Talk:John Sheppard/1009FEB08Archive

This talk page is currently protected from editing as it is archived. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is there some sort of policy/recommendation/template for the content of the fandom character pages? I'm asking because I'd hope to find in this wiki also sections for the fandom's reactions to a particular character (overview of fan reception and (un-)popularity, kerfuffles, fanon vs canon for that character and such) and maybe related communities rather than a just character biography like you find in a fandom specific wiki that is for information about the source rather than information about the fandom.

As a first step to get more info about the fandom side of things, I started a section for communities mostly for Sheppard. But I'm not sure how to best structure the rest. Maybe a separate Fanon header would be good to include for things like what is now in a paranthesis with the military dad, the "math genius" thing and such? --ratcreature 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a (really short, stubby) step towards this with a "fan response" section--someone more familiar with SGA fandom and fanon and its discussions and fights will have to fill it out further. --LC 22:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if episodes should be moved to footnotes and out of the main body of the work to make it read a little smoother. Y/N?--Seperis 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of loathe footnotes, especially on websites because of the extra clicking, so I rather appreciated the brackets, but it's just a personal preference, so if the developing "house style" of this wiki goes in favor of those with a footnote kink, it should be consistent, but as long as the style guide is still up for grabs I'd be in favor of avoiding footnotes. --ratcreature 22:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think a Fanon header is kind of necessary, yes, and yes on the footnotes for ep. references too.--anatsuno 22:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

potential character template

I'm trying to think of a standard template to use for characters. I have name, occupation, title, location, status, but I'm not sure how to indicate, or if it should indicate, spouse(s) or family. Anyone? --Seperis 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "important relationships"? That would cover family, romance, and best friends. --ratcreature 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call. It'll be under the name Template:Character. If it becomes necessary, a second template could be added just for family if really needed. Thanks! --Seperis 18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure a fondness for Sudoku has much to do with math ability, the digits in that kind of pattern puzzle can be any set of symbols, no? Maybe there's a logic connection to math in puzzles, but I think it's more evidence for his general dorkiness, like his reading comics.--RatCreature 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ETA: Though of course if there's meta posts or such in SGA fandom that connect the math genius thing to John's love of puzzles it would fit as explanation for the fanon, I just have never seen that connection claimed before myself.--RatCreature 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sudoku books show that John likes number puzzles, as opposed to, say, word puzzles; he's got to have some affinity for them (as opposed to antipathy) for him to choose that as a form of recreation. I agree that it doesn't mean he's a mathematical genius, but there's enough canonical information to be able to say that he's sort of stereotypically boy, and likes numbers more than words. --rache 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sudoku puzzles (as ratcreature pointed out) can be done as easily with letters as with numbers, but I think that they are perceived as a math thing to such an extent that people who do Sudoku are understood as being "math people" regardless of whether they actually are or not - and so a canonical fondness for Sudoku would suggest the intent to present him as a math person. YMMV. Labellementeuse 04:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Fanon section

I modified the title and the 2 paragraphs below it, as fanon implies that there's no canonical support or extremely limited canonical support for a fact (seen once and never referenced again). Taking some canonical facts and interpreting them in a particular fashion isn't fanon, if the facts come from more than one episode. We also have to deal with Prop canon (Rodney Ingram McKay) and apocryphal canon (that character sheet posted to the sci-fi website) in consideration of what counts in determining if something is fanon or not. In The Sentinel fandom, the classic fandom examples are 'keys placed in a basket by the door', which is never shown in an episode or in any sort of apocryphal canon whatsoever, and 'Blair is a vegetarian', when he is shown to eat meat. Neither of the paragraphs met that criteria, hence why I changed the title. --rache 19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Sheppard having some kind of extraordinary connection to Atlantis or a super-special ATA gene should be mentioned in the fanon section, because it is much more present in fanfic than on the show. But I don't know which story or stories started this. I think "Angels in the Architecture" by shetiger might have been the first to make him a descended/reincarnated Ancient, but I'm not even sure about that.--Ratcreature 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not Enough Fannish Content" tag - Question

So, is there a discussion going on somewhere about the "There's not enough fannish content" tag? Because this page has that tag, and I'm not sure why. What counts as "enough"? The Sheppard page has three "fannish" sections on it - does that not qualify as enough? Who is deciding what is enough? Can I take the tag off if I disagree with it? User:Apple_pi 13 October 2008, 20:00.

There's no overall discussion especially, though I see you've raised it in other pages - which is totally the way to go! To answer your question her about this page, a (quick) word count shows that the 'canon overview' part is nearly 750 words while the 3 sections about Sheppard in fandom amount to only 425 words. The proportion is wrong for what Fanlore intends to have on its pages; it should be reversed, at the minimum, is my gut feeling (I know, I know, a gut feeling is not enough. But not everything has been quantified yet either - beta!). A label on it helps passing contributors to immediately see that they can contribute to the page, and how.

The number of sections is not so much the matter rather than the overall amount of fandom-about-John things. For example, I see that in the body of the text there are questions in brackets, asking for fans with a more in depth knowledge to link to meta about John's character, or ethics, or dating patterns, what have you. These are the kind of things that can be filled in slowly - the label does not mean the page is under any kind of deletion notice, only that it needs more work yet. As for can if you can take it off, I would think it'd better to let the gardeners and above to do it, though that's not a policy set in stone (again, just my gut feeling - I will raise the question in committee) - we have yet to wrangle all procedures into shape. At the moment though, if you took it out, one of us would probably slap it back in to help others know they can be of help by adding to it.

Did that clarify things for you at all?--anatsuno 01:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It does clarify things for me, but I have to say, I think it's way too early in the process to be worried about the ratio of canon-to-fandom in entries. The fandom information will be expanded and added to as we go, but it's not going to happen overnight. For me, the canon is necessary as context, and it makes a natural starting place. ...And frankly, I'm better at adding that than at the fandom stuff, because I avoid wank, I'm useless at meta, and I have a terrible memory for things like trends in fandom. (And I would hate for this wiki to become merely a record of our wank, as well.)

Second question: does the tag lead somewhere, to a page like the "Stubs" category page? That would be useful. But as it is - and as it is worded at the moment - it feels (and this is only to me, mind you, I really don't mean it in any personal way to the mods or gardeners) offensive, and as if I (as the page creator) am being told I've done it wrong. :-( Pi 13 October 2008, 20:37 (UTC)

that "princess" thing

Does this drawing So Much For Make-Believe by terribilita count as fanwork example? It was done for a prompt "John really is a princess"for paintedspires. There was also the Enchanted movie poster fusion le mot did.--Ratcreature 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that art is awesome and should be linked in the new John in Art section! --Speranza 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Can we upload any of these and put the images directly into the page? Maybe make it an art gallery? I haven't done one of those yet. --rache 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I don't think I'd archive anything without the permission of the artist, yeah?--Speranza 20:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why upload art instead of linking it like fanfic? I mean, content here in this wiki has to be licensed with a CC, yes? And Le Mot for example in her post I linked explicitly forbids reposting and derivatives by others without her permission, so I think not.--Ratcreature 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this deletion of the fanon vs canon section temporary for rearranging things? If not, I'm against it.--Ratcreature 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack! No, if it was me, it was a fuckup! Thank you for fixing!! (If it wasn't me, this is a spare apology for a future fuckup!)--Speranza 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Not relevant to anything at all, but rache's "trying to format pony" note has somehow just summed up... everything, and has made my whole day. Hee. --Arduinna 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Would have been better if it were a zebra. --rache 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

'enigma' Sheppard?

I think this "we learned less about John Sheppard than any other character" should be made clearer as some fans opinion maybe rather than fact, because personally I never felt it true that we learned less about him than about any of the other main characters and never understood much of the fandom meta with complaints. Less than about Rodney maybe, but Teyla didn't exactly get a fleshed out background either, nor did we learn that much about Elizabeth. And fanfic regularly does weird things to characters that are made fit into canon so that the story isn't outright AU, so that Sheppard's canon background leaves room for wildly diverging fanfic doesn't really say much. I've thought that meta came more from that Sheppard stands out a bit because he doesn't quite fit an obvious archetype maybe, or something like that, so perhaps gaps are felt a bit more.--Ratcreature 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Teyla, yes, though at least we knew about her father, her people, Athos. We also learned quite a bit about Elizabeth (we met Simon, her mom, saw her apartment, etc.) We knew Ford had grandparents. But I don't mind qualifying "some fans felt" etc. --Speranza 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well except that the name we learned early was apparently her mother, no? I mean, she named Torren after her father, so we didn't even know the gender of the parent she mentioned... And in turn we got John's bachelor's fantasies, met his dead buddies, learned the name of that teacher he mets in that hallucination, so there's plenty trivia too. I mean, I agree that we learn less about any of the characters than you'd do in say a teen drama, but I don't think Sheppard is singled out that much.--Ratcreature 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we don't know less about Sheppard than about any of the other regulars with the exception of Rodney (who had the advantage of having been on SG1 first). I never understood the "enigma Sheppard" meta myself, and I suspect you put your finger right on the spot when you say it's because he doesn't neatly fit any of the usual archetypes. --Dora 01:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

fans began to intuit his upper class status through he canonical love of golf (he's been playing since he was six) and expensive haircut - What...really? I mean, I'm sure Joe Flanigan has an expensive haircut because he's rich. But there's nothing about his hair that implies it's an expensive haircut. I could get the same look cutting my hair myself or going to Fantastic Sam's. I've never seen anyone use his hair as proof of him being rich (proof of him being gay, yes, which is equally ridiculous, but it's certainly ubiquitous). --Kyuuketsukirui 08:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to persuade you, except to say that that I'd be shocked if that is less than a $400 haircut, and that you can NOT get that look yourself or at whatever local shop: it's so expertly cut. I think the richness gets read into the gayness, because in this case, the gay stereotype is being created from the overworkedness and pamperedness of it; "artfully touseled" etc., the sense that his hair requires a lot of work and product.--Speranza 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you maybe have links to the meta or commentary that had been saying this? because like Kyuuketsukirui I don't remember seeing ever this hair argument for Sheppard's wealth either.--Ratcreature 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It may very well be so, although I couldn't tell from looking at it, but I've never actually seen that argument made in SGA fandom until this page right here. A reference for where that argument was made would be good. --Dora 01:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

But even if it's true that Joe Flanigan's haircut costs $400 how on Earth can that be used to extrapolate anything about canon? By that logic, everyone on every TV show wears makeup constantly. --Kyuuketsukirui 09:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we know canonically that Joe Flanigan's hair looks like that because he's got 4 cowlicks, it seems logical to assume that the same is true for Sheppard. Darkrose 09:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think that whole sentence is problematic. Did we intuit Sheppard's upperclass background, or was that RPF bleed-through and Fanon Princess Attitude? I'm not sure that statement is true. --rache 14:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the expensive haircut mention, and added in other actor bleed-through bits instead. --rache 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)