Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Things you can do (edit)

Articles to be written:

  • None

Articles to be expanded/improved:

FA drive

WP:1.0 drive


Ongoing tasks (edit)
  1. Work on Category:Stargate stubs and Articles with tasks
  2. Remember: don't treat Stargate as real; write from an out-of-universe perspective.
  3. Add verifiable external references to as many Stargate articles as possible.
  4. Add fair use rationales to all images, particularly screenshots.
  5. Make sure all episode citations are like this: "Lost City" (SG-1). (The show disambiguation is optional when it's obvious).
  6. Strip away fancruft pages, merge stubs into more informative articles.
  7. Add {{stargateproject}} to the Talk pages of all Stargate articles.


Nominations (edit)
Shortcut:
WP:WPSG (project)
WT:WPSG (here)

Contents

[edit] Discussion subpages

[edit] Archive

[edit] Naming of episode articles

Greetings, Stargate editors!

As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about how Wikipedia articles on television episodes should be named. Editors from many areas of Wikipedia, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a general guideline that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for Knight Rider, the episode Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, whereas Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song). However, the guideline also recommends that Circus Knights (Knight Rider) exist as a redirect to the episode.

The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists. However, the editors contributing to the discussion at WP:TV-NC felt that it was appropriate to make one last call at affected WikiProjects for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.

We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Wikipedia, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaksha (talk • contribs) .

I agree as long as the disambiguations are always created. Otherwise, our precious {{sgcite}} template will no longer work. --Alfakim-- talk 12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't {{sgcite}} be edited to fit the new system? LD 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We could make the template check to see if a disambig page exists, if not it could then link to the non disambig title. Another option would be to make an extra parameter to over-ride the default link. Not that it matters much, since redirects work fine. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Chances are, the redirects will exist for most pages anyway, so checking they if the disambiged page exists would just be checking if the redirect exists, so is pointless. An extra parameter would require the person using the template to check where the episode is, which defeats the point of trying to make things easy by using templates. After discussion on the other page, I've been convinced that there is no problem with having the template link to the disambiged page which will redirect to the other page if necessary. --Tango 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

Just giving everyone here the heads up that i'm going to start moving pages now. The title with the disambiguation will exist as a redirect to the non-disamgibuated article, and i'll clean up any double redirects the moving may cause. --`/aksha 05:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all done... --`/aksha 07:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, a lot of work - good of you to take it on. There are a few pages, though, that will have to go back to the original location. I've moved one already - Maternal Instinct (capital "I") is too close to Maternal instinct (lower-case "i"), especially since there already is a disambiguation page at the latter page, so the SG-1 article has been returned to Maternal Instinct (Stargate SG-1). I'll try to list the others over the course of the weekend, before moving them, but "maternal instinct" is a term with wide-spread use outside of the Stargate universe - hence the rapid fix. --Ckatzchatspy 09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
A trio of additional urgent moves:
That's it for now - I did a perfunctory scan of the moves and nothing obvious jumped out at me. I'll leave a note if I find any debatable ones over the weekend. Thanks again for all the work! --Ckatzchatspy 10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...the non-disambiguated forms should have been redirected to the disambiguation article then. It seems like the articles have already been moved back. I'm turning the non-dabbed forms into redirects for the disambiguation pages instead of the stargate articles. I mean...if "Message In a Bottle" is going to redirect to "Message In a Bottle (Stargate SG-1)", then you may as well put the article there. But "Message In a Bottle" now redirects to "Message in a bottle (disambiguation)" --`/aksha 11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oops... I forgot to change the "MIaB" redirect - sorry! Thanks for catching that one. --Ckatzchatspy 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, Yaksha has jumped the gun on this, as the decision has not yet been made about these suffixes, and the guideline is under dispute. If anyone has an opinion on the appropriateness of these moves, for or against, we would appreciate if you would weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Thanks. --Elonka 07:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not working, Elonka. I understand you feel there is more to discuss, but consensus has been reached. Your words here are misleading. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Elonka dearest...you do realize the people here, at Project Stargate, gave their consent/agreement/okay-ness with this? The guildline is not under dispute. The only thing we don't agree on is how to deal with wikiprojects that want to do otherwise, which isn't the case here. --`/aksha 08:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then I encourage anyone interested to come to the RfC, to offer their opinions about whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand, we did that already... of course people are still welcome to come... but... are you even reading these messages? --- Ned Scott 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what Elonka claims is not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia. There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ned, Milo, and Yaksha's opinions aside, what are the opinions here? Is Ned correct that everyone here is "okay" with having their articles moved around? Is there any dissent, or does no one really care? --Elonka 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (spoiler free)

is nominated at AfD by Shakla. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] compulsive archiving

It's not that the recent archiving is controversial or anything like that, but I've just been noticing that people seem to be archiving lately simply for the sake of archiving instead of for talk page size. If the talk page isn't massively active, and there's no issue about the size of the page, then why archive discussion less than two weeks old? Sometimes I get the feeling people just like to fight for something, even if they never had a strong feeling about it one way or another.

At the very least now the above note about episode titles was kept, which was originally archived on the same day that a comment was left on it.

Not everyone checks talk pages very often, and some conversations show people not directly involved with us what's been recently going on. Again, not a major issue, but there's no point in archiving that which doesn't need to be archived. I know two weeks seems like a long time to some people, but it's not. If the talk page isn't "full" then calm down. I've seen a lot of discussions where someone responded to conversations that hadn't been active in a month, and more quality discussion came from that. Clean it out when you need the room, or when it's really old or a simple open and close issue (like, where is that link? here is that link. done). There's no harm in keeping them if you can, and there is likely benefit when it's reasonably recent. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pages should only be archived when they get too long, yes - not just because they are old. About 30 sections in the TOC probably counts as too long. --Alfakim-- talk 18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for WikiProject Stargate participants

There is currently a renaming request for many WikiProject "participant" categories at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Participants in WPs. Our participant category, Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate, is one of them. It sounds like a fairly non controversial issue to me, and I have no objection to it. It might seem odd to even worry about it, but considering we want to encourage people to use quality standards when writing, then a little nitpicking like this can help set a good example. Not that it really matters much in either way. However, some editors are a bit bothered that the WikiProjects were not asked first and seem to be opposing based on that alone. Personally, I think it's such a minor issue I'm not bothered by that.

None the less, we can have an individual discussion on it if anyone wants. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me or...

Is the glyph in the project title (on the project page) below the line of the other letters? Lockesdonkey 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be that we're suffering from the vagaries of diverse web browser rendering. When I edited the page yesterday the glyph was way above the line of the other letters, and I edited it to make it line up correctly on my browser. If other browsers already had it lined up then that would have lowered it below the line. My browser is Firefox 2.0 and I'm using the Classic skin, what're you using? Bryan 03:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a partial screenshot showing how this looked to me before I edited it, BTW:
Bryan 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I run Firefox 2.0, too; I never bother to mess around with skins, so my Wikipedia skin is MonoBook. Lockesdonkey 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And the same for me:
Lockesdonkey 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I just tried switching over to Monobook and I get the same thing you do. So it's definitely something to do with the skins. I'll take a look at the HTML source and see if I can identify what the difference is. Bryan 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm stumped for the time being. I suspect there's something buried in the CSS somewhere that's changing how images are aligned in different skins, but this is out of my field. I'm going to go in search of HTML experts to consult. Bryan 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed if you just use a complete image. I've already done it, go see. --Alfakim-- talk 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like to know what the issue is for future reference (I posed the question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Variation in how Monobook and Classic skins align inline images if anyone else is also curious), pages shouldn't render differently like this. Also this solution still looks a bit off in the Classic skin since Classic gives Wikipedia: namespace pages a light yellow background color, a PNG or SVG with transparent background would be better. Bryan 07:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.


[edit] New WikiProject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction

To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eh?! (GateWorld)

For some strange reason, the spam blacklist has tagged GateWorld as spam, though I can't find it in the actual list. I've asked about it here: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#GateWorld — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Looks like it's been fixed. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template sgspoiler|3

The spoiler template used in pages like Seth (Stargate SG-1) creates a gian blank area in the page because it moves the plot below the bottom of the infobox. Has anyone notices this? - Peregrinefisher 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's an Internet Explorer problem, I believe, as it doesn't like the double use of div tags (for the infobox and the spoiler warning). It happens on most pages with a spoiler warning and an infobox. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
IE is 80% of all browsers, so we should probably fix it. It's a common problem, because wikipedia is written in firefox and read in IE. I notice that if a normal {{spoiler} tag is used, the problem goes away. That would be an easy solution. - Peregrinefisher 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It works with the normal spoiler tag? Strange. I'll have to look at the SGspoiler code again. — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't even use a div tag by the looks of it. While it would be nice to make the page work in IE, we shouldn't make the page non-standards compliant in order to do so. Firstly, it could break it in other browsers (encouraging people to use IE), and secondly, it discourages Microsoft from fixing their broken brower. I can't work out what IE is doing - it's putting the first horizontal line of the spoiler tag in the right place and then waits until after the infobox to put the rest of the tag in. Very strange. --Tango 12:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. It only occured if your screen was small because the text of the spoiler tag wasn't allowed to wrap to two lines. --Alfakim-- talk 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article? Information?

So ... Stargate series 3? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the only article I've seen that reports anything other than rumours and speculation. We need for more before we can write an article on it - a title would be good, for one thing. --Tango 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Holy Crap in a Puddle Jumper! Awesome. Just one question. Is that picture on the Gateworld site of a weird variant Stargate. It might be just me, but it looks a little different from the normal Stargates to my eyes...--Quadraxis 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a normal stargate to me. At first glance, I would guess it's a screenshot from "Prisoners", but it's been a while since I've seen that episode, so I could very easily be mistaken. I expect it's just a random screenshot, it doesn't look like any information about this new series has been released, which would presumably include publicity photos. --Tango 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
After checking the episode, I'm not certain, but I think it's from Prisoners. --Tango 12:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Rather looks like a CG-ed Stargate from a convention, rather than being from an episode.--Alfakim-- talk 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For uploading Stargate images

If you're uploading a Stargate image, use this: WP:WPSG/Image. Select your licensing tag (tv-screenshot), then in the description box, type:

{{subst:WP:WPSG/Image}}

You can also specify relevant information (recommended):

e.g {{subst:WP:WPSG/Image|from=SG1}}
e.g. {{subst:WP:WPSG/Image|of=Daniel Jackson ascending}}
e.g. {{subst:WP:WPSG/Image|in=Anubis (Stargate)}}
e.g. {{subst:WP:WPSG/Image|source=http://www.foo.com Foo}}
  • The "from" parameter is to say which Stargate show the image is from. You can use abbreviations.
  • The "of" parameter is to describe what the picture is of.
  • The "in" parameter is the article which the image appears in. Including this parameter generates fair use text.
  • The "source" parameter is a web address for where the image is from.

The more information you add, the better the output will be, although no extra information is strictly necessary. Using this template also adds the image to the correct Stargate image category. --Alfakim-- talk 21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Third Stargate Series

Tone has started an article on the next Stargate series at Stargate: The third series. I think that this article could use a better name, possibly Third Stargate Series. What do you all think? — BrotherFlounder 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The other shows start with the word Stargate. So Stargate third series sounds the best to me. However, I'm not sure it matters at this point. I'd leave the current title and just redirect the other two for now. Since they'll all be redirects once we find out the real title, I'm not sure there is much point in moving it around. Morphh (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure we should have an article on a planned series that hasn't even been named yet, but if we're going to, it shouldn't have a title that looks like it's pretending to be the name of the series. Third Stargate series would be good, I think. --Tango 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

The related Category:Stargate actors has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do

  • Massacre trivia sections.

At present each article contains a trivia section, we need to mass these (and if possible - integrate) - see WP:AVTRIV, trivia is non-encyclopaedic (ref: Talk:Line_in_the_Sand_(Stargate_SG-1)#Stargate_SG-1_Episode_Style_Sheet, Talk:The_Road_Not_Taken_(Stargate_SG-1)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC) A mass trivia page may read more like a fan guide than an encyclopedia. These sections should be considered 'notes'. Only relevant info unable to be presented in the body of the article should be listed. The link matthewfenton provided takes you to an excerpt from the stargate episode style guide pertaining to such note sections. Please refer to it when editing or contributing to a note section. thanks Mwhope 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Noticed no mention of stargate in this list so I added some refferences to I'm sure theres more I didn't think of.

[edit] WikiQuote Links?

  • link the note sections of each episode with the corresponding wikiquote page (a la There But For the Grace of God) This may allow for some of the noted trivia to be presented in a manner concordant with WP. Mwhope 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sgspoiler up for deleteion / redirect

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1#Template:Sgspoiler. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoiler-season}}, which is basically what {{sgspoiler}} uses, is also up for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4#Template:Spoiler-season. Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter, and can see it going either way (for both). -- Ned Scott 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In a strange twist, {{Sgspoiler}} was kept but {{Spoiler-season}} was redirected to {{tl|spoiler}]. Sgspoiler is now independent of Spoiler-season and will still operate in the same way that it did before. -- Ned Scott 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great news that it got kept! Stargate deserves it's own spoiler template.

They've both been closed as no consensus now - the closing admin on the spoiler-season one changed their mind. --Tango 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced Sgspoiler on all articles now. On some it was replaced with {{spoiler}}, and on others it was replaced with {{spoiler-season}}. I've introduced a new paramater for {{sgspoiler}} (FORCESHOW) that should satisfy those worried that it unnecessarily displays the show. --GunnarRene 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do that when the TfD decided to keep the template? --Tango 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "no consensus", not "keep". I made those changes to reflect the compromise worked out in the discussion so that we won't lose the functionality if there's a re-nomination. --GunnarRene 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The only difference in appearance between sgspoiler and spoiler-season is that sgspoiler links to the episode section, while spoiler-season links only to the list of episodes article. Do we really want the Stargate spoiler notice to link to List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Season 9 rather than List of Stargate SG-1 episodes? Isn't it possible that the section leads will spoil people unintentionally? What do you think? --GunnarRene 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcripts

These duplicate an episode, verbatim, all these links to "Stargate SG-1 Solutions" need to be removed. WP:EL#Restrictions on linking: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags on episode pages

There have been a lot of attempts recently to get rid of spoiler tags, both in general and in specific cases. I think we should try and meet the people making those attempts half-way by only using spoiler tags where actually necessary. One place we have them and don't need them is episode pages. I think it is obvious that the "Plot" section of an episode page is going to contain spoilers about that episode, so I propose we remove all spoiler tags from such places (unless they refer to spoilers of an episode that comes after the one the article is about). Any objections? --Tango 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I my self as a TfDer of a particular template can say I'm not trying to get rid of a spoiler boilerplate but rather standardise on {{spoiler}}, frankly I see no reason why ten templates when one suffice. The whole "to give adequate warning for each season" is moot and could be construed as "censoring" and really multiple templates would only be needed if there was no way it could be structured better. Also, I believe we are supposed to avoid over use of these "meta templates" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to detail your general objections every time someone mentions the word "spoiler". We all know your views. I asked a specific question about a specific use of spoiler tags, and your comment was completely irrelevant to that use. My question was not about giving specific seasons in spoiler warnings, it was not about giving multiple warnings on one page. This is not the place for your crusade - the place for that was TfD, any you failed (for now, anyway). If you have something constructive to add to this discussion then go ahead, otherwise, please keep quiet. --Tango 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh how pedantic, remember to be civil as well. Oh and assuming I have a crusade.. what next.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Matthew.. just stop man.. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet

After recently being shown that page I have come to the conclusion it desperately needs a rewrite to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies. (Notable it encourages spam, copyright violations, MoS violations, trivia and misc.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify your complaints a little more specifically? The trivia bit should be removed, definitely. The copyright status of transcripts is definitely questionable, I'm not sure if all the links should be removed, but we definitely need to consider it - do you have any references to the legality of transcripts you can link me to? I don't know what you're referring to with the other complaints. --Tango 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly it encourages over-linking (linking from the bar in the infobox) - WP:CONTEXT
Encourages the use of a template or a standard lead-in, this is bad on multiple fronts, firstly it not only limits the expansion of the lead-in but is also unneeded transclusion (there is an essay WP:TCB, though I've not read it - see also WP:LEAD)
It furthermore encourages over linking to several non-notable fan sites. Spam. GateWorld is probably the only notable there. While trivia violates WP:AVTRIV, it if can't be integrated it should be excised. The transcripts violate copyright as they are just lifted straight from the episode with no information on copyright, etc, see #Transcripts. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that linking the bar in the infobox is overlinking - and infobox for a TV episode linking to the TV show seems reasonable to me. The lead template should be substed, that needs changing. I don't think the external links section encourages spam, it encourages citing sources - it should be titled "References" rather than "External Links", though. --Tango 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Provide a valid rationale why the same link is needed twice so close to each other? and fan sites are not generally a valid source, GateWorld probably qualifies as a valid secondary source.. but I do not know. Also I never said the section encourages spam, I'm talking about the links the page states are useful are non-notable, basic spam. Also sources should preferably be cited using the ref mark-up, for verifiability, naturally. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's easier for a reader to find the link they want, as it's their twice. It's not a large gain, but it does pretty much no harm at all, so why not have it there? The stylesheet should be changed to explain how to do the references correctly, I agree - I suggest you go ahead and fix that part. --Tango 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the infobox is generally seen as "stand-alone-ish" from the article, so it's ok to link in both the article and the infobox, even if it's "close". -- Ned Scott 07:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think. The infobox is a summary - be definition, a summary contains information that is repeated elsewhere. I see no reason not to link that information both times it appears. --Tango 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have some questions regarding this style guide as well that had been brought up by User:MatthewFenton above and didn't seem to be addressed, specifically in regards to transcripts / plot summaries. This concern came up as a result of perusing some of the episode listings for SG1, and I noticed that many of them had been tagged {{Plot}}. Before I dive headlong into these articles to do a lot of summarizing of the plot summaries, I wanted to check in here and see if any information could be found. Interestingly our style guide here points to Thirty-Eight Minutes as being a 'good' example of a plot summary - it seems to me that the summary in this article is every bit as long and detailed as the tagged articles. This seems to be in contradiction to the previous guideline The "Plot" section should not be an exhastive list of everything that has happened in the episode, but instead a succinct synopsis of the important elements of the plot. Furthermore it seems to contain a lot of in-universe perspective that is proscribed by the Manual of Style. Is it indeed a consensus that Thirty-Eight Minutes is a 'good' example of plot summary? The plethora of {{plot}} tagged episode articles would seem to indicate that editors in general do not agree. I would like to improve upon these tagged articles to bring them up to standard but again, before I do I wanted to check here for some kind of guidance. Thanks. Arkyan 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Road Not Taken

The Road Not Taken (Stargate SG-1) - someone nominated as a copyvio. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Harriman

While looking around, I have found a lot of references to "Sgt. Davis" and "Technician", all played by Gary Jones. I think it would be good if all of these could have one standard "correct" name, which I believe to be Walter Harriman. Jacobpauldyer 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really "one standard correct name" - he's been refered to by various names at different times. Walter Harriman is the most recent, I think, but when talking about old episodes, it's probably best to use the name he had then. --Tango 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Templates & Project Member Tags

I think that we need to have our own list of important Templates and Userboxes etc in one place. Now obviously, we already have a few, but I might suggest that the templates be revised. I know I've been quiet for a while, but that's because I have been extremely busy elsewhere.Alteran Ancient 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome message

Just so you all know, I've set things up so that as soon as someone adds their name to the Participants list at the project (i.e. joins the project), they are presented with the following Welcome Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Welcome.

We should use this page to introduce new editors straightaway to the core principles of the project. If we can get our principles sorted, e.g. the episode style sheet, writing style, etc., then these can be summarised in the welcome message. --Alfakim-- talk 15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice. I think I'm going to draft a proposal episode style sheet pretty soon. Matthew

[edit] 'the Alliance of Four Great Races' or 'the Alliance of Five Great Races' ?

would'nt it be 'the Alliance of Five Great Races' if we're a member now? i don't know though, they didn't change the name when a member of the alliance went extinct, so i guess it wouldn't changed when a new member joins? Idon'texist 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Humanity has always been the 5th race, regardless we are not a member of the alliance, if it even still exists, that is. Matthew

oh. wait. if we're the fifth race, how we not in the Alliance. I'm confused. Idon'texist 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Humanity hasn't always been the 5th race - in the episode of that name the Asgard said we were well on the way to becoming the 5th race, in Unending, they said we were the 5th race. It's not really an alliance anymore, though. The Ancients have ascended and don't do much these days, the Asgard are gone, the Nox are isolationist and pacifist (although Earth should try and contact them again and see if they are more willing to be friends now we've advanced a bit more) and the Furlings... well, who knows? Humanity is more the heir of the alliance than a member of it. --Tango 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

kay. i was just wondering. nevermind then. Idon'texist 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Universe

Saw edits to the third series article by an IP addy saying a name had been chosen for it so went over to gateworld to confirm, and sure enough it had, so I went and moved the article over to that and also redirected Stargate universe to it as a common mis-capitalization.. Will add a little redirect here notice to the top of the page in a few minutes.. EnsRedShirt 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An additional note - it is a working title, and as such may well change before the series goes to air. --Ckatzchatspy 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I sure hope they do change it as well.. :-\. Matthew 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless, of course, they're actually intending to visit an entirely different universe every week. Just think of the possibilities, once unbound from the constraints of the physical laws of our universe. A universe where time runs backwards, one with planets made of cake, the "Wizard of Oz" universe... the mind boggles. --Ckatzchatspy 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Or it may turn in to Stargate: Sliders... --Tango 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. broadcast

I'm sure many of you are aware but I thought I would mention the reason why myself and possibly others are not participating in the WikiProject. The U.S. has not aired this season yet, so we're quite a bit behind many of the posts going into the project. I also won't review any of the posts, articles, or participate in the project discussion because I don't want a spoiler. Anyway.. just thought I would mention it. Sorry.. hope we get on the same schedule again so I can join back in. Morphh (talk) 0:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Stargate_0d0e.html"