalent topic of more common usage 914: 177: 158: 1308: 1059: 1000: 874: 349:

delist this article to save us the bureaucracy (anyone is free to revert me, but I'll take the the

282: 245: 214: 867: 561: 414: 255:

I watched AoT yesterday, and I didn't even notice his sketchbook. Anyway, what matters is whether

109: 1497: 1433: 1350: 1313: 1264: 849: 516:

Talk:List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes#undeleting_the_article_for_episode_10x09_-_company_of_thieves

47: 17: 1561: 1406: 1363: 1345: 1219:

in which Sgeureka put a Frazier episode up for deletion, and administator MacGyverMagic wrote: "

696: 565: 298: 173: 154: 738: 1549: 1402: 1303: 1259: 863: 834: 700: 620: 346: 314:

lil late but i think it will come clear in the new series universe (even about the ship too)

1527: 1475: 1392: 1336: 1242: 1019: 990: 955: 799: 663: 315: 1349:

Simply, we don't (or shouldn't rather) have articles on non-notable items. End of story. —

1131: 1108: 922: 684: 680: 350: 294: 1157: 1116: 982: 542:

There is no consensus for such merger. I believe the articles should be unmerged, just as

260: 230: 137: 1425: 1049:, which was recently given GA status, and what Sgeureka has just very recently done with 692: 355: 1293: 573: 278: 241: 210: 1557: 1553: 1127: 826: 688: 1194: 1135: 973: 904: 845: 775: 704: 423: 360: 302: 264: 1535: 1504: 1483: 1440: 1396: 1357: 1340: 1320: 1297: 1271: 1250: 1232: 1197: 1179: 1161: 1138: 1120: 1094: 1067: 1054: 1023: 1008: 994: 976: 959: 938: 931: 803: 778: 760: 742: 734: 707: 667: 577: 555: 490: 426: 406: 363: 323: 305: 286: 267: 249: 234: 218: 181: 166: 141: 120: 1223:

Using AFD to delete an article when a merge is unsuccesful is abuse of process."

511:[please bring back the articles on each episode for stargate sg-1 67.171.117.112 1388: 1332: 1082:"bad" articles which have the potential of becoming good articles in the future. 1015: 986: 951: 795: 717: 659: 480: 256: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1153: 1112: 471: 464: 226: 133: 1548:, but regardless these articles were merged/redirected because they were all 535:

In merging these articles, Sgeureka based the merges on the completely bogus

1289: 569: 1284:

is being disputed right now. I would strongly suggest that Sgeureka follow

627:

may intimidate some, but it shouldn't... perhaps we need a few pages like

1312:

doesn't exist can you have any sort of constructive discussion here. —

394: 263:

designed the Stargate concept, not some fictional one-off character. –

703:) with editors who may be aware of them but ignore them on purpose. – 1405:. Your comment that we have enough space for them is a stereotypical 774:

articles - that's actually the right set of mind to clean them up. –

1560:

and create a critical reception section based on major pubications (

965:

why do you think, that such articles will not be evoluted in future

505:

68.45.82.237 04:40, 9 February 2008; 68.45.82.237 9 February 2008

537:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review

375:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review

1362:

End of story? But you did not answered the question. And, about

1286:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

837:—including substantive production and/or reception information. 25: 1565: 336:

I started work on this article to keep its GA status because

925:

or redirected/re-merged back into season (or similar) lists.

359:

to get this to B class (I'd grade it as C-class for now). –

1556:

existed they were kept. If you can establish an episodes

1489: 496: 486: 477: 468: 460: 378: 1217:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Frasier's Curse

827:

per the English Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines

417:, but here it goes. Please review the discussions at 1166:

What consensus? It is clear there was no consensus,

814:

evidence of having received significant coverage in

765:

I am a fan of this franchise, I generally know what

440:. The opposition to such a merge was much stronger: 1168:

and that the majority of editors opposed this merge

858:). Being precognitive, this is what would happen: 968:merged because they think they won't be improved? 8: 1415:This policy is not a free pass for inclusion 679:debating the merits of policies/guidelines ( 514:89.248.165.10 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 1366:, that you mentioned, you can look at this: 870:, and infoboxes, they would be tagged with 619:Fourth, alphabet soups are not the answer. 808:I don't think I like being called a farce. 453:Complete Lack of Consensus for the merges 449: 539:, in which Sgeureka was the only editor. 369:Straw poll: Unmerge the stargate episodes 750:Knowledge (XXG):Do not call things cruft 452: 1424:And the guideline that WP:PAPER cites, 497:what the hell happened to the episodes? 380:the redirection of over 50 articles. 1184:All but two of these comments came in 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1258:– until someone can show an iota of 1282:Knowledge (XXG):Television episodes 520:204.78.0.199 16:50, 28 August 2008 24: 1170:, yet the merge was done anyway. 544:List of The Outer Limits episodes 391:List of The Outer Limits episodes 192:Amelius- Creator of the Stargate? 29: 1494:User:Sephiroth BCR/Cold Lazarus 862:The articles would consist of 1: 1378:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style 1103:Any user should feel free to 508:. 189.25.151.55 19 March 2008 488:they fit WP:N and WP:EPISODE. 373:Last March an editor created 324:21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 297:says. Anyway, we're entering 172:Oops, forgot to sign that... 98:Reason for canceling the show 1582:09:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 1536:04:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 1505:02:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 1484:01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 1441:01:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 1397:23:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1374:Knowledge (XXG):Article size 1358:22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1341:17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1321:10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1298:10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1272:07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 1251:03:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC) 1233:19:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1198:14:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 1180:18:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1162:05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1139:05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1121:01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 1095:16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 1068:22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 1024:00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 1009:23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 995:23:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 977:21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 960:19:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 939:21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 804:18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 779:21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 761:16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 743:17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 708:16:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 668:05:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 578:06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 556:19:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 427:07:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 407:06:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 364:21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 1598: 1566:http://stargate.wikia.com/ 699:, and hopefully soon also 142:16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 121:03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 1047:Be All My Sins Remember'd 981:Did you know what is the 467:08:42, 25 November 2007; 182:05:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 167:05:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC) 1167: 1193:respective article). – 306:19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 287:00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 268:08:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 250:00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 235:07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 219:04:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 1419: 1384: 1215:See also the current: 927: 923:nominated for deletion 502:22:48, 23 January 2008 493:17:45, 5 December 2007 474:08:38, 3 December 2007 342:Good Article criterion 1412: 1369: 860: 833:consist of more than 42:of past discussions. 1403:notability guideline 1107:if they so wish per 560:Also to respond to 483:05:02, 5 March 2008 299:synthesis territory 500:User:194.82.121.38 18:Talk:Stargate SG-1 1579: 1568:instead of here. 819:secondary sources 526: 525: 206:Thoughts anyone? 169: 153:comment added by 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 1589: 1575: 1546:too long to read 1502: 1438: 1355: 1318: 1269: 1221:Close nomination 970:Counter question 934: 919: 913: 909: 903: 899: 895:reliable sources 893: 889: 883: 879: 873: 825:of the subject ( 720:said terms like 676:obviously oppose 450: 197:The Ark of Truth 148: 118: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1571:Rambo's Revenge 1498: 1434: 1351: 1314: 1265: 983:exponential law 932: 917: 911: 907: 901: 897: 891: 887: 885:primary sources 881: 877: 871: 371: 334: 261:Roland Emmerich 194: 110: 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1595: 1593: 1585: 1584: 1544:The above was 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1385: 1367: 1275: 1274: 1256:Oppose unmerge 1253: 1235: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1083: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1060:Matthew R Dunn 1043:Oppose unmerge 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1014:more quickly. 1001:Matthew R Dunn 942: 941: 806: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 730: 726: 711: 710: 671: 670: 655: 654: 649: 648: 643: 642: 637: 636: 616: 615: 610: 609: 604: 603: 598: 597: 592: 591: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 540: 530: 529: 528: 527: 524: 523: 522: 521: 518: 512: 509: 506: 503: 494: 484: 475: 455: 454: 444: 443: 442: 441: 430: 429: 410: 409: 388: 385:Strong unmerge 370: 367: 333: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 309: 308: 271: 270: 238: 237: 209:Paul Roberton 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 124: 123: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1594: 1583: 1580: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1500:sephiroth bcr 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1436:sephiroth bcr 1431: 1430:WP:AVOIDSPLIT 1427: 1423: 1418: 1416: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1353:sephiroth bcr 1347: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1316:sephiroth bcr 1310: 1305: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1268: 1267:sephiroth bcr 1261: 1257: 1254: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1236: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 997: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 975: 971: 966: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 949: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 936: 935: 926: 924: 916: 906: 896: 886: 876: 869: 865: 864:plot synopses 859: 857: 854: 851: 847: 843: 838: 836: 835:plot synopses 832: 828: 824: 820: 817: 813: 807: 805: 801: 797: 793: 790: 789: 780: 777: 773: 768: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 751: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 733:information . 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 714: 713: 712: 709: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 677: 673: 672: 669: 665: 661: 657: 656: 651: 650: 645: 644: 639: 638: 634: 633:WP:SEEIFICARE 630: 626: 622: 618: 617: 612: 611: 606: 605: 600: 599: 594: 593: 590: 587: 586: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 546:was unmerged. 545: 541: 538: 534: 533: 532: 531: 519: 517: 513: 510: 507: 504: 501: 498: 495: 492: 489: 485: 482: 479: 476: 473: 470: 466: 463: 459: 458: 457: 456: 451: 448: 447: 446: 445: 439: 434: 433: 432: 431: 428: 425: 420: 416: 412: 411: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 386: 383: 382: 381: 379: 376: 368: 366: 365: 362: 357: 352: 348: 343: 339: 331: 325: 321: 317: 313: 312: 311: 310: 307: 304: 300: 296: 291: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 275: 269: 266: 262: 258: 254: 253: 252: 251: 247: 243: 236: 232: 228: 223: 222: 221: 220: 216: 212: 207: 204: 201: 198: 191: 183: 179: 175: 171: 170: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 145: 144: 143: 139: 135: 130: 129: 128: 122: 119: 117: 115: 106: 105: 104: 97: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 1576: 1570: 1541: 1525: 1499: 1435: 1414: 1413: 1371: 1370: 1352: 1327: 1315: 1266: 1255: 1237: 1220: 1212: 1190: 1185: 1104: 1079: 1055:Prison Break 1042: 969: 964: 947: 930: 861: 852: 841: 839: 830: 811: 809: 791: 771: 721: 675: 588: 491:User:Garda40 437: 384: 372: 337: 335: 332:GA delisting 276: 272: 239: 208: 205: 202: 196: 195: 125: 113: 111: 101: 78: 43: 37: 1528:Ottawa4ever 1476:Ottawa4ever 1243:Ottawa4ever 1132:WP:NOT#PLOT 915:in-universe 823:independent 767:WP:FANCRUFT 681:WP:NOT#PLOT 481:User:Shogun 419:WP:STARGATE 316:Ottawa4ever 257:Dean Devlin 149:—Preceding 36:This is an 1558:notability 1554:notability 1309:WP:EPISODE 1260:notability 948:I disagree 875:notability 568:! (travb) 472:User:Ckatz 465:User:Ckatz 821:that are 562:WP:CHEESE 415:WP:CHEESE 397:episodes. 347:WP:BOLDly 279:Proberton 242:Proberton 211:Proberton 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 1562:WP:MOSTV 1552:. Where 1407:WP:PAPER 1364:WP:PAPER 1346:WP:PAPER 1328:will not 1302:Uh, no. 1195:sgeureka 1136:sgeureka 974:sgeureka 856:contribs 846:sgeureka 816:reliable 776:sgeureka 772:Stargate 722:fancruft 716:Just as 705:sgeureka 697:WP:MOSTV 629:WP:SHRUG 566:WP:HORSE 438:combined 424:sgeureka 361:sgeureka 303:sgeureka 265:sgeureka 163:contribs 151:unsigned 1550:WP:PLOT 1490:history 1304:WP:NOTE 1238:Unmerge 1213:Comment 1105:Unmerge 1051:Nemesis 933:pd_THOR 829:), and 792:Unmerge 735:Garda40 701:WP:FICT 625:WP:THAT 621:WP:THIS 589:Unmerge 395:Frasier 114:BQZip01 39:archive 1577:(talk) 1542:Oppose 1428:, has 1389:Krasss 1333:Krasss 1109:WP:BRD 1016:Krasss 987:Krasss 952:Krasss 910:, and 868:trivia 842:do not 796:Krasss 718:vttoth 685:WP:WAF 660:vttoth 596:me :-) 462:matter 351:WP:GAR 295:WP:WAF 1426:WP:SS 1225:travb 1186:after 1172:travb 1154:Tango 1113:RMHED 1087:travb 753:travb 693:WP:SS 548:travb 413:Huh, 399:travb 356:WP:FA 227:Sikon 174:Obbas 155:Obbas 134:Tango 16:< 1532:talk 1480:talk 1393:talk 1337:talk 1294:talk 1290:Ikip 1247:talk 1229:talk 1191:that 1176:talk 1158:talk 1128:WP:N 1117:talk 1091:talk 1064:talk 1020:talk 1005:talk 991:talk 956:talk 905:plot 850:talk 800:talk 757:talk 739:talk 689:WP:N 664:talk 623:and 574:talk 570:Ikip 552:talk 403:talk 338:SG-1 320:talk 283:talk 246:talk 231:talk 215:talk 178:talk 159:talk 138:talk 1080:and 831:(b) 812:(a) 631:or 259:or 1534:) 1482:) 1395:) 1339:) 1296:) 1249:) 1231:) 1178:) 1160:) 1130:, 1119:) 1093:) 1066:) 1022:) 1007:) 993:) 958:) 937:| 918:}} 912:{{ 908:}} 902:{{ 900:, 898:}} 892:{{ 888:}} 882:{{ 880:, 878:}} 872:{{ 866:, 840:I 802:) 759:) 741:) 695:, 691:, 687:, 683:, 666:) 576:) 564:, 554:) 405:) 322:) 285:) 248:) 233:) 217:) 180:) 165:) 161:• 140:) 132:-- 112:— 64:← 1530:( 1478:( 1391:( 1382:. 1335:( 1292:( 1245:( 1227:( 1174:( 1156:( 1115:( 1089:( 1062:( 1018:( 1003:( 989:( 954:( 890:/ 853:· 848:( 798:( 755:( 737:( 729:. 725:. 662:( 572:( 550:( 401:( 318:( 281:( 244:( 229:( 213:( 176:( 157:( 136:( 116:— 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index