Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 3 |

Archive 4

| Archive 5 →

Stargate article Find and Replace

I'm registered for AutoWikiBrowser, so if any of you have a certain Find and Replace you'd like done to a large list of Stargate articles, let me know and I'll be happy to run it through.-- Alfakim -- talk 10:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Newsletter / Inactive participants

Had this idea for a project newsletter, tell me what you think. I feel that half of our sizable list of participants don't integrate half as well as they could with the project because it's kind of non-dynamic. A newsletter could be put together by active project members maybe once every quarter (or more/less as needs be) - which will list things that have happened Stargate-wise on Wikipedia, and more importantly things that need to be done - particular projects for the quarter, collaborations, etc. Also, news and info for editors.

Participants can then sign up to the newsletter by adding their name to a list, and when the letter is done I can AutoWikiBrowse a message to everyone on the list to tell them that the new newsletter is out. I think this would really aid project coordination. This idea entirely relies, however, on a small team of fairly active/dedicated editors for the newsletter, so - anyone think this is a good idea? -- Alfakim -- talk 20:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I believe it depends on why the "participants don't integrate half as well as they could." The project page is already well put together, and the Stargate project does seem amazingly well unified (to me). But if you think it would help, I'll put in my projects/things that could be done. Everyone contributes something different to Wikipedia, though. Armedblowfish 23:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

hey maybe it was just me. We have a good list of participants but there are some names I rarely or have never seen editing articles (until yesterday i had every stargate article on my watchlist).

Perhaps I could cut this article down. It just feels to me that a lot of participants can't quite find "what to do" or "how to help" - the "things to do" is more of a "bad articles in stargate". There's no "collaboration of the month"-type-stuff going on. Although the project page is good, how many people actually look at it? -- Alfakim -- talk 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are other possibilities. Perhaps they simply are not at present time particularly active participants to Wikipedia. Or perhaps they are currently devoting their efforts to another area of Wikipedia. Or perhaps they have a very specific idea of what they, personally, would like to contribute to this project (or Wikipedia as a whole). Or maybe you are right. Or maybe more talk pages need to link to the project page. It is hard to know without them telling us themselves. Perhaps expand the contributors list to allow them to specify what they, personally, are interested in working on? Armedblowfish 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I thinkn it's not that they are not active in the project, but more that they are nnot active on wikipedia. If you check some of our inactive memeber's contributions list they haven't logged on in months. We have 40 project members but only about 15 participate. Perhaps we should have an active members l-ist and a inactive members list. Tobyk777 04:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of a roll-call similar to that of WPFF, but there's not much point. This talk page is a kind of roll-call in itself, so we know who's active. Just to say, I have 2 weeks of exams right now so I won't be as active for a bit. -- Alfakim -- talk 08:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some more merging

Now when we merged Wraith and Asgard articles, I think it's time to have a look at the system lords. This has been discussed before but with no effect. Which of the system lords deserve their articles? I suggest Apophis, Anubis and Baal, eventually Yu. The others have only episode roles so we should merge them. Comments? --Ton e 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial agreement: I think that we need more articles than just the ones you mentioned. Ra, Osisris and sokar need them. We should keep Amatersu too. Then, there are some very minor ones, like seth which should be merged. We need an article : List of minor System Lords in Stargate Herur, Seth and a few others should be in it, but I think that there are more system lords worthy of articles than just the ones you named. Tobyk777 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO we should only keep Apophis, Anubis, Baal and Yu because despite the importance of some of the other Goa'uld, they appear too less to keep an own article. So I think we should merge them like the following:

List of major System Lords: Cronus, Heru-ur, Ra, Sokar

List of minor Goa'uld: Amaterasu, Amonet, Hathor, Kytano, Nirrti, Osiris, Seth, Tanith, Zipacna

I think this would be the best solusion and perhaps we should ad Yu to the first list. So what do you think? Diabound00 06:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, having a separate article for minor and major system lords is better than one for all (probably too long). I will wait for some more comments and then proceed. --Ton e 11:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Tanith wasn't a system lord. anyway, we've already got a good list at System Lord - dont split it. As for system lords that actually should have articles outside of that list, we need Anubis, Baal and Apophis without any doubt. Ra - possibly - he's big but doesn't have much info. Sokar, Heru-ur, Yu, Nirrti - again, possibly. Yu is the most likely to have an article because he does have some information on him. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, there should also be an article named something like Non-System lords Goa'ulds in Stargate and there we should put Tanith, Kitano, Klorel... there are quite some. So there are 3 merged articles and 4 or maybe more separate articles. Is it now ok with only Apophis, Anubis, Baal and Yu as separate? --Ton e 19:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor Goa'uld or List of minor Goa'uld would be a better name, but otherwise, yes. This was suggested above. I'm not sure Yu needs a separate page... he was in a lot of episodes, but only ever in a minor role. --Tango 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What about merging System Lord with Goa'uld, having a major oa'uld list there, then have the current List of Goa'uld stay? American Patriot 1776 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there's enough to say about Goa'uld in general for a full article - having major goa'uld there would make the article too long. --Tango 12:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay -

Goa'uld - about the race, and a list of major non-system lords.

System Lord - about the body, and a list of all system lords.

...with articles only for Anubis, Baal, Apophis and Yu. (all other articles merge and redirect to System Lord or Goa'uld as appropriate)

we do not need extra lists though. The above system does well. -- Alfakim -- talk 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. I can do it tomorrow or if you would like, you can do it yourself. --Ton e 23:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

also consider putting the list of major non-system lords in List of Goa'uld characters in Stargate SG-1 (i.e. seperating out that list) - instead of in the main Goa'uld article.

Don't have editing time right now m'afraid... i have exams. -- Alfakim -- talk 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Episode Guide

What's the current status of the episode articles? If there are some still needing work, do we need a list with the status of each article so people know where to work? --Tango 15:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the best if you look into the category Stargate stubs. There you will find all the episode articles which need a longer Plot. Look at the episode articles which are already done to see how long a Plot summary should be. A good example is It's Good to Be King (Stargate SG-1). Also you can add some notes, quotes and external links to every episode (if there is anything to add). I think it's also good to look through all episodes, something I do from time to time. Diabound00 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... they've been referenced... all of the ones that have aired have at least one transcript linked... a number of them have summaries and reviews linked... a few of them have other things linked... and the ones that haven't aired have spoilers linked. They could perhaps use additional references, such as from more offical sites. GateWorld does have spoilers for a two-part Stargate Atlantis episode (The Return) which I didn't see an article for. And I don't see any episode articles for Stargate Infinity, just a list w/ redlinks. And there are two Stargate Atlantis episode articles that need to be deleted (due to copyvios), and have the temp pages moved to their present locations (which requires an admin). Also, most of them don't say they're part of Wikiproject Stargate on their talk pages. Armedblowfish 02:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Stargate thingy on each talk page is important, but Stargate Infinity is not only a joke, it's a joke which I doubt anybody on this project ever actually watched (it being a kid's show). LD 02:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I'm mainly concerned about the references. So if you do create articles on them, either add external links or ask me to do so. Armedblowfish 08:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol... I watched 1 episode of Infinity just to see. It's something we should look into only after the rest of the wikiproject is basicalyl complete. No one liked infinity, not even the kids. not even the producers. -- Alfakim -- talk 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen Infinity either... I should probably find a copy of some somewhere... Anyway, I've had a go at expanding Out of Mind (Stargate SG-1), can someone take a look and tell me if that's enough of a plot description? (The rest of the story will obviously go in Into the fire (Stargate SG-1).) I've left it marked as a stub for now - can the stub tag be removed, or does it need more? --Tango 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there an already existing system for spoiler tags of multiple seasons? I've done one in Hathor (Stargate) by substing it and altering it appropriately - is there a better way? --Tango 16:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. {{plot-info}} allows you to make an aside about spoilers for other (multiple) seasons. See The Enemy Within (Stargate SG-1) for an example.-- Alfakim -- talk 23:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Useful to know, but doesn't help in writing about a 2-part story that was split over 2 series (last of one, first of the next). I could separate the plot into the 2 parts, but I think the home-made spoiler tag I put there is better, if another method doesn't exist. I might look at the templates and see if there's a way of making a template to do it automatically, but it's a whole load of nested templates which would probably get very confusing... --Tango 10:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Use of white text to hide spoilers

Please see Template_talk:Spoiler#CSS_class_good_solution_to_complaints for a solution. Armedblowfish 14:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop it. I know it seems stupid to some, but Wikipedia conventions forbid the use of white text to hide spoilers. On the larger issue of whether to include GateWorld-released spoilers, if the people reading the text disregard the spoiler warning, that's their problem. Lockesdonkey 21:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware this was taking place. Could you point out places where it's been used so we can remove it? -- Alfakim -- talk 23:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember where it was before, but I know it occurred on Daedalus-class battlecruiser; I removed it. LD 23:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a message on Alyeska's talk page, he seems to be the one doing it. I'm trying to find out why... American Patriot 1776 00:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. It's not that big a deal. Alyeska probably wasn't aware of the policy when he or she made the text white. And no permanent damage to Wikipedia was done. We don't want to frighten away potential contributors just because they make little mistakes. Armedblowfish 14:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes don't scare them off, but do let the person know. -- Alfakim -- talk 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

CSS breakage

While we're on the topic of style, I've seen a lot of CSS breakage on different Stargate articles, where text is overlapping. Note that this can be dependent on browser and window size, and can actually be hard to fix. It tends to involve templates and other text-boxes. Armedblowfish 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a page and browser combination that has a problem? --Tango 10:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hathor (Stargate). The character infobox and the recurring characters template overlap. I'm using Firefox. 1.0.6 on OpenBSD to be exact, though I have also the same sort of trouble on Windows and with other versions of Firefox. Would you like me to add the articles to some sort of category when I notice in the future? Armedblowfish 14:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see it too. I noticed it on Athos when I added the infobox, it seems the infoboxes aren't taken into account when deciding where to place things lower down... I'll see if I can spot anything that could be causing it, but I'm hardly a template expert... Wish me luck! --Tango 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the weaknesses of CSS. Good luck! Armedblowfish 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, not quite the solution I wanted, but certainly an improvement: User:Tango/Hathor. I've removed the "width=100%" part (on a copy of) the recurring chars template, and it seems to work quite well. The template still fills the whole width if there is nothing in way, but stops short if there is. I would have prefered to simply have it lower down, but I haven't worked out how to do that yet - I think it might be a problem with the infobox, rather than the recurring chars template. I'll keep trying, but I think I've found a good solution for now - shall I go through and change the real templates, now? --Tango 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't even see anything worth fiddling with on the infobox template, so removing the width thing is the only option I can see. I'll do it later this evening (UTC) if no-one has suggested anything else. --Tango 15:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't. that template still fills 100% width because of its contents - it wont work on other templates. there is a much better solution. On all the templates like {{Recurring characters on Stargate SG-1}}, simply add the CSS style="clear: both;" into the style element of the table on those templates. This will be the only change needed to fix all of these problems. If you're not sure how to do this leave it to me, but I can't act immediately, give me a week so i can finish my exams! -- Alfakim -- talk 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Example here: [1] -- Alfakim -- talk 16:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Someone that actually knows CSS, excellent. Thankyou! I'll add it to the rest of the templates. --Tango 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done all the ones on the project page, I think that's all of them. It seems to work. Now I'll go and find a CSS tutorial or something and find out what "clear:both" actually means... Thanks, again!! --Tango 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

This W3C page happens to explain the clear attribute. If you want a beginner's CSS tutorial, try looking at this page. Armedblowfish 19:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Single episode characters

Do we have a policy on which characters deserve articles of their own? I've just been working on Aris Boch, and basically it's just a plot summary of Deadman Switch (Stargate SG-1) and that's all it ever will be. Should the article just be merged with the episode, possibly with a redirect (either to the episode or List of Stargate characters)? --Tango 11:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would let Aris Boch have either his own article, or his own section in a list of character descriptions grouped together. I don't think character descriptions belong in episode articles. And the article does have a focus on Aris Boch. If you do use a redirect to list of character descriptions grouped together, consider redirecting to the specific section dedicated to Aris Boch. E.g.

#REDIRECT [[Minor Stargate characters#Aris Boch]]

Armedblowfish 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirection doesn't support redirection to sections - but it may in the future, so still use it. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having character descriptions in episode articles either, but if we have a plot summary of the episode and a summary of the character's actions, it's going to be repeated information, just written from a different angle. Now, Wikipedia is not paper, so prehaps it's best just to repeat the info, but it doesn't seem best to me... --Tango 20:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tango. I think this project should make a bigger thing out of excluding fancruft. We don't want or need an article for every last thing, especially if it appeared in only one episode. The worst case of this was Link (Stargate) or some similar article, about the device seen once in "Revisions".

Who's up for List of minor characters in Stargate SG-1? It would list all the significant minor characters, and Aris Boch can go there.-- Alfakim -- talk 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral on that. Just remember that if you delete an article, you lose the entire edit history. So replacing the article with a redirect would leave the edit history there, but putting it up for AfD would cause the loss of the edit history. And I'm not sure "List of" would be a necessary part of the title if it included descriptions. Armedblowfish 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a redirect is better than deleting it. The question is how much detail to put into the Minor Chars article and how much to put it the episode's article - whatever we do, they'll be a lot of overlap, which isn't good. --Tango 10:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, are lists of minor characters even necessary? If we feel so, then we'll just have to deal with overlap. The list should not just repeat the episode article, but be directly about the character (not his exploits) - so overlap should be kept to a minimum. -- Alfakim -- talk 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer having one article as a list of minor characters to having a separate article for every one. And redirects to lines work, at least they did while I was merging the Asgards. I still have to find some time to merge the system lords... I didn't forget it, don't worry. --Ton e 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Help!!!

I was adding additional ciations to DNA Resequencer and when I saved it the refs were really screwed up. I tried to fix them for an hour but couldn't figure out how. could someone please take a look? Tobyk777 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. You missed a / in one of the ref tags - easilly done and almost impossible to spot, I got lucky! --Tango 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a wiki-validator, sort of like W3C's HTML Validation Service. By the way, DNA Resequencer is apparently invalid HTML, because of the CSS. (Basically, using IDs when CLASSes should be used.) Armedblowfish 11:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why/where is there extra CSS in DNA Resequencer? using an ID more than once can cause serious problems for some browsers. -- Alfakim -- talk 13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The spoiler warnings. According to W3C, there are 4 errors. See validation results. (So it probably affects a lot of articles.) Armedblowfish 13:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this up on Template talk:Spoiler, because the page is protected, so I can't fix it myself. Armedblowfish 13:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

citing episodes - important

This is a widespread problem. People are assuming that episode citations refer to Stargate SG-1, when there is no reason for this bias (especially not when we're meant to be WP:NPOV). If making a citation within a paragraph use this format:

Then the Ori said, "Hello!" (1: Origin).

or: Then in the episode "Origin" (SG-1), the Ori said "Hello!".

or: Then in the SG-1 episode "Origin", the Ori said "Hello!".

Do not use: "In the episode "Origin" the Ori said hello." This is to assume SG-1, which is wrong and uninformative.

A better way of doing things is to avoid episode citations of this form entirely. Favour inline <ref>erences so that a full citation is linked but doesn't interrupt the paragraph. -- Alfakim -- talk 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In a lot of cases it's obvious that it refers to SG-1. For example, in a character article the first line says "is a fictional character from Stargate SG-1", so it's reasonable to assume that all episodes refer to SG-1. Same applies to Atlantis articles. It's only in articles that could reasonably refer to more than one series that you need to be careful. Whether you should use "In "XYZ"..." or refs depends on how it's written - if you're doing a plot summary of a characters activities it's best to state the episode in the article. Also, stating the episodes more obviously helps stop people complaining that we're writing from an "in-universe perspective". For that reason, I think we should place the citations in the main text as much as possible. --Tango 12:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Style aside, you're quite right that this is not needed when it's obvious. Sometimes however it's not, and in neutral articles, e.g. Stargate (device) all episode citations should be marked with their show name. -- Alfakim -- talk 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen all of the articles. However, it seems to me, like, generally, when the episode in cited in the main text, SG-1 vs. Atlantis is not specified. When they are cited below (either using inline references or by putting the episode in a list), SG-1 vs. Atlantis generally is specified. I don't really have an opinion on this (as you know I am more concerned with linking to transcripts), but if you intend to fix all of the articles, then you have a lot of work to do. Or maybe Auto Wiki Browser will help. Anyways, when I become less busy and get back to citing Stargate articles (I'm currently doing characters), I will be adding "Episodes" sections at the bottom for many of the articles, so that should help. Though I am only doing this in articles where someone has bothered to mention supporting episodes in the text. (See the characters that are earlier in the alphabet. Not the ones in the sub-categories, which I haven't gotten to yet.) Armedblowfish 02:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good, because I've been going through (rather slowly and in no organised fashion - maybe after exams I'll do a better job) and adding the episodes to the text, but not making episode lists. --Tango 09:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great! Maybe when I finish, I'll look through them again to see if there's anything you got to after I did. You know, some of these could really be converted to inline referencing. But I'm too lazy to bother with that for shorter articles, and the GateWorld and StargateWiki character descriptions and biographies are sort of whole-article references. Armedblowfish 11:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

about spoiler templates

{{sgspoiler}} allows you to specify a spoiler for a certain season of Stargate. If your spoiler covers more than one season, you have 3 options:

Consider making it into an aside if the text is short. Use {{plot-info}} and see "The Enemy Within" for an example.
Split your spoiler into two parts, then use two calls of {{sgspoiler}}, one for each season spoiled followed by that spoiler.
Favoured: set your spoiler tag to the highest number season that is spoiled. When something is a season 8 spoiler we assume (because one should watch a story in chronological order) that it is also a Season 1-7 spoiler (like being told the end of a film is a spoiler no matter where you are before that point). So if you're spoiling seasons 2 and 3, set your spoiler template for season 3 as this covers both. -- Alfakim -- talk 11:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the plot-info template. In what way is it different from usual spoilers? Besides, having some text in a box next to the rest of the article seems unesthetic for me. --Ton e 13:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, this seems like fancruft. If someone is interested in more details, he/she can have a look at the corresponding article so the template is not necessary. I am thinking of nominating this template for deletion unless you convince me otherwise. -Ton e 13:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft? Tbh I dont object to a deletion in principle, but i also see it as a useful template. Sometimes there is relevent information which is too small to be spoiled by a big tag, but also too relevent to not include. I see a theoretical use for it at least. -- Alfakim -- talk 23:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the information could be mentioned in the trivia section instead. I let you the decision whether to nominate it for deletion or not. --Ton e 08:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

dates

this is a well-accepted thing... that we can say what dates things happen at. just to make it all clear, try to link to (and expand) Dates in Stargate when you mention dates. -- Alfakim -- talk 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got it wrong with dates; 2001 is set as present day in the first half of Season 5--that is, it was aired on August 31, 2001 IN THE REAL WORLD. Hence, since there really isn't much difference between 1994 and 1996, the "Present Day" in the film Stargate must be 1996 in order to be consistent with 2001. Because of this (and thank God for this) there is a one-to-one correspondence between Stargate years and our years. LD 20:45 22 May 2006 (UTC)

that is exactly the kind of information the Dates in Stargate article needs, please add it. And then we'll need to come to an agreement on what the genuine timeline is. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I forgot to mention - I put Astrogate up for AfD. It's just a stub about a non-notable stargate forum. --Tango 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List listings here: WikiProject Stargate/Nominations -- Alfakim -- talk 23:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's deleted now. --Tango 11:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

O'Neill BB

Was it confirmed that the Asgard ship at the supergate in the season 9 finalie was an O'Neill? Or is it up to this point speculation? I mostly forget that night, I was in shock... American Patriot 1776 15:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I didn't saw the episode, I saw the screenshots of this episode and for me that ship looks like an O'Neill class. Diabound00 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the episode - I've only read a transcript, but it would seem strange for it to be any other class of ship. To the best of our knowledge they haven't designed any new ones, and they're not going to send an outdated ship... It's probably either speculation or original research, though, so maybe we should just call it an "Asgard ship". --Tango 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a great finale wasn't it? I wasn't in shock - it was kind of predictable - but damn was it cool and epic and dramatic. -- Alfakim -- talk 23:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I not only watched it, but I recorded it and watched it 7 times. After rewatching the season 4 primier, the ships look almost the same in every respect. I think it is safe to say it is an oniel and should be kept. One of the main reasons we write about stargate on wikipedia is to point out things that most viewers wouldn't notice. This is one of those things. Tobyk777 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite so - that's close to WP:OR. We report things. We don't make inferences. Rather - we're not meant to. Only if the inference is dead-solid should we - and then it's not really about "noticing" anymore, it's just about reporting again. I wouldn't bother with the unnecessary detail that it's an O'Neill class. How do you know the ships don't all look pretty similar anyway? Maybe it's an Oneill MK 2? MK0.5? It hasn't said anything, so leave it out. -- Alfakim -- talk 07:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the episode, do. It is my opinion that it is probably in the top 5 best Stargate episodes ever. Transcipts don't cut it. Watch this episode as soon as you can; buy it on DVD when it comes out, download it, loan it from a freind, watch it on someone's Tivo. what ever, you all just have to see the episode. Tobyk777 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is kind of irelevant, but my list of top Stargate episodes goes:

The Reckoning
Lost City
Camelot
The sigege
Summit/Last Stand

What are your guy's favriote episodes? Tobyk777 04:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with your list above. However there are also some AWESOME non-action episodes. btw spoilers in 6 lines' times.

Forever in a Day
Maternal Instinct
Meridian
Learning Curve
Threads

You gotta love that supergate opening though... woah. -- Alfakim -- talk 07:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your list, except that I didn't think that learning curve was that great. Tobyk777 23:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, people, the O'Neill was destroyed in Small Victories. We were introduced to the Daniel Jackson in New Order. The do not appear to be the same class of ship, though they may look similar.

-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. My main worry at the end of the last aired episode is, how will a newly delivered Vala escape with her newborn baby? Also, what consequenses will her bringing and keeping her baby here be? Another thing, just how long do Mitchell and Jackson have to find that amulet?

I think the Daniel Jackson was specifically stated to be an O'Neil class ship (I'll try and confirm that). It's that ship we should compare to - the prototype was destroyed before it was finished, so might well not have looked the same as a finished ship. --Tango 10:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Jackson class starship says it's a class of its own and is smaller and weaker than the O'Neil. I'm not sure where this information came from, though - I've scanned through the appropriate transcripts and the only bit of info I can confirm is that it's the size of a Ha'tak. I'm not sure how big the O'Neil was, but the article claims it's bigger - anyone know the source for the technical details in that article? --Tango 11:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Gate Address templates

{{Milky Way Gate Address}} and {{Pegasus Gate Address}} both output be default: images 24px wide, with brackets around them. I would like to know where this format is used, if anywhere. It is extremely cumbersome. If no one can see a problem with it, I'd like to recode these templates to:

Default output: 16px
No brackets
Completely optional address length - 6 to 9 without problems

-- Alfakim -- talk 15:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the 2nd and 3rd points. I'm undecided about the 1st, though... here's examples of each size to help people decide:

Lorem ipsum

lorem ipsum.

Lorem ipsum

lorem ipsum.

--Tango 19:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The 16px versions are used in every article i've seen. -- Alfakim -- talk 20:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't have gate addresses in all that many articles, though, so not a great sample to work with. I think I prefer the 24px version - it's clearer. --Tango 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I forgot to mention - anything larger than 16px is larger than the line-height - on some browsers this causes paragraphs to be pushed apart in an ugly way. Example (your browser might handle this fine, others might not; but to see what i mean, highlight the below, and look how the 24px line is thicker than the others):

Compare:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

-- Alfakim -- talk 12:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree in a block of text 16px is better, but I think gate addresses should be in tables and infoboxes more than they're in the actual text of an article. The text should be information that's useful and interesting to anyone reading the article, trivial stuff like gate addresses should be relegated to the infobox. Do we even have an infobox for planets? If not, shall I make one? --Tango 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Don't think so. Our planet articles are currently a bit dispicable. And besides I'm sure there's already an infobox out there that can accommodate - what's in use at Free Jaffa Nation? Anyway, before we worry about infoboxes, I think an expansion of all the articles on {{Stargate Planets}} might be in order. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Episodes for races

That's the race template. There is often a one-to-one relationship between planets and races, but not always. I think we should have a specific infobox for planets that don't have an associated race - and we should add gate addresses to the homeworlds on the race template where known. Also, I think all the infoboxes (excluding regular characters and major recurring characters) should have episode lists. I can go through and compile the lists if people agree. --Tango 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by episode lists? How do infoboxes for races have episodes? and (i assume you mean a "related episodes" section) - wont this be ridiculously extensive for some races? tau'ri? ARTICLES should have "related episodes" sections. -- Alfakim -- talk 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I mean episodes they turn up in. Yes, major races would be like regular characters (which I already mentioned) and would need to have at most the first and major episodes only. Something like the Tollan, though, would have about 3 or 4 episodes, which would be useful to list in a clearer and more consistant way than just mentioning them in the article. Knowing what episodes certain things turned up in is something I can imagine people coming to wikipedia specifically to find out, so the information should be easy to find. --Tango 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree its useful information. But a consistent "Key Episodes" section is all that's needed at the bottom. Those infoboxes don't need to be any bigger and confusing. -- Alfakim -- talk 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we remove some of the useless information (who cares what colour hair some random alien that doesn't actually have hair has?) and replace it with the episode info? We already have the first appearance, so it's just expanding on that, really. I think having it in the infobox would be better than having it at the bottom. It's not extra trivial info that should be mentioned as an aside, it's key information about the character/race/planet so it should be included in an obvious place. --Tango 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Enact the following if you agree: remove eye/hair colour. Add optional field "Key episodes" beneath "First appearance" -- Alfakim -- talk 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

I'd prefer to have the first appearance as simply one of the key episodes, maybe with "(first appearance)" after it. There's a gap between each heading, so the box will take up less space and will be more flowing if it's all one section. --Tango 20:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, enact if you agree (sorry have little time). remove hair/eyes, add optional "Key episodes" and in the same cell have the {{{first appearance}}} parameter. Lastly, see the talk pages for templates like {{Stargate race}} to see how to add a hidden message to all templates involving deprecated parameters, so that calls to the removed "hair" and "eye" params are removed. -- Alfakim -- talk 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the hair and eyes and gone through and removed it from all the articles on the "What links here" list (so I won't add the hidden message thing). I'll do the key episodes bit in the next few days. --Tango 00:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it. -- Alfakim -- talk 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we add a "series" field too? (For saying if the character/race appears in SG-1 or Atlantis) I've just been adding in the key episodes for some characters, and I'm doing it without specifying the series because it's not worth the extra space, but the series should be mentioned somewhere. --Tango 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even if a race is mostly in one siries, most of the time they are at least mentioned in another. The Goa'uld were in an episode of Atlantis. SG-1 often mentions the wraith. The Ancients are in both shows, etc. I think that the two shows crossover so much that it wouldn't be prudent. Tobyk777 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are regularly in both, then the field can say "Both" (or preferably, "SG-1 and Atlantis", as that allows for more series in the future), and each episode can specifically state where it's from. If it's only one episode of crossover, then the series field can say the main series, and the key eps field can specify that that particular episode is from the other one. Maybe the field should be "Primary Series". --Tango 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Lantea?

A user has added that the planet name of the planet on which Atlantis is stationed is "Lantea", and cites the GateWorld omnipedia. I don't know if this was ever said on the show, and if not then I'd like to remove this. Then again, does the show ever use the word "Lanteans"? - But the producers do, so that counts. -- Alfakim -- talk 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone call the planet "Lantea". Lanteans is definiately in common usage, although I don't think it's canon. --Tango 13:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

GateWorld is the most reliable source I can find that says anything about the planet of Atlantis being Lantea, but all GateWorld does is redirect (non-technical - just a link) from the planet of Atlantis from Lantea. (GateWorld's entry on the Planet of Atlantis doesn't actually say anything about Lantea.) I searched transcripts for the four episodes GateWorld said were important, and they did not contain "Lantea". A google cross-reference of Atlantis and Lantea revealed a forum and fanfiction (in addition to random unrelated stuff). Google cross-references of Latea with transcript, transcribed, and the names of common transcribers of Stargate Atlantis episodes (Callie Sullivan, Tara, Celsitude) were even less fruitful. Cross-referencing Lantea with "production" and "producer comments" was also unsuccessful. It is interesting to note, however, that my google searches found more than one Czech site. Could it possibly have been something Radek Zelenka said? (Probably not, just a thought.) Armedblowfish 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one episode where Shappard and Ford are in a puddle jumper and are discussing this very issue. After shpeard says that the planet has no name, ford sugests that they name it atltantica. However, Wier and Sheppard, as well as other charcters refer to the ancients who lived in Atltantis as "Lanteans", probably short for (Atlantians). It would be safe to say that people from the planet are called Lanteans or Atlanteans, however, this doens't mean that the planet had a name. Based on the converation in the jumper, I would say remove it. Tobyk777 00:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from Suspicion (Stargate Atlantis):

FORD: You know we still haven't named the planet yet…

SHEPPARD: I'm sure the ancients have a name for it…

FORD: How about Atlantica or something like that. *grins*

SHEPPARD: I thought we agreed you weren't going to name anything anymore? *raises eyebrow*

Searching two versions of the transcript failed to reveal "Lantea". You can look yourself if you want: Moon-catching's Transcript (Transcribed by Tara), GateWorld's Transcript (Transcribed by Callie Sullivan). Armedblowfish 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

SG1 Userbox

I created a SG1 userbox awhile back and thought I put it here in case anyone else wanted to use it.GWatson • ^TALK 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User SG1 If people want to use it, the name is {{User SG1}}. --Tango 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that this userbox lacks some colour? It looks a bit plain to me. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing Style of Episodes

I've been reading through stargate episodes on wikipedia and I dislike being the one to say it, but the writing style of the plots doesn't seem right to me. Most of the writing is styled like this:

'At a rainy night, a man named Dr. Richard Flemming calls Major Carter while driving a car. He tells her that he knows about Adrian Conrad and what happened to her but suddenly there are crashing noises and the connection is terminated. '

Shouldn't it be more authoritative as:

'The episode opens with a man driving through a rainy night while making a phone call to Major Carter. The man identifies himself as Dr. Richard Flemming and hastily reveals that he knows about Adrian Conrad and about her. He informs Carter that the Symbiote research project was never terminated and asks for her help, but before he can give any more details the call is ended with the sound of a collison and a car skidding out of control.'

Then a paragraph break, then start on the briefing. It seems to me that writing such as this is more in line with Wikipedia's standards, I don't wish to offend anyone, but I do believe that the writing is not being styled correctly. Biscuit Knight 13:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do like your modification better. However, there are 240 Stargate episode articles (193 SG-1, 47 Atlantis). Maybe focus on premieres, finales, and multi-part episodes? (Of course, if you wish to edit all 240 accordingly, you will probably get a well-deserved barnstar.) Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 13:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a big project - add it. The project as a whole should work towards this end; i mean, its primary goal IS the episode guide. thanks for pointing this out. -- Alfakim -- talk 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay well as you know I'm new to the Stargate Wikiproject, but I'm willing to help out a lot, so I added my name. Am I on the right track with what I'm saying about the formatting? If so I can work my way from Season 1 upwards. I have the seasons 1-8 on DVD, I can and will work on them and I'm going to purchase 9-10 ASAP. I'm willing to re-write all the episodes to be authoritative, but should I be doing this? I don't want to step on toes or cause an edit-war. Biscuit Knight 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes like the example above would make the articles better written. (For instance, "The episode opens" is a nice touch because it reminds the reader that the events described did not actually happen, and the new version is generally less confusing.) People will probably help, but on their own time (and there's no garantee). How many episodes, and which ones, you want to rewrite is up to you. (I would reccomend against changing all of them. Just adding external links to all of them took a very long time. Unless, of course, this is something you care about enough to devote many long hours to.) Don't worry too much about stepping on toes. As long as you discuss disagreements on talk pages rather than simply reverting, there's no reason there would be an edit war. I'm not the one to help (due to the fact that I'm not a Stargate fan, just a Wikipedian who cares about referencing), but if you need help verifying things let me know. Also, the Season 10 episodes haven't actually come out yet, those are just spoilers. And there are nice transcripts, and some other things, there to help you. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

'T'would be an incredible feat if you DID rewrite even HALF of the 200 episodes. good luck! it's not my work focus atm though.. currently i'm devoting time to getting major articles into higher standards, and i'm hoping for an FA. -- Alfakim -- talk 03:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a big contributor to this project, but haven't done mcuh work with the episode articles. Sevral other users have made it part of their routine to do a writeup of an episode as soon as info becomes avaible. I like aflakim mostly work on the major articles, but I also do extensive work on the technology character and Alein race articles. I have spent an admazing amount of time getting DNA Resequencer to a state that I think is as good as any FA on wikipedia. The contributors who have participated so far in this discusion are not the ones who do most of the work with the episode articles. Most episode writers (at least from what I have seen) tend to just write the summaries and work on the episodes, but don't comment on the project page very often. If you want to contact the main episode writers, it might be prudent to leave messages on their talk pages. Tobyk777 05:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think before someone rewrites all the episodes, we should at first write summaries for all the episode stubs. Afterwards we can still rewrite the Plots. Also if someone finds something in a summary which he/she doesn't like or thinks it doesn't fit then he/she can replace the unfitting part with a better written. I would be happy if someone would rewrite the plot summaries that I have written because I'm not a native of english language so I make mistakes when I write something. Diabound00 06:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise: I don't expect it to be quick, I spent a few hours writing each of the three, but I'll get quicker at it and I've got no illusions about it being a quick job, but I think can do it. Admittedly even one article a day would be several months work, but we'll see how I go, I guess.

I know season 10 isn't released yet, but I've heard of a guy who has 9&10, so I intend to follow that up. 9 hasn't been played on TV here, and if it is I doubt they'd do it correctly: Moebius was played as "the stargate SG-1 and Atlantis crossover episode!" - and they only played part one. I'd be better off buying them if I can find them.

About writing summaries: I can write summaries for all the 1-8 stubs there are, then work from Season 1 onwards once that's done. I assume there's already stubs for all the episodes? Biscuit Knight 06:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that 9 is shown on TV in all regions. Where are you that 9 has not been shown? Also, 9 hasn't been released on DVD yet. How did your freind get it. I know sometimes they make pritated copies in China, but there are very few of those. (plus I don't buy those becuase I support Stargate with a passion, and want it to do well. I don't want to cheat the producers. I don't buy pirated copies because they're ilgeal, bad quality, and destory the profits of the show.) How did he get it? I;m not acusing anyone of anything. I would like to know how he got it so I can get it the same way he did. Also, Diabound00, you write really well considering you are not a native of english. There are only 2 or 3 slight mistakes in your paragraph. I probably have more than that in mine. Tobyk777 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What summaries are you refering to? The ones on the episode list? --Tango 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

At $70 a season($700 for all seasons when they're released :o), it's costly to support the show, but yeah, pirating destroys the profits. I don't know how the guy got it, it's only a vague contact, I'd like to see where he got them, though I'd heard Season 9 was already out on DVD in the States? I live in Australia, when they played SG-1, they played it at varying times, with varying regularity. I remember years ago they played it at 7:30PM, since then it's been on at 9,10 and 11. I started watching it properly just before they began playing Atlantis. Now that I remember, the 'crossover' episode wasn't Moebius, it was actually Prometheus Unbound, which might vaguely classify as a crossover, but I'd think the Atlantis episode where they send messages home is more of a crossover than that. I caught parts of Reckoning P2 and Threads, then they played Moebius P1 before changing to Atlantis without playing P2, inexplicably. The playing of Atlantis was terrible, too. Some days they pushed it back by an hour for specials, other days cancelled it, twice they stopped it mid way through, the second time was for the London bombings though, so I don't resent that. But they skipped episodes and didn't repeat ones they missed and several times repeated episodes they're played completely. Basically over here Stargate seems to be a cult show that gets little respect by the channel, so even if they played it I wouldn't watch it because it'd just spoil it.

About the summaries; I assumed he meant that there were stubs with only vague premises. Perhaps he means the episode summaries in the list like you suggest. I don't know... Is there a complete list of stargate articles? The stargate category seems only to list some of the stuff. Maybe someone should look into that? I guess I'll focus on getting all the (Pre-S9) episode stubs cleared. I can't see any point writing the S9 episodes in full until someone's able to get hold of episodes they can watch repeatedly to get facts correct, otherwise it'll just be someone's memory really. Biscuit Knight 13:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is complete, I think. Most of the episode articles (if not all) have transcripts linked, you can use those to check facts. Or you can rely on people like me who are sad enough to have encyclopedic knowledge of pretty much every episode... Feel free to test me. --Tango 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the states and 9 is defnitely not on DVD. I havin been looking for months. I haven't even been able to find the release date. If anyone knows when it is please tell me. about the costs; here in the states, or at least in my local region, it doesn't cost even close to $70 a season. It's more like 30 or 35 dollars a season. I wonder why it's so expensive in Austrialia. Also, what TV channel is aring them in Austrillia that the schedule is so bad? Tobyk777 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same dollars? 70 Australian dollars is only (about) 50 US dollars. --Tango 17:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You can buy the 9th Season here, though it looks like an auction. It's Chinese, so I don't know if the producers get paid or not. It says it's multi-region, so you shouldn't need a multi-region DVD player. Tower records seems to offer them in volumes, like here, though they don't provide much detail about what you are buying. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The chinese auction is exactly what I described ealier. It's an ilgeal auction, which is selling stolen, or recorded footage. I took a good look at the tower records thing. Only the first 2 volumes are out. Each season has 5 volumes but for some reason they will only sell the first 2. Odd. Also, They are selling each volume for 35 dollars, rather than 35 dollars a season whichi is what I usualy buy them for. Tobyk777 00:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS and official sites

I am concerned about the how well some of the references fulfill WP:Reliable sources. I think links from episode articles to offical sites (MGM,SciFi, and SkyOne) would help (though in addition to, not instead of, the other references, as all three sites are rather poorly designed and contain less info than, say, transcripts). Since there's no way I know of to get episode-specific URLs for the MGM site, I was hoping Alfakim would use his AutoWikiBrowser to add the following to Stargate SG-1 Season 1-9 articles:

Official Stargate SG-1 site. MGM. Visited June 4, 2006. Requires flash.

SciFi and SkyOne do have URLs I can link to specifically for each episode. Also, does anyone know of somewhere I can find bibliographical information for the DVDs without actually buying them? - Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 19:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of info do you want? There's some stuff on amazon [2], under "Product Details". --Tango 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any Wikipedia guidelines on citing DVDs. However, the same information that one would get from looking at the DVD/its case & inserts would probably be good. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of our articles link to gateworld. That is as good of a stargate cite as exists. It has more than 10,000 members, and frequently interacts with the production staff. They arange interviews with actors and MGM even gives them sneak peaks into future episodes. Anything from there is just as acurate as anything from MGM itself. Tobyk777 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good, I think your argument would work on an AfD. (Note: I have not seen any Stargate articles that I think should be deleted, I am merely acknowledging that there are deletionists out there, and they worry me.) I'd still like to have links to MGM and the broadcasters, though, as GateWorld is rather inconsistent about what it provides for each episode, and a deletionist might complain about there only being one reliable source. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the types of links (how the URL) works it may or may not be possible to use AWB for this. I will, however, attempt to AWB the Stargateproject template. As for this, I can only do F&R (find and replace), although I CAN include the article title. how do the URLs work? -- Alfakim -- talk 01:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

MGM uses frames, so we can only link to the front page, or the low/high bandwidth version. (I picked the low bandwidth version, as it is more accesible to people with slower internet connections.) Try to following:

Find - episode articles with (Stargate SG-1) in the title.

Replace

== External links ==

==External links==

with

 == External links ==
* [http://www.stargatesg1.com/stargatelb.html Official Stargate SG-1 site]. MGM. Visited June 5, 
2006. Requires flash. <!-- There is a synopsis of the episode in there, but it cannot be linked to 
directly to our knowledge. -->

Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We can remove it from the Season 10 episode articles manually if you don't catch them when you confirm edits. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 02:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to do this, but you can probably also get the url for the individual frame. -- Alfakim -- talk 01:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I got blocked! Apparently we are not allowed to have mass-linking to sites that need extra software e.g. flash. --Albotim 01:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I've brought this up on Naconkantari's Naconkantari's talk page with a request that he/she discuss this with / blame me, not you. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- Alfakim -- talk 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Catagory:Stargate project

Hi, we currently have a template, Template:Stargateproject, which basicaly says that the page falls withtin the domain of this project. Although I don't know how to do this, I know that a lot of templates, especialy userboxes, form catagroies where every page which includes the template are located. I think it might be prudent to do. I don't know how to do this, but I do think it would be nice to have one catagory which lists all pages related to stargate. Tobyk777 00:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You just add the Category link to the template, that would add the talk page rather than the article itself, but it's close... We'd need to go through and add the template to all the articles though, it's missing from quite a few. AWB might be useful - it can go through the various sub-categories (chars, races, technology, etc) and add the template to their talk pages. We could just add the articles directly (using AWB) and avoid the talk page vs article problem. --Tango 00:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did that. (Not AWB, just category link in template.) See Category:Stargateproject. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 01:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0

Shouldn't we try and have our list of SG episodes on it? That would make sense... American Patriot 1776 13:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a featured list already - doesn't that automatically get it into WP 1.0? --Tango 13:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'd like to get ListofSGAeps featured as well. that's a side note though. someone add ListofSG1eps to the WP:1.0 list.. i'm too tired right now. -- Alfakim -- talk 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The SGA list follows the same format as the SG1 list, so it shouldn't be hard to get it featured (unless people don't want featured lists on very similar topics, but that's a questionable arguement). I'll look into the WP 1.0 requirements later today. --Tango 13:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Stargate Opinions

Hi, I wasn't sure where to post this, or even if it belongs on WP, but I see no harm in asking it. There are 2 plot developments I thought of which I think would be and great. I was just wondering what you guys thought of them:

A battle between the wraith and the Ori
A Goa'uld taking a wraith as a host, or taking a Prior as a host

What do you think? Tobyk777 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The first I have been fantasising about for ages. lol but i dont think it would work. would be an awesome series finale. the second, that's very interesting. would love to see it. -- Alfakim -- talk 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, now that the wraith are in the milky way, and the Ori are in the milky way, and they are both trying to invade the galaxy, I don't see how the writers are going to avoid them meeting. Tobyk777 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if the Ori will try to invade the Pegasus galaxy. After all, there are many planets there with human populations that don't follow Origin. JoshuaZ 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they came to the Milky Way to destroy the Ancients, convincing humans to worship them is just a means to that end - they don't really need to go to Pegasus. I can see the wraith converting to Origin in order to get help getting more "food". --Tango 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The wraith would never convert -- imagine them praying 6 hours a day and stuff. just, nope. i would really love to see a wraith/ori battle though - in space, the ori win, but on ground, MUCH more interesting. But the shows do try not to mingle THAT much i just dont see it happening. As for what Tobyk said, the Wraith aren't going to invade the milky way -- good old shepphard will stop them before that happens. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a Goauld in an Unas being fed on by a Wraith then at that moment becoming a prior. Creepy.... and yes I have been fantisizing on this very subject... if only, if only... American Patriot 1776 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more interested in the post-Ori future of Earth (the show wouldn't be any good if the Ori won). But a few things bug me. For instance: FOR GOD'S SAKE, MAKE IT United States Interstellar Ship (USIS) not "USS" for Odyssey and Daedalus! Naval ship =/= spaceship. Thank you. And I've amused myself with the conceit that the next Daedalus-class ship will be called Jacob Carter, and that the British will show up at Atlantis with a ship (presumably smaller and cheaper than a Daedalus ship) called Her Majesty's Interstellar Ship Defi ant. I don't know why. And for some reason, I always imagine the commander is a Scottish RAF Group Captain who knew Carson Beckett at some point. Again, I don't know why. Lockesdonkey 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that'd be great if they did SOMETHING to honour such a long time and well loved character as Jacob.-- Alfakim -- talk 04:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human-Form_Replicators

Please list stuff like this in the Nominations window, it makes it all much easier and less cluttered --Albotim 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

New form of StargateWiki URLs

Alright, so in a private email conversation between myself and Michelle of StargateWiki, Michelle pointed out that the URLs for StargateWiki have been modified due to a change in hosting. The old URLs will continue to work using redirection, but the new ones will work faster. So:

http://wiki.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/index.php/3.03_%22Fair_Game%22_Transcript

would become:

http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/3.03_%22Fair_Game%22_Transcript

Anyways, Alfakim - would it be possible for you to use AWB to change the links? Or should this be done manually?

- Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll get onto it.-- Alfakim -- talk 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For citing...

Use the SG cite or normal ref. We seem to have a mix in Stargate (device) so what about everything else (and the Stargate device article) American Patriot 1776 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

{{sgcite}} alone does not make a reference, since it only links to another Wikipeida article. (This may be disputed by some, however it's a moot point because there are other sources.) Currently, the solution is to link to transcripts. However, as the transcripts are from fan sites, they may not meet WP:RS guidelines, so I think the long-term goal is for someone to reference DVDs (with bibliographical information) in the Stargate articles, which we could then reference in other articles. The transcript links would then be provided for convenience.

A few other concerns: citations of episodes should specify series. You can do this with sgcite using "show=show" or "show=all". (Perhaps one of these could become the default?) Also, I do not believe that by linking to transcripts we are linking to copyright violations, but I'm checking on this. (So far, I have confirmed that StargateWiki claims fair use.)

- Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 20:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

When people cite books do they cite simply the book, or a specific publication of the book? We should do the same thing with TV shows as books - there's no real difference. Citing the broadcast version wouldn't be very helpful, but the DVD version would indeed work. We should give the same (or equivilent) info as is given for books. --Tango 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally, people cite a specific publication of a book, providing as much bibliographical information as available. See {{cite book}}. However, the bibliographical information available for a DVD is unlikely to be the same as what is available as a book. Not to mention that I don't actually have the DVDs, so unless you would like me to assume that the bibliographical information available on Amazon is the same as the information available from the DVDs themselves, someone else will have to do this. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 00:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is some place for SG transcripts which has regular URLs i could probably incorporate transcripts into {{sgcite}}. Likewise with DVD info if someone can provide it.-- Alfakim -- talk 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the transcripts are good for the main references when we refer to episodes. They're unofficial and could easilly be wrong, and they only include what's spoken with a little bit of action, so "The Asgard are grey {{sgcite|Thor's Chariot}}" wouldn't work, since the transcript won't mention the colour. We need to find someone with the DVD's. --Tango 12:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone please give an example of how a DVD citation would look like. Also, someone please make an article Stargate Atlantis DVD to match Stargate SG-1 DVD. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what a DVD cite would look like. There are very few instances in research where a person would cite a DVD. However, some researchers might cite documentaries about what they are studying. What would that look like? We could probably use that format. I also want to point out that {{Template:cite episode}} does not include transcripts and that the template is used in articles about various TV shows. (Most of it's uses are in Stargate though). Perhaps we should take a closer look at thow other TV projects are citing. Tobyk777 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Try this site. Seems to be good. Anywho... my original question, should we use SG Cite or a normal ref. It seems to me that they both do a similar job while SG cite just doesnt count as a ref. I dunno, maybe I'm confused.... :) American Patriot 1776 01:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See below. sgcite should not be used, but is a good shorthand. It can be converted to a proper {cite episode} easily with {{xsgcite}}, however i have just discovered that anything in ref tags doesnt parse substs, meaning conversions take 2 saves. Do what's easiest to get to {cite episode} - write it out yourself, or convert. -- Alfakim -- talk 02:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

NEW per-article To do lists

Every article now has its own personalised "things to do" list. It is accessed through the sub-menu of {{Stargateproject}} (the blue WikiProject banner at the top). So on the Talk page of any Stargate article, you can now select, read and add article-specific tasks. -- Alfakim -- talk 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

looks like a good tool. Tobyk777 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Good work! --Tango 14:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Eheh thanks.-- Alfakim -- talk 16:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper episode referencing with {{xsgcite}}

The {{sgcite}} template is very useful for talking about episodes as inline text, but it is not recommended for use when referencing (i.e. in <ref> tags). In many places it is being used as a way to reference episodes (e.g. {{sgcite|Lost City|1|show=ref}}), but {{cite episode}} is much prefered. But there is an answer!

Calls to {{sgcite}} can be easily converted into calls to {{cite episode}} with the help of {{xsgcite}}. Simply do the following:

       {{sgcite|Lost City}}
{{subst:xsgcite|Lost City}}

and when you save, the use of {{sgcite}} will have converted to a use of {{cite episode}}. This will be useful in maintenance when references must be brought up to standard. {{xsgcite}} can also be used on its own to generate proper references to Stargate episodes quickly. Remember that it must always be substed.

See the {{xsgcite}} template page for further details. -- Alfakim -- talk 01:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing {{xsgcite}}

See also: above comment introducing the {{xsgcite}} template.

I discovered that template substitution doesn't work inside ref tags. This meant that to convert citations you'd have to remove the tags, save, and then put them back, and save again. I solved this. Now, all you need to do is remove the tags and save - the subtitution adds the tags back automatically.

       {{sgcite|Lost City|show=ref}}
{{subst:xsgcite|Lost City|show=ref}}

This converts an {{sgcite}} reference usage into a full {{cite episode}} usage including the surrounding <ref> tags. On saving, the above gives:

pre

<ref name="Lost City">{{cite episode|title=Lost City|episodelink=Lost City (Stargate SG-1)|series=Stargate SG-1|serieslink=Stargate SG-1}}</ref>

This does now make it tons easier to cite Stargate articles properly. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

new film/series?

has anyone heard anything about a new stargate fim or a new spin off series? it is mentioned [here ] but there is very limited info and no sources

I've been hearing vague rumours for the last few months, at least. Some people are suggesting a new series might replace SG-1 after series 10 finishes, or they might run 3 concurrently. If there's a market for 3 Stargate shows at once, then all the "we shouldn't have so many articles about a tv show no-one watches" naysayers should finally be silenced - I don't know of any tv show that's had 2 spinoffs running at the same time as the main show. Even Star Trek has only had two at once, I think (TNG finished before VOY started, if my memory is right). I'm not sure about the film - again, it's just rumours, but I haven't seen as many. --Tango (forgot to sign)

Come on, I'd LOVE 3 shows at once. the Ori can't only last for 2 seasons, i'm hoping for at least a good 4. -- Alfakim -- talk 14:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love 3 shows at once, too. Would mean less waiting for the next episode. We'll see... --Tango 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha okay how about 7 shows at once!? lol.. a new episode each week, but staggered so you get a bit of gate every day :D:D:D okay so there IS too much. im liking the idea though :P. -- Alfakim -- talk 16:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The writers wouldn't be able to keep up and the quality would deteriorate rapidly - it would be great at first, though. I'll settle for reruns 4 days a week and new eps 3 days. --Tango 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a market for 3 shows at once. I personaly know at least 50 people who are huge fans of the show. I looked at the ratings last week. It ranks as the 25th most popular show on US TV. On Friday nights, the sci-fi channel has more viewers in the US than any other network on TV, with more than 10 million viewers. (And that's not even counting viewers who don't have that device in their TVs which trasnmits viewership.) More than 30 million Stargate DVDs have been sold. Stargate is approaching Star Trek in notablity and popularity. The other day, at a train station, I asked 15 random people if they watch stargate. Admazingly, four said yes, and 2 said they were big fans. Just like Tango, I have encoutered people who say that it's a show that "no one watches" and ive seen people say that this project shouldn't exsist here on WP. They're completely wrong. If those people would look at the facts and stats, they would see just how popular it is, and that it is growing. Gateworld held a poll about this very subject, whether people wanted 3 sieries to run at once. The vast majority said yes. I have also found sevral articles saying that MGM is planning on doing it. I think that the probablity of 3 siries at once is good. And if that doesn't shut up people who say Stargate is non-nobtable, they officaly have no sense of logic. Tobyk777 07:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives