Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Discussion subpages

Archived discussions


SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1

I was thinking about doing a list of SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1 similar to the Atlantis personnel in Stargate Atlantis I've already done, but after 9 seasons, that list will be a huge work to do. I have already done a bit. Would anyone be interesting in collaborating? Thanks! --Andromeda 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you could let me know what help you need I'll do what I can. 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The page has been started at SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1. All help is very appreciated. Thanks! --Andromeda 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Stargate Episode Articles

1) These need work

2) I've made a TV series intro-line template.

{{TVep}}

See it's page for details. Example:

"'''Rising'''" is an episode of the [[science fiction]] [[television series]] ''[[Stargate Atlantis]]''. generates:

"Rising" is an episode of the science fiction television series Stargate Atlantis.

Note: this template can accommodate even multipart episodes, and just about everything. See it's page (above link) for details. It should always be used.

One small problem:
"'''Revelations'''" is the [[List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Season 1|Season ]] [[season finale|finale]] episode of the [[science fiction]] [[television series]] ''[[Stargate SG-1]]''.
should generate
Revelations is a season finale episode of the science fiction television series Stargate SG-1.
but actually generates
"Revelations" is the Season finale episode of the science fiction television series Stargate SG-1.
Changes the meaning, huh? But never mind that, we really need a mechanism to handle which season finale it is. LD 20:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually someone has altered the template - it originally said "season finale". I'll change it back. And I'm working on adding a new parameter to denote season number, but currently I don't think it's that important, especially considering every page has an infobox saying the season number.--Alfakim-- talk 15:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Episode Numbering

Should the episode numbers start from the start of the season, or should it be the episode to date. It looks as if 7 or so from season 2 are episodes to date, and the others are just their respective season. Mortein 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh... dont get you.. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
On the episode pages, should it say the episode number from the current season "Season 3, Episode 6" ("Point of View"), or from all the seasons "Season 3, Episode 51". I think either way is fine, it's just some articles have it one way, and others another way. Although it does sort of make more sense the first way. Mortein | Talk 04:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh rihgt. DEFINITELY the first way. I didn't realise there were articles that did it the other way. I must change them. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Referencing Episodes

When an episode is mentioned (this and that happened in episode ABCDEFG), should the episode be listed as:

or

The second, definitely. that is the standard used most often, and that is the format that begins all episode articles. --Alfakim-- talk 15:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought, but you could also put the reference in parentheses if you didn't want to work it into the sentence itself. For instance: "Daniel Jackson discovered that Anubis was ascended by Oma (Threads)."
The great thing about doing this is that you don't have to worry about saying: "In the episode "Threads", Jackson discovered (yet a second time) that Anubis was ascended by Oma, after he was killed by Repli-Carter in "Reckoning, Part 2"." This also fits in with the Modern Language Association standard, so it isn't a learning curve to people who already use the standard for the creation of written documents that use external references. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


List of Goa'uld

Hi I just noticed that almost every link on the list of Goa'uld (in the Goa'uld page) is a link to the mythical figure they impersonate, not the charcter. I started fixing this, and was surprised to see that many of the links were red. I think we needc to work on making articles for these Goa'uld. I already made 2, Aries (Stargate), and Bastet (Stargate). Tobyk777 04:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the lowdown: We intentionally did not create those articles. They were sufficiently minor not to merit an article of their own, and instead we linked to the figure they impersonate, since this figure often gives some indication of the character of that Goa'uld, if that Goa'uld ever did have a character. Neither Aries nor Bastet were significantly characterized; as I recall, Aries was never even seen, as O'Neill just blew up his ship with the Puddle Jumper. I think it might be wise for you to request speedy deletion, but perhaps I'm too cruel. In any case, such indiscretions are perfectly normal and acceptable; I had similar embarrassment with my botched article on Origin. Your zeal is appreciated, and on the behalf of everyone else, I hope you become more productive. Three weeks and we'll all be VERY busy, and there'll be more than enough work for everyone. LD 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Jeez, a little extreme there don't you think. If you look at my articles, they are valid, and infomative. I don't know why you think they should go up for speedy deletion. Just because they're more minor than others like Apophis, doesn't mean there isn't enough information for an article. For the record I have been productive. I have created the Ancient's Healing Device (Stargate) and Goa'uld Healing Device articles and have expanded others. I have no clue what you mean by a smiliar embarsment in Ori, or what you mean by "Three weeks and we'll all be Very busy". Tobyk777 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
1. Some are, some aren't. Most would be better off being incorporated into a larger article; for example, the information in the Ancient Healing Device (the apostrophe was a bad idea, by the way) should, in my opinion, have been incorporated into Sarcophagus (Stargate) and Kull disruptor, since those are where the information is of actual value. The Healing Device has actually already been created and then merged into Hand device. And, as I said before, those articles on the System Lords are fairly pointless; however, they do have good information which I will incorporate into the List of Goa'uld and List of System Lords promptly, if it hasn't already been done. 2. I created a very uninformative article about Origin a few months ago which was promptly merged into the main article on the Ori. 3. Three weeks is when the new episodes come out, with scads of information for everyone to add in. Oh, and before you create new articles, a word of advice: look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, particularly Lowercase second and subsequent words. Happy wikifying! LD 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of this comment except for the part on the healing devices. The hand device is very diffrent than the healing device. That's why i seperated them. One is a weapon, the other is a medical tool. In fact they'er opisistes. Those should be seprate. About the anceint's healing device; the kull disruptor was a weapon built agains't it, and the Sorcophagus was a tech based on it. The 3 items are completly diffrent. About captilization, and punctuation, I agree with you, it is hard to link to an article with an apostrophe, and some smaller articles should be sections in bigger ones, but the healing devices are large enough, and distinct enough to be diffrent. Tobyk777 05:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Not only is it difficult to link to punctuated articles, it's technically not allowed. I already moved Staff cannon to its current location, and I would advise you to fix the titles of your articles. And for God's sake, and everyone else's as well, check your spelling! LD 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I have requested a move of Ancient's Healing Device (Stargate) to Ancient Healing Device, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I think that this is fairly self-evident, and I will move it in two days if I don't get any response. I will move it immediately if I recieve a significant number of positive responses. If it has been that number of days since my deadline and I haven't moved it, don't expect me to do so. I made my dislike of having this article present in the first place clear on the WikiProject Stargate talk page, but I don't intend to do anything about it. Yes, this is a carbon-copy of the request, but I would like to bring it to everyone's attention.Lockesdonkey 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest having a separate List of Goauld, with a paragraph or two on each, rather than trying to cram everything into a table. Include links to individual pages, for those noteworthy enough to have them, and links out of Stargateworld to their mythological namesakes.
—wwoods 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We already have a very detailed and infomative list of the System Lords. Now that I have found both of them it seems dumb to list the system lords and a list of Goa'uld. We should make one list like you said, but to make it merge the articles: System Lords and Goa'uld since they both fill in what the other lacks. Tobyk777 05:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


Articles to be merged

One Jaffa article

  • Jaffa
    • First Prime
    • Jaffa Resistance <- Stub
    • Jaffa High Council <- Stub

The First Prime's are just elevated Jaffa, and a Resistance and High Council section can be created to cover what little we know currently on those issues.

Lady Aleena 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure about (nor do I care about) Jaffa Resistance or High Council, but I consider First Prime to be more than a Jaffa, it's a military rank. And military ranks, fictional and real, are entitled to articles, however long or short. In addition, even before the First Prime article was created, people made links to "First Prime", assuming that it existed, and when they discovered it didn't they thought (probably), "Somebody else'll fix it." I spent several months thinking the same thing before I actually went and did something about it. I understand that perhaps it isn't the greatest article in the world, but it should exist, if only ensure that the links to First Prime go to somewhere. LD 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All the Tok'ra on one page

Merge Complete
The merge is complete. All of the known Tok'ra are on one page. The table which listed the Tok'ra is included on this page with the Tok'ra who have entries not included in it. Jacob Carter's bio is included, but his article is intact.
  • Known Tok'ra
    • Anise (Stargate)
    • Egeria (Stargate)
    • Jolinar
    • Martouf
    • Selmak

      Lady Aleena 21:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      Please do not edit this article without first reading the talk page and discussing the proposed changes. The discussion on the layout of the page is very detailed. - User:Lady Aleena

      If it ever gets to a point where the Known Tok'ra article gets too long... change the name to Known Tok'ra A-M and create another Known Tok'ra N-Z or some such.


      Lady Aleena 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

      Some, I think, that might be OK for, but Martouf, at least, is an independent character, and if his article isn't longer it is because of editorial neglect. Lockesdonkey 03:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      There's already a list of known Tok'ra in the Tok'ra article. --Andromeda 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      The point of this is to merge of all of the character articles into one article. The fewer articles there are, the less likely those who want to remove fictional universes will get the support to delete them from Wikipedia. Also, Martouf hasn't been seen enough to merit being in a stand alone article. The only characeters who should get stand alone articles are the main characters and the secondary characters who has been and will be seen at least half of a season over several seasons. Tertiary characters and once off characters should be placed in broader articles. So since Martouf (host of Lantash who is the Tok'ra) was not seen all that often within any single season, he doesn't merit his own article. He is also dead, so the only way we will see him appear again is if there is another alternative universe episode or in flashbacks. The first would have no real bearing on the past of this universe; the second won't add any new information. His article is done. Lady Aleena 10:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      PS. I will put together a proposed article after I get some sleep. Lady Aleena
      Known Tok'ra Proposal
      I just spent around 4 hours getting it ready and tightening up the current information. The current articles are in such bad shape it isn't funny.
      Please comment here...
      Lady Aleena 09:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      If no one says anything soon, I will go ahead with this. Lady Aleena 04:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      If you really plan on merging all the known Tok'ra into one, then we should do this also with other characters, especially the Goa'uld or the Asgard, since many of the characters appear in fewer than five episodes. The same goes with technology. Diabound00 17:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      Diabound00, one at a time... :) See also F-302. Lady Aleena 19:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      WHOA! All of the others are fine, but give Jake Carter his page back! He, of all people, deserves his own article. Heck, he's still a candidate for the featured article on WikiPortal Stargate. In fact, I think I'll do it myself if I find no objections. LD 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC).
      Jacob Carter still has his article, but I included his bio in the Known Tok'ra article too. Lady Aleena 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

      All Asgard on one page

      Here is my proposal for the Known Asgard article, I just need to do the episode lists...
      Known Asgard proposal

      Seems you were quicker than me, but I really like what you did. If there is anything that I can do, tell me. Diabound00 10:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      Episode lists are needed, if you could gather that data, it would be a great help. Lady Aleena 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      I would recomend that you go to www.gateworld.com. On each character page there is also a list of episodes in which the character appeared. Diabound00 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      It's OK, but keep Thor as having his own page. He's a fairly significant character by himself, and deserves an article of his own. LD 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      Agreed. Important characters should keep having a seperate article. --SoWhy 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

      clear up and standardise SPELLINGS

      Can we please come up with standard spellings for the following please: -- Alfakim --  talk  18:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

      Baal

      • Is it Baal or Ba'al?
      I'm for Ba'al btw. can i move the article?-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      Gate

      • When we mention the Stargate as just a 'gate', do we write: gate or 'gate?
      (see below)

      Capitals

      • Does "Stargate" always come with a capital letter? Or are there special cases? (and then so does "Gate" always have a capital?)
      You should not use an apostrophe with the word gate. Gate is also used as a verb. Since there are many stargates, they don't need to be capitalized. The only time stargate needs to be capitalized is when the title of the show Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis is used. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      Okay. and also when discussing the Stargate specifically. although i disagree with the apostrophe. it's like the apostrophe before flu. - you dont really need it as flu is in common usage like gate.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I've been using a constant capital for Ascension. that's because when we mention ascension we dont mean going up, we mean a different proper name, ie Ascension. But lets clear this up. Should Ascension always have a capital?
      The only time ascension needs to be capitalized is when it is in an episode title or used as a proper noun. Otherwise, the process of ascending need not be capitalized. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      Anyone else agree? it always seems silly to me to say someone ascends rather than Ascends because it just looks like they've gone up.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Season or season? as in "That happened in Season 8" or "That happened in season 8".
      In this case Season 8 needs to be capitalized. If you are talking about this season, then it does not get capitalized nor when we are discussing the various seasons. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      Agreed.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      Plurals

      • Though I'm not certain, I beleive that it's settled that the plural of "Goa'uld" is "Goa'uld", not "Goa'ulds"; the plural of "Ori" is "Ori", not "Orii", and that the plural of "Wraith" is "Wraith" when referring to the whole race ("the Wraith" not "the Wraiths"). LD 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      The above are all absolutely right, this is corroborated by the show itself. Goa'ulds is especially wrong.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

      Stargate the Alliance page

      This page is really lacking, it has outdated publisher information, namely that there isn't one. In addition the versions of the game for different platforms has pure speculation in it, with the line "It is likely to be released early in 2006." Ignoring the fact that this game has no publisher, there still wouldn't be any information that could possibly back this up besides random guesses. The external links section is also in pretty bad shape with the line, "Stargate-Gaming - Absolute biggest source for news and info about the game." This is horribly biased besides being wrong. Notably that their website hasn't had a new piece of news for month and in the past have just been reposting news from other sites. Overall that entire article really needs to be fixed, thos are the major problems. --JetPack 16th January 2006

      Airdates

      On each episode infobox of the SG Atlantis episodes there is US airdate. I think it should be just the first airdate there is since resently some episodes aired in Canada several weeks before they will in the US. --Tone 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

      Isn't the episode infobox standardised accross Wikipedia? -b 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      Indeed, it is standardised. The problem here is that it has US airdates although it should have just general. I will let a remark there. --Tone 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

      Redundant lists

      Currently, the articles, System Lord, and Goa'uld have lists of Goa'uld. Each has it's onw advantages. Goa'uld is more acurate, more detailed, and more complete. System lord, is cleaner, neater, and has more mythological backround. I propose that we somehow merge the 2 lists. what do you guys think? Tobyk777 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

      That is a good idea. Bring System Lord over to Goa'uld and just mention which Goa'uld's are system lords. Keep the System Lord formatting. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      I'm sorry, but I disagree. While I think it's a good idea to merge the information, I find the System Lords formatting messier, with each table having different columm widths, and not having the characters listed alphabetically, which makes more difficult to find the one you're looking. --Andromeda 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      Then reorder the syslords one alphabetically. but i'm opposed to the idea of merging them. System Lord and Goa'uld are totally different articles. take one look at the content and you'll see. even the content of the lists is different. there's no reason to merge these. -- Alfakim --  talk  06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      The only difference between a System Lord and a normal Goa'uld is that a System Lord is recognized as having control of a system or several systems. A System Lord sits on the council. What else do we really need to put in that entry? There are far more Goa'uld than System Lords, so the System Lord entry should be ported over to Goa'uld. Lady Aleena | Talk 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      The two lists can be merged nicely, specially now that someone broke away List of Goa'uld from the Goa'uld article. Also, the System Lords article has information about the Asgard that should better be moved to the Asgard (Stargate) page. --Andromeda 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

      Featured Article Drive

      Hey, should we all decide on an article to make reallllllly good, work on it together, and then submit it for Featured article? I'm up for it, and thinking of maybe a System Lord, main character or Stargate (device). -- Alfakim --  talk  07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

      I suggest Stargate (device). It is the most general article of all about the topic. Will you ask for peer review? The article is long enough already, there might only be some smaller improvements. --Tone 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      I think the article could have a few more revisions yet, particularly to arrange information and make things very clear for non-gaters as well as interesting and pertinent. yes peer review would probably be a good idea. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


      I suggest Jaffa (Stargate), might not be the most general, but Stargate (device), would be a good one as well. (Opes 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC))

      Once off alien race missing

      The alien race from Deadman Switch played by Sam Jones is missing from the list. They are an odd race that they are slave of the Goa'uld but not taken as hosts because they can't be.

      Just FYI... (working on something else at the moment and took a break)...

      Lady Aleena 05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


      Michael - article?

      Hi everybody. There is an article about the Episode "Michael" in Wikipedia but none about the Wraith "Michael". As he seems to appear in further episodes (at least one more) I think we should add an article about him. As I am not the best writer, does anyone feel up to do so? --SoWhy 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

      I supose it would be enough to put him under the Wraith article. We should define some guidelines about creating separate articles for characters. What about appearing in at least 5 episodes, having an important role in the plot and saying more than 10 sentences in each one? Just for consideration. Some time ago I created an article about Cowen but we later merged it with Genii. I guess we should define who is important enough and who isn't. I look forward for suggestinos. --Tone 14:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      I say 1 of either:
      1. Major plot character.
      2. 3 episodes with +10 sentences of dialogue.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      Fine for me. As we can assume he will appear as important character at least once more in "No Man's Land" this rule would justify an article for him (as "Steve" and "Bob" have one as well^^). I'd suggest "Michael (Stargate)" as the article's name, any objections? --SoWhy 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      If I look at Steve and Bob, I would prefer having them together in one article covering all the Wraith since there hasn't been any really prominent Wraith characters so far. They appeared at most in two episodes each. And if we say that major plot character is the only reason, there could be an article about each character that appears only once in the show but does something interesting. Come on, these informations are already in the article about the episode, we needn't make two articles out of it. It just gets less transparent with all those subarticles. Check Genii characters in Stargate Atlantis for Cowen to see what we should do in my opinion. Of course, "Michael (Stargate)" and the others should redirect to the common site. Regards, --Tone 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      Fine for me if you are willing to do so :-) --SoWhy 12:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      Could be done. I'll do it some time these days. --Tone 15:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      Done. See Wraith characters in Stargate Atlantis. There are 3 characters that need additional info but I don't have time to put it there now. --Tone 10:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
      I added some stuff for Michael, but it needs more information. Someone with knowledge please fill those missing sections.  SoWhy Talk 20:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

      Korelev

      Does anyone if the Korelev is a Daedalus class ship? As I haven't heard anything about it other then it exist but someone keeps saying it's a Daedalus class.MarineCorps 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

      If it's an Earth ship it most likely is because like the Daedalus and the Odysseus there is only one type of ship Earth can manufacture. Care to tell me in which episode it has been mentioned as I can't remember hearing that name before? --SoWhy 12:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

      It hasn't been mentioned yet. It from the upcoming season 10.MarineCorps 13:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

      If it hasn't been mentioned yet this info can't be presumed correct. We should not include information as definite that has yet to be confirmed in the show. --SoWhy 13:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

      In series 6 the russians were given the plans to the BC-303 which was the prometheus class, this is ground to assume it is a prometheus class ship and also part of the interior shots seem very simular to the prometheus.

      Nyet. As of "Crusade", it's an American-built Daedalus-class ship, given to the Russians in exchange for renewal of the American lease on the Stargate. LD 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

      Origin of Human Life

      I have been reading contrdictary info on wikipedia. After checking other sites, as well as the show, I have realized that there is a massive contadiction in stargate. Some episodes/souces say that human life in the galaxy was created by the dakara superweapon. This wouldn't explain how there are humans in the peagasus or Orgin Galaxies though. Other episodes/sources say, that the goa'uld took Humans from earth throughout the galaxy. This makes sense, considering that the galaxy is inhabited by the ancient cultures of earth, yet it still doesn't explain why there are humans in the orgin Galaxy or the peagasus. Also in the Peagasus, they call the ancients the ancestors, could this mean that the peagusus humans are their direct descendants. Lastly, our Ancient Technology Activation gene article states that some people on earth, such as o'neil and Shepard are the direct decendants of the anceints. Does this mean that the anceints coming back from Atlantis reproduced before they asceneded? Is this the same reason Atlantis is in Greek myhtology, and Latin is similar to the language of the ancients. If they did mix, why wouldn't earth be as advanced as the anceints, and why don't humans have the anceints abilities? Tobyk777 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

      I agree, this is a major contradiction. I believe that in the Atlantis episode Rising, the automated holographic message tells how the Ancients seeded the Pegasus Galaxy, which may suggest that a device similar to the one on Dakara exists in the Pegasus Galaxy. It also mentions how they watched those humans grow and develop until the Wraith came and devestated the galaxy. The Ori, and if I'm not mistaken, the Ancients, were originally from the Ori Galaxy, so it's possible that they either reseeded their own galaxy or that that is the actual origin of humans. All this does contradict what was stated in the early days of SG-1; that humans originated (or at least only inhabited) Earth until the Goa'uld (beginning with Ra) began transplanting humans. I had always assumed that we (Earth's humans) were direct decendants of the Ancients, not that they created us with the Dakara device. In Arthur's Mantle (I think), Daniel reads the story of what happened to the Ancients after returning to Earth from Atlantis. He says how they returned to find primitive peoples (no doubt like those which Ra found in Egypt 2000 years later) with which some of the Ancients intermingled. That seems to be how their gene was passed on. I do find it strange that the Ancients would abandon their lifestyle and just decide to live with the primitive humans. You'd think they would try and rebuild their civilization. Looks like TPTB majorly screwed this up, and you caught them!
      Cereal Killer 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      It is a major screw up. But I don't know what TPTB is? What is it? Another thing which doesn't make sense, is why all the practical ancient tech found in SG-1 wasn't found in Atlantis. Like the Ancient healing device, or the DNA Resequencer. It's their city! Wouldn't the Ancients also want these if they were to intermingle with the primitve cultures of earth? If they took them with them, then it doest make sense why they weren't found on earth. Also, it is stated the merlin was acended. If this is so, how could he be merlin, he would join the others? Tobyk777 04:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

      Sorry, being a member at Gateworld, we refer to the writers and staff of the show as T(he)P(owers)T(hat)B(e). You also make a good point about the Ancient technology being found all throughout the Milky Way and almost nothing like it being found in the city of Atlantis itself. I suppose one could argue that they haven't explored the entire city, but in 2-3 years they were bound to find something along the lines of the technology found in the Milky Way galaxy. I don't remember them mentioning the ages of the Ancient devices, so it is possible they were constructed after the Ancients abandoned Atlantis. It is assumed that at least some of the Ancients continued to use the Earth Stargate to travel throughout the Milky Way, since the time traveling Puddle Jumper found by SG-1 in "It's Good to be King" could only have been the work of Janus. However, if the Dakara device was indeed what the Ancients used to seed life in the Milky Way (despite the contradiction), then the device had to have been constructed before the Ancients left for the Pegasus galaxy to allow enough time to go by for evolution (if that was the method) to occur. Upon returning to Earth from Atlantis, the Ancients would have been intermingling with the humans they had created millenia ago. This brings to mind the question of how long the Ancients were away from Earth. Since they also claimed to have seeded life in the Pegasus galaxy, they were there the entire time those seeds developed into humans. So, did the Ancients seed the Milky Way galaxy right before they left or was it awhile before that and if so, does that mean that the humans of the Milky Way are more advanced than the humans of the Pegasus galaxy? Anyway, to answer your question about Merlin, he was the guy on the Lantian council who forbade Janus to continue his experiments. From what I understand, after leaving Atlantis, he ascended but later "decended" in order to work on a weapon capable of killing ascended beings. Just thought I'd add that that would mean he had been ascended for about 9,000 years before returning to human form, which must of meant it was something that needed to be done (to stop the Ori if I'm not mistaken). Supposedly all this will be explained in "Camelot" as well as in Season 10.

      Cereal Killer 06:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

      Not all of the Ancients left for the Peagasus. Only some did. your entry above made it sound as if all did. How do you know that merlin was the ancient who forbade janus from continueing his expirments? Also, None of the Ancients had even seen the Ori for 50 million years. Why would meriln all of a sudden after 50 million years deicde that they were a threat. that seems like a stupid plot development. That is, unless it is later revealed that the Ori interact with the Ancients later. Also, how long is the Ancient's lifespan? In Frozen I think it was stated that they live for millions of years. In Atlantis it seems their lives are shorter. Also, even if they do live millions of years, how do they remeber that long ago? I know that Jonas Quin had a perfect memory. Anubis and Nirirti both stated that he was closer to the ancients than any human. Could the ancients have had perfect memories? Also, why would the Ori wait until now to atack other galaxies? they had the means to travel to other galaxies for 50 million years. Why now all of a sudden? Why wait till now to invade? Also, The Asgard thought that O'neil might be the missing link in their reproduction since he could handle the ancients repisitory. couldn't shepard acutaly be the missing link. He has the gene much or stronger? (How is the gene stronger in him? that never made sense.) Or mabe Jonas? for reasons is stated earlier. Lastly in the tower the people had the ATA gene. I thought only direct decendants of the ancients had the gene. Wouldn't that mean some peagasus humans are the decendats of the Ancients? Tobyk777 06:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
      Sorry for not responding in such a long time! Obviously not all of the Ancients left, but most of them did. The council member (named Moros) is indeed Merlin, TPTB have said so ([1], third comment labeled "New! February 27!"). Merlin and the other Ancients that ascended no doubt became aware of the Ori as soon as they ascended, just as the Ori are aware of the ascended Ancients, so that was when he realized the danger they posed. It seems as if he was not the only one who felt that way, since I don't think he himself could have singlehandedly kept the existence of the Milky Way from the Ori. As far as I know, Ancients live a very long time, perhaps millions of years. Since they age so slowly, I don't think there brains would be incapable of retaining memories. Remember, they don't get old in 100 years and then stay old for millions of years. Their rate of aging is proportinal to how long their lifespan is. As for Jonas, I don't remember either Anubis or Niirti saying anything about him being close to the Ancients level of development, I remember at least Niirti saying he was slightly more advanced than other humans. I might be wrong about what Anubis said, I don't remember exactly what he said, I'll have to pull the DVDs out and take a look. I don't know if Sheppard would be able to handle the repository either, but he could probably handle a bit more than O'Neill. I don't know about Jonas, he may have the gene but I don't know about him being able to handle the repository. The royal family in The Tower were definitely decendants of the Ancients, but I don't think they were full Ancients, just as (Earth) humans aren't. That the gene was fading I think proves this, since it indicates they bred with non-carriers of the gene.
      Cereal Killer 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

      Merge of character pages

      After it was decided that all the known Tok'ra were merged on one page, we should do this also with other races and I will be more then ready to do this work. I only want to know what the others here think about this. I plan on starting with the Asgard but there is one question: should I add Thor to the list or should he still have his own page? Please respond. Diabound00 07:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

      Actually, that was the next group I was planning on going after. And no, Thor doesn't have a big enough article to keep on his own. I know he is important, but the only characters whom I think should merit their own pages is the cast of the show. All secondary and beyond characters can and should be merged.
      I started doing this in an effort to show the people who would like to see fictional universes purged from Wikipedia that we are not much of a threat. The fewer pages we use, the less those who are against them can complain.
      Lady Aleena 08:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      On the whole i agree with these mergers. Some points to note:
      All of these separate articles add fuel to the anti-fictional universe fire. - LA
      1. Thor deserves an article, as there is a lot that could be said about him.
      2. Prominent characters, eg Martouf, deserve an article.
        • He only appeared in 7 episodes, unlike Selmak's 22. - LA
      3. If you disagree with the above that's okay cos I'm not entirely sure of them really.
      4. Major System Lords (eg Anubis) deserve an article. No questions. Apophis, Baal, Anubis absolutely need articles.
        • Major System Lords on one page, Minor System Lords on another, Other Goa'ul a third. - LA
      5. Stuff like List of Atlantis personnel needs to be merged desperately. Or List of Genii characters or List of Athosian characters (i cant remember the exact article titles) but they need to go into Genii and Athos respectively.-- Alfakim --  talk  08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

      See All Asgard on one page above. Lady Aleena 09:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

      I don't like it. Merging articles for characters who appeared in one, five, even ten episodes isn't that bad, in my opinion, especially if they weren't that important. But some, like Thor, deserve their own page, if only because they have been so vital in the series. Martouf, I can understand, didn't do that much in the grand scheme of things, but Thor was the entire point of some episodes. Especially disturbing, to me at any rate, is this idea that only the "cast of the show" should have their own articles. Some articles for non-regular characters (Janet Fraser, for instance) are longer that ones for regulars (witness Elizabeth Weir). I propose different critera:
      1. All regular characters have their own page.
      2. Almost all key characters, especially doctors (Fraser and Lam), "funny scientists" (Lee and Zelenka), ship commanders (Caldwell definately, others perhaps not), and key offworld allies (Bra'tac, Jacob Carter, and Thor) should have their articles simply for the purpose of keeping things straight. THIS INCLUDES MAJOR SYSTEM LORDS, but I extend that definition to a very small group: Apophis, Anubis, and Baal, with the possible additions of Yu and Sokar.
      3. Lists of somewhat lesser characters should be merged with the original article UNLESS that runs the risk of making the original article too long. For example, the list of Atlantis personnel was made in order to shorten the original Stargate Atlantis article, and I see no need to merge it. LD 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


      Is the list of atlantis personnel THAT long?

      anyway. i agree with lockesdonkey. to cut a long story short, NOTABLE characters get a page. i really dont like big page mergers, or this idea of "majors on one, minors on another, others on another". how about: ONE list of ALL, and then seperate articles for SOME. ie like we have now!

      as for fuelling the problems with ficunivs, we can just be sensible. so the criteria should be simply this:

      1. notable character
      2. YOU CAN ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING ARTICLE SIZED ABOUT THEM

      guys like martouf dont really need an article no. jacob/selmak --- yes. replicarter, anubis, etc - such big and influential characters - they need articles. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

      I assume that Thor falls in the latter category. And yes...the Atlantis personnel list is that long. Or at the very least, if it didn't have a page of its own, it would be difficult to put everything we need on Atlantis. LD 20:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

      The importance of Stargate in other encyclopedic works

      Here is just how important Stargate is in other online encyclopedia:

      After looking at that, can you justify giving minor characters their own encyclopedic entries on Wikipedia? If so, I would really like to see it here.
      LA (talk)

      1. Wikipedia is not paper. All but two of the sources you cited are electronic transcriptions of paper publications. Wikipedia has no real limit of resources, and as such can afford to cover such things as Stargate, which aren't important enough to be in a paper encyclopedia.
      2. Naturally, very minor characters shouldn't have an article. But key minor characters--some of whom are practically regulars--should remain. For SG-1, which I sense is coming to an end within the next few years, we can come to this kind of consesus fairly quickly. We should withhold judgement on Atlantis--it is still a young show and characters who have popped up only twice to date could show up twenty more times, or no more times, in the remaining course of the show.
      That's about it. We CAN have these pages, so WHY NOT? Some pages are just rediculous, but if they fit the criteria that Alfakim and I have devised in the section above, they're Wikipedia-eligible. I repeat: WE HAVE NO LIMITATIONS ON RESOURCES. We can afford a little excess. LD 23:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      Another justification provided by the Wiki people themselves: [2]. Please notice their comment about the Simpsons. LD 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      Yea that is a great justification. Tobyk777 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      Here is my justification:
      Wikipedia's goal is to encompas virutaly all info known to mankind. If you place limits on what can be included, that goal can never be obtained. Sure on Votes for deletion they delete obscure stuff. But that stuff is so obscure that only the author would know it. the odds are, that if more than one wikipedian has knowlage on the subject its worth adding, and it helps wikipedia reach it's goal. Tobyk777 05:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

      The sum of the matter:

      This is a holy grail: From Meta-Wiki

      So there shouldn't be a problem about having as many articles as we like. However, there is controversy, contention, and strong advocacy against a large number of large articles on fictional universes. The plain fact of the matter is: there is a strong opposition to us.

      So what's the sum of this matter?: BE SENSIBLE. As seen in the Meta-Wiki article above, there is no reason we we shouldn't have as many articles as we like. BUT, it's better to cut a compromise: as always done, only make an article for a character that will generate an article larger than a stub. By limiting ourselves sensibly, we will have just as much info as we need and will also avoid angering the opposition.

      -- Alfakim --  talk  13:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

      Featured Articles

      I know that we decided that Stargate (device) was going to be our article imporvment drive, however, I think that although it's a pretty good article, it's no where as close to FA status as Stargate SG-1. Our SG-1 article, is outstanding. I put it on the Good Articles list. Does anyone here think SG-1 is good enough to become a FA? Tobyk777 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

      Agreed, I think Stargate SG-1 should be our drive instead. However, I currently dislike the article for one reason: it's Summary section is awful. The division of subsections within it is also terrible. The whole "Show Summary", "Plot Summary" and "The SG-1 Fictional Universe" could really be condensed into "Plot Summary" with one or two minor subsections like "Major Details". Until that area is sorted out I don't think it's any way near FA.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

      Stargate templates have a home

      All of the Stargate templates now have a home, Category:Stargate templates. Stargate has more templates listed than Star Trek does. I thought Star Trek would have Stargate beat. Stargate only has 1 movie compared to Star Trek's 10. ST has 28 seasons to SG's 12. Fasinating, indeed. :) Lady Aleena 17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

      List of Earth characters in Stargate SG-1

      I know that this has been bandied about before, but I intend to do it. I think I'll be able to do it at some point, but later this week. It will be as a sandbox of my user page. What do you think? Lockesdonkey 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

      I've got everything through SG team members; that's the bulk of it, I think. User:Lockesdonkey/Sandbox Tau'ri. LD 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1 has been created but it still needs work. Help is very much appreciated. --Andromeda 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


      Peer review for Stargate (device)

      Look Wikipedia:Peer review/Stargate (device) and you are welcome to comment. Regards, --Tone 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

      Stargate Wiki

      For articles that need to be improved or written, can't we just take some parts of the Stargate Wikis articles on them? This would seem to be the best and easiest course of action to get these articles written and/or improved. American Patriot 1776 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

      Only if those are released under the GFDL and if they agree to it. Even if they do it would be better to write them ourselves.  SoWhy Talk 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

      Frank Simmons

      Could you all read over this article for any errors? Just made it. Thanks. American Patriot 1776 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

      DNA Resequencer (Stargate)

      Hi Over the course of 2 and a half weeks, i have written almost this entire article. (With the exception of some minor edits from some other people. What do you guys think. I was thinking of nominating it for a Featured atrticle. Also, if you guys have anymore pics for the article it would be great. Tobyk777 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

      Is it good? Yes. Featured? On the WikiPortal Stargate page, perhaps, but not on Wikipedia. LD 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      Why not? Tobyk777 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      Main Page features have to be the best of the best; the main article for Stargate SG-1 still has to be improved to become an FA, but it's been called an official "good article" and is undergoing peer review (see above). The DNA Resequencer article, while informative, does not come close to the high-level writing, good organization, and quality citiation in Stargate SG-1, nor does it match the general interest, which is normally an unofficial criterion for Wikipedia FAs, unlike SG-1, which is a TV show as a whole. The only thing that I have seen which is not general-interest that has become an FA is Spoo, and that is because it became something of a cult phenomenon (in addition to being downright funny). LD 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

      Stargate Tech Template

      On the tech template, We have extensive sections about human, Goa'uld and Ancient Tech. On our tech page, we have far more than this. Does anyone agree that we should probbably add sections for the Ori, Wraith, and Asgard? Tobyk777 00:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

      There's just not enough plot-significant Ori, Wraith, or Asgard technology that each one warrants its own section in the template. LD 00:58, 27 February 2006

      What's wrong witht the SGColor Tau'ri template?

      It's three different colors! Look at Robert Kinsey, Walter Harriman, and Tau'ri! I don't really know how to fix it, so could somebody please set it back to that red color (like on Tau'ri), as it originally was? Lockesdonkey 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

      Fixed. --Andromeda 08:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

      Incredable Jaffa disorganization

      Hi, In addition to our Jaffa page, we have a page on the Jaffa resitence, a list of Jaffa, and a page for the jaffa nation. Many of these overlap. The mess here is incredable. We need to merge all these (with the possible exception of the list). Also the topics template looks really wierd having 2 jaffa pages on it. Tobyk777 06:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

      I disagree. There should be articles as:
      • Jaffa (for the race and species)
      • List of Jaffa (debatably not needed, merged into above)
      • Free Jaffa Nation (for the body/government)-- Alfakim --  talk  13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

      What we know...and what not...

      Hi all. I don't know what you think about it but I'm very unhappy with the current way information is treated. Some articles feature infos that have not been confirmed in the show and are only from interviews and fan pages and those informations are written like they were definite. Could we reach a concensus if we want articles with (some times wrong) speculations treated as facts? For example Daedalus-class battlecruiser#Korelev stated that a ship not even mentioned on the show before yesterday to be seen in an episode. Well, I watched the episode and there was no such ship, merely the info that the Russians got the construction plans for it. More such informations circle in various articles.
      So I wonder: Do we want articles with infos we know for sure or are they to become another fan page filled with speculations? --SoWhy Talk 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

      You are making too big of a deal about it. So in 1 or two articles there are a few speculative sentences. So what. Most of the speculation is very reasonable, or is made by incplications from the show. For example, It was stated the the Ancients are more advanced than the Asgard, and that the asgard can't even comprehend their database. So, logicaly on the tech page it says that the ancient ships were faster than the asgard ships, although this was never stated. And the stuff before episodes are aired is not speculation either. Most of the time that info is taken from a reputable source, like gateworld.net They have a huge season 10 spoiler section. It's not like nothing about upcoming episodes is known. alot is. Tobyk777 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

      Bad organization on our main Ancient (Stargate) page

      As i commented on the page's talk page, the order of the ancient page is terrible. It follows no chronology and has section titles which dont make sense. It has pics for language but no language section. It lists ancients but doesn't say what their role is. Nothing about it layout makes sense. What do you guys think? Tobyk777 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

      Merge back into Stargate (device)

      I feel that our article, Complexities of Stargate Function should be merged back into stargate device. See my argument on stargate device's talk page. Tobyk777 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

      Potential Stargate Featured Lists

      Hi, I think that there are sevral Stargate lists which could easliy be given FL status. They are easily the quality of the ones currently being nominated. The main ones I am thinking of nominating are:

      If more people agree that they should be nominated and will support on the nomination page, I will nominate them. What do you guys think? Tobyk777 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

      You're gonna nominate all of them? How about we just stick to one. I foresee opposition anyway. On the Tech and Planets pages people will get pissy about "too much fiction", "not enough citation beyond the episodes" and "treating it like its true". And then the SG-1 eps page is better than the Atlantis page, but people will get pissy about "image copyright vios", "images used as decoration", "slow loading time" and "too long". Then again, I think all of those above lists DO still need work, mainly the SG-1 eps synopses which are very hairy.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

      Drone Weapon

      I think that we need to make a new article: Control Chair and seperate the info between the two. The chair is basicaly part of the drone article. there needs to be a clear distinction. The chair can do other things besides just fire drones. Who agrees.

      I'm more for doing it the other way around. One article: Control Chair, in which the drones are also talked about. Then Drone Weapon redirects to that section of Control Chair.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

      "ZPMMaker" reporting for duty

      It says on the project page to apply for 'work' here... so here I am. I am devout Stargate nut, as I am sure you all are. What's next? David P. a. Hunter 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

      It says that on the project page? Never heard of that. Add yourself to the list of participants, look at the "Things to do" on the project page, and just generally improve the articles. Start at Stargate and see where links lead; then improve those pages.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
      OK cool thanks... David P. a. Hunter 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

      what constitutes multiple episodes?

      A lot of SG episodes follow directly on from each other (see the end of season 1 of atlantis, for eg), but aren't officially two or three parters. What is it that actually classifies this? for instance, SG-1 season 1's "Politics", "Within the Serpent's Grasp" and "The Serpent's Lair" look very much like a three parter to me, but as far as i know, "Politics" is usually not included and its called a 2 parter.

      I suggest that the "official" way to tell what is a two-or-more-parter is whether or not the episodes end with "To be Continued...". This then becomes verifiable and concrete. Agreement? -- Alfakim --  talk  14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

      • I agree. Tobyk777 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, either: "To Be Continued" or those ep names with Part 1 or Part 2... etc. David P. a. Hunter 03:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

      Come vote on the Resubmission of Stargate (device) on WP:FAC

      It renominated and deserves our support. Tobyk777 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

      Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Stargate_Archive_2_6bfd.html"