Talk:Stargate Atlantis

Archived Discussions:

Stargate_Atlantis has no subpages to list.

---

Perhaps a mention of sga_flashfic's Harlequin challenge (and the subsequent http://community.livejournal.com/harlequin_sga/profile community dedicated to Harlequin AUs), which, IIRC, was one of the reasons SGA had so many crazy AUs? Etothepii 03:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reason for the crack, imho, is that SGA was building just as popslash was ebbing, and popslash had a long au/crackfic tradition.Sherrold 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What about a page for Harlequin? This kind of info could go there, and of course that page would be linked to from this one. --Hope 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. A brief poking at LJ seems to imply that there's been a Harlequin community for SGA, Torchwood, Smallville, and apparently even Highlander. And Supernatural, not necessarily in that order. I'm already confused keeping track of 'em all, since I only knew about the SGA challenge, but it definitely looks like it deserves its own article. Etothepii 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that SHOW pages and FANDOM pages should probably be split -- there is plenty to say about the show (and the actors at cons, etc., etc.,) for it to have its own page.Sherrold 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We are going to start asking for more information about the fandoms in the pages. We're going to come up with a tag like the stub tag for more fannish content, please. But we haven't gotten to it quite yet. --rache 00:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no, SHOW and FANDOM are not going to be split - they belong together, with little emphasis on the show and lots on the fandom. We'll be coming up with examples to make that much more clear soon.--anatsuno 01:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The line "While there are many stories in the fandom which feature highly realistic and detailed worldbuilding (cf works by Synecdochic, Ltlj, and Miss Porcupine)" makes it sound as if those three are the only ones writing stories that are realistic and/or feature detailed worldbuilding. Not sure there needs to be a namecheck here at all, as it comes acros as just randomly naming BNFs and/or friends for the sake of doing so. --Kyuuketsukirui 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a problem with the "cf" changed to "such as"? I reworked the paragraph a bit to expand it, but didn't want to just take out existing content if it isn't necessary. --Arduinna 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the other fandom pages include a section for mailing lists and communities. So far SGA only has such lists on the character pages, but none for general or pairing places. I have thought about generating subpages for ships, but I guess then there would need to be one for gen and the multi-ship comms that are more genre based too, and of course not every ship really has a big following, so I'm not sure that would be really the best way to organize these lists in a big fandom like SGA. Any suggestions? Maybe a "List of SGA communities" page without sorting headaches? --Ratcreature 12:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for the "SGA lists and communities", with sections on the page for different ships and genres -- easier for everyone to find things! And then wikilinks to any particularly big/active/whatever communities. --Arduinna 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Mensaverse an actual shared universe? I thought it was a community and challenge(?) where people can post stories set in the canon alternate reality, but that the stories weren't interconnected with each other. --Ratcreature 11:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good question. I was working on the theory that all of those stories did take place in the same general universe, even if they made varied wildly within that, but if that doesn't come across as shared enough, it should come out. --Arduinna 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added other examples where writers develop the same AU as a collaboration which I think are more clearly shared instead, like the Coyote comm for that Mutant AU has an extra writers' community where they coordinate things I think, at least there was something about it in the comm info, and as a reader the pieces go together. I mean, I guess in a way Mensa verse may be "shared" like the M7 ATF thing perhaps? But I think it is not the best example, especially since the parallel universe's existence is canon, so it's not really a fan created universe in the same way as Pegasus B for example.--Ratcreature 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are some fics linked directly and some as citations? It should be consistent one way or the other. Thoughts on which? --Kyuuketsukirui 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a similar style problem with communities. I tend to link them directly because most don't have a wiki entry (yet?) and an empty wikilink wouldn't tell anyone which thing I'm referring to, but if the goal is to create a wiki entry for every community in the wiki it would perhaps make more sense to link internally?--Ratcreature 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I vote *against* consistency *g*. I know from my own practice, some stories I'm wikilinking because I have stuff to say about them (or I think someone else should), and some I'm just using as examples from THAT page, and I have no more to say about them, though I think that someone who DID could come and change them into wikilinks later and point them toward a page if they discovered they had something to say about it. So I vote for NO consistency and more wikiwriting! --Speranza 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:: What Speranza said; not every story is going to need to have its own wikipage, but they're worth linking to externally as examples of what's being talked about. If someone later decides that they need to be on the wiki as well, I figured they can change them later. The same probably holds true for communities/lists, at least for big fandoms -- a community that only ever had six members and three posts might get mentioned as an example of, say, a genre-specific community, but it probably doesn't need a full wiki page about it. --Arduinna 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My question was more regarding the format of links themselves, rather than internal/external. Some are linked in the text directly and some have a footnote (in the same sentence!). To me that looks really sloppy. --Kyuuketsukirui 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of times I've been linking externally and figuring people can come along and change the link to an internal link if/when the page is created. --Kyuuketsukirui 15:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis Fandom

I added McKay/Sheppard to the fandom section. LJ fandom is dominated by that pairing, whether that's a good thing or not is a different question. I've already heard a few times from SGA fans who said they were curious, had a short look at the page, thought it was a joke because it made it look like SGA was all John/Teyla (because that was the pairing that was specifically mentioned), and didn't bother with adding anything to it. --Doro 14:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess part of this is because McKay/Sheppard is the only pairing that has already a subpage due to its large size, so people put the McShep detail there. When the page first started I added J/T examples in the sections (rather than trying to be balanced right away) because I really like that pairing, and figured there are like a gazillion people into the main slash pairing, so things about that would be added anyway. I mean, Sheppard/Weir is nearly completely absent on this page despite being a huge pairing, because there are just no fans of that pairing editing this wiki. That kind of imbalance is always a risk with wiki editing.--Ratcreature 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I get that, I just wanted to leave a comment to explain why I put it on the main page. That's what people look at first and it should give an idea of what the fandom looks like. What's big, what's small, what are the things someone needs to know to get an idea of what the fandoms looks like, etc. On that note, the list of subpages is totally unhelpful to me because I can't find anything on it. :( All I see is Stargate Atlantis Stargate Atantis Stargate Atlantis. I wish there was a way to display the subpages without given the whole link.--Doro 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

*dons research hat* There is. And it's actually really simple. Instead of Template:ListSubpages saying "showpath=full" it should say "showpath=no", then it only gives the subpage title (if I got the syntax correct). I think absolutely everyone would prefer the second option, and it's a super-easy fix. Should I write that request to the admins? --lian 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Yes, please!!! You are the best! \o/ --Doro 15:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Request sent! :) --lian 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ETA: lol -- while I was still battling my failing internet connection, rache already went ahead and tried it out! heeee. --lian 15:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better and more user friendly! ^_^ (I had no idea we had a subpage for Lantia and one for Sentient Atlantis; I never really noticed before...and they seem to be mostly empty.) Hmm. It seems there is a problem with pairing pages because they are designed as subpages. McKay/Sheppard is only displayed as Sheppard? --Doro 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now you can't see pairing pages as such anymore. I'd like to see the Stargate Atlantis bit omitted too, but I think this worse than the full path option with the current naming conventions.--Ratcreature 16:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there are other options? Perhaps there is a way to display individual pages differently with something like the DISPLAYTITLE thing. Or we don't list pairing pages as subpages and link them in the template instead, like the "see also" line. --Doro 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ETA: Err. I mean like "External Links", "Medium", etc. Just adding something like "Pairings"...--Doro 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it turned off, but I agree that it's a bad choice due to the pairing fandoms being created as subpages; if we used portmanteau names, it wouldn't be an issue, but as it is, I have now screwed up the index of all of the pairing fandoms. I'm going to put it back for right now, as it's an easy change, but whatever decision is made has to be applied across all fandoms. --rache 16:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hey, you're right. About the vanished pairing names. Not to despair, thoguh! just put showpath=noparent. That should do the trick, i.e. display all subpages (e.g. John/Rodney) without their parent (stargate:atlantis). Rache, would you try it? --lian 20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ETA: Err, that would be showpath=notparent. Source here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SubPageList2 --lian 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick! I see McKay/Sheppard, but I do not see the 'Stargate Atlantis' part of the path. I'm going to leave it like this for now, unless there's some other impact that hasn't been traced yet. --rache 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You two win at fanloring! \o/--Doro 13:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

which pairings are common?

I think it is misleading to imply J/T was roughly as common as J/E. John/Teyla for example was eligible in the earlier SG rare pairing challenges (admittedly not in the most recent one). And while Wraithbait isn't very representative for het pairing numbers, the there are 374 Sheppard/Weir stories, 120 McKay/Weir and only 89 John/Teyla. --Ratcreature 14:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but according to a conversation I saw in 2008 re: the Isis awards, there was discussion about J/E being eventually allowed back into the fold, since its numbers were dropping after S3 ended. Possibly the Wraithbait numbers reflect previous tendencies? Or the J/T folks tend to use their own archives more? I don't know. Perhaps a count of recent newsletters would show how the trends are going. the old briar pipe 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I go to the delicious account of the SGA newsletter and look at the J/E category: http://delicious.com/sga_newsletter/%28Sheppard%2FWeir%29 there are roughly 600 bookmarks tagged Sheppard/Weir in 2008 (1182 in total), whereas there are a bit over 400 tagged Sheppard/Teyla in 2008 (518 in total), so there does seem to be less J/E posting recently than earlier, but the delicious account of the newsletter only starts summer 2007 and I'm too lazy to sort through the LJ memories of of the newsletter by date. Though in total there are 374 "Fanfic Het Sheppard/Teyla" memories vs 1709 "Fanfic Het Sheppard/Weir" memories (Fanfic Het Ronon/Weir: 222, Fanfic Het McKay/Teyla: 171, Fanfic Het McKay/Weir: 122), so I think it is fair to say the J/E is a good deal larger than J/T,which may be the next largest among the other het pairing (or not depending on which forum you count on) but by order of magnitude is much closer to say McKay/Weir or Ronon/Elizabeth than to J/E. Does that make sense?--Ratcreature 10:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I totally missed your earlier comment. I think you are right and my bias was showing. I read mostly slash in SGA fandom and the only het I see on my friendslist is John/Teyla. I changed the line in the article. Is it better now? --Doro 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is really hard to say for sure at a glance which het pairing is the "next largest" because like my example numbers show it really depends on the forum where you take the numbers, what you count, and on the time frame too. I mean, it is like with the slash pairings, which is the next largest after McKay/Sheppard? The margins between the pairings are not large enough to make a "ranking" consistent across forums and archives and such, so there is not a consistent impression to be had. I tried a different phrasing that doesn't attempt a ranking, and mentioned the S3 cast change having impact on J/E.--Ratcreature 07:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Structure

The page is so much better than it was! I like miera_c's revamped canon section--although I did shorten it a little--it now leads a reader to various character pages, most of which actually exist. I tried to organize the info with nested headers, but at least in the default skin, the lower level headers disappear into the text so that's hard to do.

The longest section now is the Pairing section and I was thinking it could be its own page easily. However, the List of Stargate Atlantis Pairing Names also has some information about naming practices and then is a not very useful list of pairing names, most of which have their own pages, or will have. I think they should be combined and the page should just be called Pairings in SGA or something and the information here on this page should be added in to that page.

Thoughts?--facetofcathy 17:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How about List of Stargate Atlantis Pairings? That could include pairing names, general information about the pairings, etc. and if a section grows big enough it gets its own pairing page. Pairings that already have their own page get a line or two and a "Main article see: Character A/Character B". --Doro 18:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

+1 on List of Stargate Atlantis Pairings --Sk 23:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion: as I was reading this page through the first time, I became confused by "Fanon tropes vary sometimes by pairing. Some may be found more frequently than others: [and the tropes that follow]" with the section a little further down, "Story Tropes." Are they the same thing? Similar enough in subject to be combined, or at least placed next to each other? --Mrs. Potato Head 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the two things are totally unrelated. I took the word tropes out of the canon/fanon section and reworded a bit for clarity. The fanon list is common bits used as fact in multiple works that aren't canon, nothing to do with tropes used as themes of fanworks. --facetofcathy 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I like a lot of the recent updates, but the structure under popular pairings feels a little odd to me now -- it seems strange to go from talking about the most popular slash pairing, then to het, then back to (other) m/m slash, and then to femslash and OT4 and teamfic. Suggest instead: existing short McShep intro, then m/m slash, then het, then femslash, then OT4 and teamfic. Thoughts? --Sk 23:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's politically sensitive, in that Fanlore as a whole is often SLASH, Het, gen ...... femslash, just because of the knowledge of the contributors. And since John/Elizabeth is the second most popular ship, I think talking about that right after the John/Rodney intro is the right way to weight the info. I think the text could reflect that better and could stand to have more of a focus on why the fans like the ships, not how much canon support each has.--facetofcathy 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

yes to fanart on fandom pages!!

miera_c said: I think it would be fairer for everyone if individual art/stories/works were featured on their own pages rather than the main page for the show.Otherwise it's going to be an ongoing battle of whose fic/art/whatever gets listed on the page and whose doesn't. It's not all that hard to create a new entry for a favorite work if it means that much to someone.

It's standard procedure on Fanlore to include examples of fanworks on fandom pages. So far, we haven't had any edit wars over which pieces of fanart to include on a page. If a problem arises with a specific example, we can discuss it on the talk page and easily switch it out for another. Meanwhile, including specific examples and illustrating points with images improves the overall quality and readability of the fandom pages. Even if the point is: banners are extremely popular in this fandom.--æþel 02:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the page edits in part because parts of sentences had disappeared as part of the example removals. The examples can still be removed if other editors agree that they are not appropriate/significant/relevant/whatever.--æþel 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to ask about reverting, given my take below. --Sk 03:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's enough threshold to creating a new page (with the potentially intimidating feeling that several paragraphs of information and meta about the item should be included) rather than adding the name of and/or link to an example fanwork -- with maybe a few words about why the editor thinks that fanwork is an especially relevant example. So I'm for having various sample fanworks on (any) show's (or character's, or pairing's) main page -- until whichever fanworks section starts to feel like it takes up a strongly disproportionate part of the page's real estate.

At that point, to me it would make sense to split off into, say, a new fanlore page of "Stargate Atlantis Vids" or "Stargate Atlantis Archives" or "John Sheppard Fanart" and link to that page under the subheading where the lots of examples used to be, rather than just deleting items that another editor, with their POV on their fannish experience of the show and its fanworks, thought were interesting enough to add.

I guess that (oh so recently) my own nascent fanlore editing policy is starting to gell into a concept of "add -- including contrasting opinions on the value or fabulousness of certain fanworks or pairings or canon or whatever -- and split off pages when a page's subsection becomes disproportionately big with examples or information about one particular character or whatever, rather than deleting (without adding it on another, more specific-to-that-info page) information or examples that another editor thought relevant enough to add. --Sk 03:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

All the images I added already have their own pages (you can see the pages an image is used on when you click on the image). I added them to the Atlantis page to improve the quality of *this* article and I only added them to sections where they illustrate a point (community banner in a section that talks about the community, podfic cover in the podfic section to illustrate what a podfic looks like on someone's phone when they listen to it, screenshot of multimedia installation main page in a section where that fanwork is mentioned as an example, archive screenshots in the archive section, award banner in the award section, AU fanfic cover in the fanfic section where AUs are mentioned as very popular, fanfic cover with the four main characters in the team section, zine covers in the zine section). Without images the article is a wall of text and thus difficult to read. Also, it shows readers that you *can* add images to a page and it might inspire them to choose a more visual approach for the pages they edit. :) --Doro 08:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)