Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Lists reorganised

Just to let you all know, I've enacted the discussed list reorganisation. The new structure is:

List of Stargate lists

Please help fix redirects, but more importantly help fix/expand the articles to fit the new structure, and write the red links. --Alfakim-- talk 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good Job.Well done!Tobyk777 00:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

todo deletion

I utilized the /todo function of the {{Stargateproject}} template for Stargate SG-1: The Alliance some time back (even forgotten I had).I was recently surprised to find it up for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/To do.I'm not sure where I stand on its deletion in accordance with policy; but if it is deleted, that sets a precedence that effectively prohibits using the sub-page function of the "to do".—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just expalined the feature on the AfD subpage.Tobyk777 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but it was created in the wrong location.The todo should be off the talk page Talk:Stargate SG-1: The Alliance/to do.I moved it... Morphh 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes - It looks like our template, however, looks off the main page for the todo.I've opposed the removal. Morphh 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean morphh?--Alfakim-- talk 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)\

Guess it's all done now but when I was looking at the Stargate Talk Template it was pointing to pd THOR's old todo and not the new one I created off the talk page.So that made me think the template was defaulted to look of the article instead of the talk.If I added the "todo" tag, it would pull up the todo I created.Morphh 12:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldnt do that I checked. You just needed to purge the page.--Alfakim-- talk 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User template

Hello all...

Okay, a lot of you have probably seen me around messing with user templates recently. Well, I have finally gotten around to the Stargate ones. I would like to make use of User Stargate for a merged template. Anyone have any objections? - LA @ 05:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections over this. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 12:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"merged template"?--Andromeda 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, Andromeda, a template that, depending on what variables you choose, will say different things. I even have it written to be semi-custom colors, depending on your favorite Stargate race. You will be able to choose the image from several Stargate related images as well. Believe me, it is better than having the scattered user templates we now have. I am on a mission to keep user templates where they are, so if I get the same support from the Stargate WikiProject for this template as I did from the Doctor Who WikiProject when I made a merged template for the Doctor Who fans, you will not regret it.

- LA @ 05:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you LA, templates should be ParserFunctioned. Have a look at{{User split infinitive:Yes}} and {{User split infinitive:No}} - how silly. MERGE! --Alfakim-- talk 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is done, take a look! - LA @ 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool :-) Morphh 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't mention the Tok'ra on the page...I'll have to add that... Lockesdonkey 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I deserve a quick thwop on the head for that.

- LA @ 03:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I just did the math, there are 180 possible combinations for this template.

- LA @ 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Most people forget it half the time, but I liked them while they were around. LD 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC

In this case it is not excusable, since I had the list up in another tab while typing that one out. Oh well. - LA @ 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing list

Now that I'm looking at, I think there's one list missing: that of non-Tau'ri human characters. A page to put characters like Lucius, for example. Perhaps "Non-Tau'ri human characters in Stargate", separated by Milky Way and Pegasus natives and broken in two if necessary? --Andromeda 20:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

How about Human characters in Stargate - the word "human" is used on templates to refer to non-tau'ri already, and its much simpler. It can explain the usage at the top if needs be. Agreed that this list is needed. --Alfakim-- talk 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It may work, but I think it might be misleading, since most people will expect to find the Tau'ri characters here. After all, when we think "human" we think "Earth". --Andromeda 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the list, this line can be added...

These characters are humans from planets other than Earth, for humans from Earth see Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1 or Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis.

That should do the trick. - LA @ 05:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just what I was thinking :P --Alfakim-- talk 14:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We can try. If we see it causes problems, we can always move. --Andromeda 20:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Is anyone doing much about the improvement drive anymore? It seems to have stayed stagnant for so long that I almost ignore it. Can we get Stargate (device) up to FA standard, or is it worth moving onto something else in the meantime? I'm working on Stargate, our top article, hoping to get at least GA if not FA.--Alfakim-- talk 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be better to get Stargate, Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis to be FA. Stargate (device) is, I think, a bit too obscure for non-fans and, looking at the FA articles, no article that obscure has been even featured in the Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media category. All of them are either articles about series, movies or persons or more generic articles. Yes, Middle-earth was featured in the Literature section but we have not LOTR's popularity or longevity. And yes, I know the rules say you can not discriminate by subject but, let's face it, we are humans, we cannot be completely objective and a big part of Wikipedia don't like fictional universe articles. My suggestion will be to try for one (or all) of the three main articles and leave the device article for later. --Andromeda 03:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(I got hit with an edit conflict so let me just say that I agree with what Andromeda says and I have not changed what I already said here, so if it seems weird just ignore it ;) ) - The problem with trying to get Stargate (device) to FA status is that I doubt it will ever make it. Not because of any deficiency on the article's part, but the community at large. If you look at the past FA nom you see that they want things that are either not possible or not needed. They want more out of universe perspective, but aside from info about how the prop was made there isn't much to add there, and with what little information is available there really isn't anything to add. Perhaps we should move on from that article, I will help as much as I can. Is there any article that you want me to work on? Konman72 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a peer review would do it good.I still think it can become a FA. American Patriot 1776 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Reasons why Stargate (device) and DNA Resequencer keep faling are exactly as you have said.People ask for impossible things.Since we can't "fix" the objection they fail.It's really quite tiresome.I think that of our 3 main articles, Stargate is the best; probbaly at GA quailty, almost FA.It just needs a little more work.SG-1 is a GA, but i don't think it has enough references to hold its postion there with alot of work we may get it to FA status.Atlantis still looks B-class and is not even remotely close to there.I still think that Stargate device and DNA Rsequencer are our best articles, and are FA class already.The people at FAC just won't accept them because of their subject, and because of their impossible demands.Tobyk777 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We've made a lot of improvements to both our FA attempts since they last had a PR/FAC, so I guess that means people were right that there was still a lot of room for improvement. Let's put them both through PR again and see what happens - if we get lots of people being unhelpful, then we can give up on getting them through FAC for now (maybe once we have a less obscure article featured, we'll have more respect among the FAC community), if the PR goes well, we can move on to FAC. --Tango 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Stargate (device) has so much that could be added. Just look at the multitude of interviews on GateWorld, all the official stargate magazines, the books (eg Stepping Through the Stargate), the DVD commentaries ... there's a huge amount of material we could reference. Ideally we rephrase the article so that each point, rather than stating that "7 chevrons are used", says "emmerichs notes state that..." or similar, so that it all becomes out-of-universe with the same info. Obviously this cant be done to every paragraph, but its hardly done AT ALL at the moment and thats the problem.

I think we should change the improvement drive over to:

FA: Stargate ...then Stargate SG-1
GA first: Stargate Atlantis

--Alfakim-- talk 15:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you disagreeing with? I never said the articles were perfect, I just said we shouldn't give up on them as never to be accepted by FAC. There still being things to do is not a reason to move onto working on some other article. If you can see things to add to the device page, then why don't you add them? Or if you don't have time to add them yourself, add them to the page's todo list (with specific details of where to find the references). --Tango 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For my two cents, as good as the device article is (or can be) it will never be accepted as a FA.Certain people will consider it fancruft no matter what.(Are they snobs?I would think so, but that's a matter of personal interpretation.)Efforts directed at Stargate, Stargate SG-1, and Stargate Atlantis have a better shot.After all, when the device article gets nominated, someone's going to say, "It doesn't exist.Fancruft," and that will be that.--Bark 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that explains who makes the final decision, but I would hope whoever it is would discount such comments, as it is clearly stated that you shouldn't oppose based on the subject matter. Either an article should be deleted, or it is eligable to become featured if it is good enough. People have tried to delete most of our articles as fancruft at one time or another and have almost always failed (except for a few times when we agreed with them), so our articles can be featured if they're good enough. That's the key difference between concensus decision making and democracy - you have to have a good reason to get your opinion taken into account. --Tango 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[Joking, Cynic Mode]Hope such comments won't be counted?Well as my uncle used to say, "Hope in one hand . . . see which one fills up first."[/Joking, Cynic Mode]--Bark 17:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was disagreeing with other peoples points saying that Stargate device was ready for FA. It's totally not, and THATS why it isnt getting there.--Alfakim-- talk 22:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why so many people say that neither Stargate (device) nor DNA Resequencer would be accepted a featured article. I mean a short while ago a Pokemon became a featured article - a POKEMON!!!! So IMO both above mentioned articles should have a good chance to become FA. Diabound00 11:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Pokemon is so much famous that we are. 2) The article was about a character, not a piece of technology. A character article might have more chances to become FA that either Stargate (device) or DNA Resequencer. They're too obscure. --Andromeda 12:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PR for our FA attempts

Ok, we've had plenty of discussions about whether or not our articles are ready for PR/FAC, and we're going round in circles. I'm going to ask a slightly different question: Will submitting our 2 attempts to PR do any harm?Please don't give reasons for why it won't do any good, just tell me if it will do any harm.If no-one can give me a good reason why it will do harm, then I'll submit them and we'll find out afterwards if it does any good. --Tango 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there would be anything wrong with two peer reviews at the same time.I do think there will be harm to push two articles for FA at the same time though, but not PR.--Bark 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if they're the same time - I can submit them a week apart if people think that would be better. (Although, I agree - I think it's only FA where it would be an issue.) The main question is if submitting them at all in their current state would cause problems. --Tango 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not that it would cause harm - I'd like a Peer review when I can no longer see the problems with the articles. currently the problems are obvious as hell. we work on those, and THEN peer review. makes sense no? --Alfakim-- talk 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I specifically asked people not to make those kinds of comments. We've discussed their readiness many times - this isn't the place to do it again. --Tango 22:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alfakim, as far as I can tell, you haven't edited Stargate (device) for over a month. If there were all kinds of obvious problems with them, I would expect you to either fix them, or if you don't have time, tell other people what needs doing. You haven't, so I just going to go ahead and put them both up for PR. I'll put links to the PRs in the appropriate places. --Tango 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New film?

Has anyone writen an article on the new stargate film? [1]--Rayc 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't confirmed yet. Devlin said he wants to make them, nothing more. Konman72 04:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Stargate film novels -> Stargate novels

I was updating the main articles and I came about the literature section. The information about novels is scattered along the articles and the Stargate film novels page is highly underused. Why we don't rename it "Stargate novels" or "List of Stargate novels" and we use it to list all the novels, and then just link the article from the main pages after a brief introduction? Or perhaps "Stargate fiction", since we have short stories to list too? What do you think? --Andromeda 06:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Stargate Novels, but what short stories are you referring to? If they are official then definitely go with Stargate Literature or something similar to that to include all items. Konman72 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The short stories published in the Official Stargate Magazine. They're already in the Literature section of each page. I just wanted to centralize all the information. --Andromeda 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha, I understand and agree. Stargate Literature seems proper to me, but I'm not set on it, so whatever you think. Konman72 09:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Stargate literature has been created. Comments are appreciated.--Andromeda 10:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me. Great job! Konman72 10:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Gateworld episode summaries added

Today I discovered that User:Galactic war added plot summaries to several episodes of Atlantis and SG-1 which are direct copies of Gateworld. Examples are Allies (Stargate Atlantis) and 1969 (Stargate SG-1). I don't know what I should think about this since I have seen Gateworld stuff around of Wikipedia earlier. So if this copying is allowed by Gateworld, OK, otherwise it is Copyright violation. Diabound00 08:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From http://www.gateworld.net/copyright_info.shtml:

Episode and movie summaries, analyses, The Stargate Omnipedia, character profiles, articles, reviews, interviews, and anything else you find on the site that is not credited to someone else is the property of GateWorld and its owner, Darren Sumner, and is copyrighted material. All rights reserved. It may not be reprinted in any form or medium, or translated and reprinted in any form or medium, without written consent. All other original content on this site is ©1999-2005 GateWorld.net and Darren Sumner or the author, unless otherwise indicated, and may not be reprinted without written permission.

While GateWorld's editors may consider special requests for reprinting specific articles on a very limited basis, GateWorld generally does not grant other fan sites permission to reprint our content.

So I'd say it's copyvio. --Andromeda 09:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, that is not good at all. We need to round up a list of all the articles this has been done to so that new summaries can be written. Holy crap, I'm looking at his contributions and it looks like he has done this to almost every episode. This is going to take a while. Ok, I'm just going donw the list and reverting them (Wikipedia is pretty serious about copyright violation stuff so I don't want to wait too long on this). I'm up to Cure now, I'll keep working on it. Konman72 09:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fairly certain that I got all of them. I just went down the list of contributions and did a dif check on all episode edits. Hopefully I didn't miss any. Konman72 10:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but you reverted by trivia in Duet too, and that wasn't copyvio! --Andromeda 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn...sorry lol. There were so many that needed to be reverted I think I blanked out for a while there and was just coasting on auto pilot. Konman72 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New PRs

I've created 2 new peer review requests:

--Tango 13:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Planets list for FL

The list of Stargate planets page is looking very good.I think it could potentialy be a FL.However, the "lesser planets" section might need to be incorperated into the table that the rest of the planets are in.Other than that, I think the list is perfect.Tobyk777 22:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly concur. American Patriot 1776 21:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Radical, but logical proposal

Hi Everyone.Currently our project has many navigational templates specific to certain areas of stargate, like aliens or tech.However, if you want to get from a tech article to lets say, a character article, the navigation is difficult.I propose that we make a quick easy way to acess any stargate article from any other.(With the exception of individual eps).I think that All of the following templates should be merged into Stargate topics, to form a super-nav-template for Stargate: {{StargateTopics}}, {{Stargate Planets}}, {{Stargate Races}}, {{Stargate SG-1 regulars}}, {{Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1}}, {{Stargate Atlantis Recurring}}.Plenty of other projects have done similar things.Here are some random examples: {{World War II}}, {{Firefly}}, {{Ancient Egypt topics}}.I think it would be great to have oone big nav template to get from any SG article to any other (excluding episodes).Who agrees?Tobyk777 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It will be too big. How about adding links on each template to lists of the things on the other templates? I think most of those lists already exist as articles, and any that don't can easilly be created. (ie. Stargate Planets will link to List of SG-1 regulars, etc) And episodes can be included by linking to the list of SG-1 eps and the list of Atlantis eps, and each ep can link to the list, and the two lists can have navigation templates. --Tango 10:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Stargate SG-1 regulars}} and {{Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1}} could be merged but anything else would make it to big Nicoli nicolivich 12:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. There is no need to link every article together. The current system works best, which is that every article should include {{StargateTopics}}. --Alfakim-- talk 16:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea - but not as one huge looking template.I would utilize the "show/hide" feature like in our {{Stargate Project}} template.If it could be designed where the primary template was viewable and then there was a "show" link to expand our other templates, I think that would be cool and not take up much space.Morphh 18:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the reason i went around making double templates spawn from the main one, e.g. {{StargateTopics|StargateTech}} - with a bit of clever alteration to the root template, the show/hide conditional sub-templates can be added. But im still not sure its needed. Every article needs the links to the main pages - THAT enables *sensible* navigation between all articles. And thats covered by StargateTopics.--Alfakim-- talk 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The show/hide feature only works in the monobook skin. I think the article namespace should avoid using features that only work for certain readers. --Tango 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

undoable has been done.SG-1 is leaving TV.However, another network may pick it up.D**N YOU SCIFI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!How can you accuratly judge a show's ratings in 5 episodes?!? American Patriot 1776 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I think they're doing it for fear of jumping the shark, and with a show so long-running, it's not unreasonable. Personally, I think it might be able to handle one more season, but then, it might just be better to end it with a miniseries (in the style of Farscape). Lockesdonkey 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting them to at least wait and see what the ratings were for the 200th ep. If that ep didn't get ratings similar to last season, then they're probably right to axe it, but if it did, then there's a chance of ratings improving. It looks like it isn't an official announcement yet, anyway, it's just people leaking it, so I guess there is hope, but not a lot. Prehaps it will end up on another network, although having SG-1 and Atlantis on different networks might cause problems with cross-overs (See Buffy and Angel for a similar situation). I guess we can hope MGM decide to take Atlantis away from SciFi as well, and take them both to a different network. --Tango 22:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a network with High Definition... :-)I can't believe SCIFI hasn't gone HD yet.Morphh 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very pissed that they are canceling SG-1.At the same time I am thinking about how little logical sense this makes.How could Atlantis possibly continue without an earth based show?They wouldn't be able to go from Atlantis back to earth without hiring all guest actors for the SGC.Unless they want to make Atlantis 100% peasasus, Atlantis depends on SG-1.If they did go all peagasus it would suck and would bring down Atlantis ratings.At the same time the reasons for SG-1s fall are the producers falut.Moving BSG out of the lineup made it so BSG fans don't watch Stargate before.Also, almost no Stargate advertizing has been done.It's all been done for Eureka; and I'll tell you that Eureka isn't gona last for 10 seasons.Why can't Stargate get just a little bit of the advertising.I also know people who are pissed about the mid season break and have stopped watching because they don't want to be left hanging for 6 months.Once again thats the producers falt.The producers were pretty stpuid on this one; they basicaly dropped the ratings on themselves.Tobyk777 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the could always use some of the characters from SG-1 and move them over. In any case, having occasional use of a few minor characters would probably cost less. I'm inclined to agree with Lockes that there is probably some concern about jumping the shark. I mean, how many more times can they bring Ba'al back? I just hope they go out on top with the end of the season. JoshuaZ 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that they should stop using baal and that hes getting rediculous.The whole clone thing is dumb and was just created so that the writers could kill him as many times as they want to.They should just kill him once and for all.I have to agree there.But, the Ori/Merlin plotline is just getting started.They haven't even found the device yet.Unless they defeat the Ori by the end of season 10, they will never defeat the Ori.I don't see how they can.The sieries finale will have to be brilliant.Tobyk777 03:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cancelling SG-1 shouldn't make it too much more difficult to hire SG-1 actors for the odd scene, what I want to know is what they'll do with the SGC set. They can't justify keeping it just for the odd Atlantis scene, yet without it they can't show anyone coming home by stargate. --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is another reason why I think the show is going down.It can't simply pick up any new viewers.There is now 10 years of backround info requied to fully understand the context of each show.Many people I know have tried watching it, gotten very confused and stopped.Because concepts, ideas, races, charcaters and other stuff (which they don't know about) is refreneced and they get lost.The only way to pick it up is to watch every season on DVD all the way through.(which I have convinced some of my friends to do).Bascialy, because of this, Stargate can only lose viewers, not gain new ones.Tobyk777 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. It is very hard to get into a series if you don't start at the beginning - that'strue even of shows that have only done a couple of seasons. Coming in on series 10 would be next to impossible. They could avoid so many mentions of past events, but that would just annoy the old fans. Getting rid of the Gou'ld and bringing in a new enemy was a good idea to get around this problem - you don't need to know too much about the Gou'ld to understand the current storylines. --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Richard Dean Anderson to blame? :) Although, as that link says, this isn't the first time that SG-1 has been on the chopping block, so you never really know. It might have been better to have just made the move to Atlantis as the main show, add actors who wanted to stay to that show, and have them all as one big happy family. Not sure how likely that is now, since Atlantis has much of it's own thing going on. Daniel could definitely cross over, if Michael Shanks and Atlantis writers wished for it. – Ned Scott 06:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was RDA leaving that caused people to leave, they would have left by half way through season 9 - season 9 had pretty decent ratings (not amazing, but good enough for them to make a season 10). --Tango 09:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RDA's leaving brought down ratings a little bit, but as I said, the show can only lose viewers, and because of the reasons above the producers are making that happen much moer rapidly.Tobyk777 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No official announcement and very close to the craziness of ep 200 makes me wonder how trustworthy this information is. It's probably just something to play on our fears, since we all know that this isn't the greatest SG-1 has been (but still a hell of a lot better than most of Sci-Fi's shows). – Ned Scott 01:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your commment.Could you rephrase?Tobyk777 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a rumor, a hoax. Although a believable one. – Ned Scott 02:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I was wrong, it's real. However, this is just SciFi being.. stupid. They still want to continue the show-> SG-1 will go on. – Ned Scott 03:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article you linked to states that the siries as we know it is gona end but may contiue in another form.Tobyk777 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The show could end with the feature film that has been rumored. i think this would be the best thing, tie up all louse end and go out with a bang, or even lead into a new series.Nicoli nicolivich 13:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

200

This is turning into a nice detailed article, but the OR police want citations.Know any sources?If so, please help out.--Bark 22:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Gateworld news has alot of articles on 200.Check that.Tobyk777 01:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble accessing that site tonight.--Bark 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gateworld Update

Gateworld recently updated their site, meaning that the various Stargate articles here no longer link to the correct page on the Gateworld site. --Quadraxis 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The pages I've linked to from Gateworld still worked, it appears only the skin was changed - the file hierarchy seems to be the same No Way Back 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

new template

I just made this template: Template:Stargate racebox (see its talk page), designed to go on at the top of a page that is part of a subdivision by race. It is extremely dynamic. However, before spamming it everywhere I thought id just put it through you guys. Tell me what you think. {{StargateTopics}} is a more general template that hides at the bottom.--Alfakim-- talk 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I'm not sure about the formatting/layout, though. How about something similar to Template:Common law? --Tango 21:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly how do you want to use it. --Andromeda 21:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It just generates a linkbox between subarticles split by race, conforming to the style of having a thumbed image in the top right of most articles. Aids navigation more easily than StargateLists. Would go at the top of any article with a name like "RACENAME article type" eg "Tau'ri / technology in stargate". Im not that amped about it, if you guys think it has little use thats fine dont worry. --Alfakim-- talk 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth it. It makes them seem more like a series of articles, which is always better to read than lots of disjoint articles. --Tango 20:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

zat

This article should so be named Zat'nik'tel, not just Zat.--Alfakim-- talk 19:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure?While it's the proper full name of it, WP:NAME says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."It's rarely called a Zat'nik'tel in favour of just "zat".—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Zat could redirect to Zat'nik'tel, there'd be no problems - i just think the article should refer to the real name of the device. You rarely hear anyone say "Puddle Jumper" over just "Jumper" - but its called a puddle jumper and thats it.--Alfakim-- talk 20:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Konman72 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also agree.Rename.Tobyk777 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Why dont we write a central Stargate Manual of Style so that our articles have a clear standard? All these things we have discussed such as how to quote episodes, what names to choose, etc, could be written in there. It can be referenced and displayed to new participants and such, and probably solve disputes. Standards-discussion would also be archived and come to concrete decisions. --Alfakim-- talk 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.We already have that for templates though.Tobyk777 01:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What should the main sections be? off the top of my head:

Citation
Writing about fiction
Correct spellings of terms
Standards for articles / episodes
Spoilers
Distinction between minor/major information

--Alfakim-- talk 11:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a better idea be to make a Stargate-specific example page that links off to the guidelines that already exist about those topics, rather than forking them? – Ned Scott 11:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ori characters in Stargate

According to this page, an article called Ori characters in Stargate should be written. What is supposed to be in here? There isn't even a single Ori called by name. All that we have are a bunch of priors of which is only very little known, and Adria, and they're just followers of the Ori, not of the Ori race. I doubt there is enough to justify creating this article.

I agree.I should probably be Followers of Origin in Stargate Tobyk777 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at Wraith characters in Stargate. Apart from Michael, no Wraith has a name (apart from two that were named - so 3 characters). Ori priors do, actually, recur across episodes. So "Prior 1" appears in about 3. The article would list each other recurring priors, Adria, the Doci, Gerak as a Prior, {{spoiler-inline|Daniel Jackson as a prior}}, etc. Tobyk is right that there are no genuinely Ori characters, but its the easiest way to classify the "race" that is defined by the people that do their work. --Alfakim-- talk 01:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense.I still think that calling them Ori wouldn't be right, since they're their followers.How about an article titled Followers of Origin or something.And have Ori Charcters in Stargate redirect to it.It would go in the same format as the wratih page.That would clear any confusion and maintain an acurate title.Tobyk777 03:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with them. Ori characters in Stargate just isn't the correct title for the article implied. Off course the Priors deserve their own article, but shouldn't that be called "Priors in Stargate" or something? it you're going with the Wraith characters in Stargate-reasoning, that would only be logical... But where should we put information about Tomin, Vala's husband then? (And one slight remark about Michael. Michael wasn't his "real" name any more then Steve the Wraith's name, Michael, or "Mike", was also just given to him by Sheppard) Maartentje 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anunnaki - hoax or coincidence/inspiration?

The article Anunnaki seems mostly to be about a rather science-fiction-like Sumerian mythology. However, one paragraph looks like it might be something out of Stargate.

Annunakis are depicted with wings which implies, that they came flying from other planets such as Planet X or Nibiru 3678 years ago in Iraq through the Ashtar Stargate which Americans now must protect until year 2012 waiting for extra-terrestrials to arrive again through the Ashtar (Star) gate in Iraq.

Note that this paragraph originally contained typographical errors that made it not fit with the rest or the article - see diff. Also, it doesn't seem to fit factually with the rest of the article - elsewhere, it says the Sumerians believed that their planet Nibiru entered our solar system every 3600 years (so that Stargate would not be needed), and that this planet was supposed to return in 2003, not 2012.

Cross-referencing Ashtar and "Stargate SG-1" reveals about 255 results on Google. However, cross-referencing Ashtar and Stargate on Google yields about 757 results, and a sample of these from the first 10 do not seem to be related to the show Stargate.

So the question is, is this paragraph a hoax, or is it an unreferenced bit of material with some basis in fringe archaelogical theory / Sumerian mythology?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This site might be the origin of the statement. This article says that Nibiru (the mythological planent) might be translated as "star, gate, crossing point". However, I have no idea how to evaluate this site based on WP:RS. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass Deletion

Hi. Just to notify you that a user has made a mass nom of all Atlantis main chars over @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiden Ford. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much.—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem there that AFD is going very well.Tobyk777 06:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Failures

I just want to point out that our 2 request for PR haven't gotten any comments whatsoever after 2 weeks of just sitting there.Why do you think this is?I think it might be because of one of the following:

The public just doesn't care about those articles/No one who cares has seen the PRs
No one can find anything wrong with the articles/They're perfect

What do you guys think, because I have never seen a PR with zero comments after 2 weeks before.Tobyk777 06:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be because of a slight mistake I made when I created the pages - I made the headers one size too small, so on the table of contents they showed up as as subheadings of the previous PR. I corrected it after a few days, though, so I would have thought someone would see them. It's very odd... Prehaps someone should say something on Wikipedia talk:Peer review. --Tango 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles that shouldn't exist

The following articles are far too small to have their own page.They're just asking for AFDs.They should be merged into other pages:

Triad (Stargate), Runner (Stargate), Project Arcturus, Ernest Littlefield

There may be more.I sugest we do alot of merging since we have been getting more AFDs lately.Tobyk777 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Triad (Stargate) should redirect (and be merged into if there is anything worth merging) "Pretense", Runner (Stargate) should redirect (and probably doesn't need to be merged into) Ronon Dex. Project Arcturus can redirect to the appropriate episode and Ernest Littlefield can redirect to Minor character in Stargate SG-1 or whatever we decided to call the page. --Tango 15:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a merge tag to Triad (Stargate) to merge into Tollan (Stargate).I think Runner (Stargate) should be merged into Wraith (Stargate).I think Project Arcturus should be merged with Ancient technology in Stargate.I'm not sure about Ernest Littlefield - I'm thinking leave him alone or like Tango suggested, we create a new article for minor characters.Morphh 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have the article you want to create: Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1.Ernest could go there.Tobyk777 19:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, too many articles to keep track off. :-) I even watch that one.haha Morphh 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No that article is only for the more major characters. Ernest Littlefield obviously redirects to "The Torment of Tantalus".--Alfakim-- talk 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. This article is for any revelant character, major or minor. Some characters have minor apparitions, but the consequences of those are important. --Andromeda 13:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How about merging Project Arcturus into Zero Point Module instead? The basic concept is similar, Acturus was really just a ZPM turned inside-out. Bryan 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Arcturus has nothing to do with ZPM's, it's just based upon the same principle. BTW, it's a nice looking and relatively long article, just compare it with Goa'uld Healing Device or something. I don't hear anyone claiming that should just be merged with Sarcophagus (Stargate)... Maartentje 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but by our very nature we are in the crosshairs of deletionists; perhaps you should look into the mass deletion attempt on all Atlantis characters. While the nom was clearly on the extreme wing of deletionism, we have to be careful to remove/merge anything that looks too much like fancruft so that the entire project's work isn't destroyed. I'm afraid that anything of that subject, as detailed as it is, will be subject to AFDs.LD 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Planets in Stargate

I think this page has reached the point where it could be a feature list.Who agrees?Tobyk777 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it still needs some tidying up. And prioritization. Maybe. --Alfakim-- talk 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Petition Talk

On Talk:Stargate SG-1, there is a discussion on the inclusion of links to petitions.To keep the thread in one place please comment there.I just wanted to alert the project to the discussion.Tobyk777 06:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at this

Have you guys seen this?This is great.Who's idea is it?Tobyk777 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cernen.[2] Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I noticed the Stargate SG-1 Trivia and the articles to be created Stargate Atlantis Trivia.Don't these articles go against the idea of WP:AVTRIV.This is just for including triva in an ariticle - we've created a whole article with nothing but triva.Thoughts Morphh 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, I didn't even know that that article existed. Perhaps a redirect to Stargate SG-1 is in order, since there is a trivia section there anyway. Konman72 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I sugest a redirect and merge before someone nominates it for deletion.Tobyk777 01:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no point redirecting it - who will ever want to go to a page dedicated to trivia? I suggest we put it up for deletion ourselves. If there's anything worth merging, then feel free, but I don't think there is. --Tango 11:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia it mentions isn't even that interesting, it's really just canon differences between the film and the series. No Way Back 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything we'd like to keep, we can combined it with the SG-1 trivia section, however, WP:AVTRIV is something we should follow for the Stargate SG-1 article as well.It is part of our WP:1.0 drive; so we need to start looking at Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia on this and other main articles.Morphh 13:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

trivia articles

Stargate Trivia - deletion per WP:AVTRIV?Alfakim 21:10, 7 September 2006

I'd say yes.Since you created the article and no one else has contributed, you could place it up for Speedy Delete.Even if we did keep the contained articles, this page would be better off as a Category then a Disambig. Morphh 14:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd put both the disambig and the SG-1 trivia pages up for deletion (they can go on the same AfD). --Tango 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIV says, "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with. However, it is possible to move a trivia section to the talk page to allow other editors to participate with discussing and integrating the information worthy of inclusion in the article." (emphasis added) I think that means you should integrate the trivia into articles, and only then delete the page. (Actually, for GFDL reasons, a redirect may be better, if you keep the material.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I think this was what we discussed in the section above "Trivia" - Follow the process for Recommendations_for_handling_Trivia .Though I'm not sure a redirect would be appropriate for this type of article, it could be a consideration.