Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

FA Nom

I know I have brought this up continuously, however I think that DNA Resequencer has reached the point where it could sucesfuly pass FAC. Recetly, me and Morph have upgraded the article even more, added more real world info, more refs, and removed OR. Currently, I see no way at all it can be improved. Do you guys think it's ready for re-nomination? Tobyk777 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the recent edits, and it looks good. I would suggest going through peer review again before FAC - you're more likely to get constructive comments in peer review rather than "OMG! EVIL FANCRUFT! ARGH!" which you'll get in FAC for sure. If you get a flawless peer review, you can say so in FAC, and people won't be able to make meaningless oppositions as easilly. It will take a little longer this way, but I think it's more likely to succeed.
On a related note - is Stargate (device) ready? If so, do we want to submit them at the same time, or one at a time? If the latter, in which order? I think it would make sense for the Stargate article to go first, as it's the more significant article. Prehaps we should put them both through peer review, and then decide on the FAC's based on that. --Tango 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that although Stargate device is more important, DNA Resequencer is a better article. I certainly think both are good enough to be FAs. DNA Resequencer is probably the most thrurough and detailed source on its subject in existence, and covers every slightest detail on the subject. Stargate device, is much more notable, however, that means that there is tons of detail left out (which if put in would make it "fancruft" sadly), and that only important things are left in. If we are to nominate them one at a time, we should decide whether comprehensiveness or notablity is more important in a nomination, then decide (Also I want to add that DNA Resequencer is slightly better refed) However, I think we should nominate them both at the same time. If we can get 2 FAs that would finaly shut up all the people who say this project shouldn't exsit. Tobyk777 01:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either are ready. If I have some time later I'll do some work on DNA, which yes is closer probably because as Tobyk points out there's less to say about it. I think it will nearly always fail because it's so obscure, but there's so much missing from the Stargate article in the way of nonfiction (producer comments, books, etc) that right now it's still looking rather fancrufty. --Alfakim-- talk 15:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The FAC page specifically says you can't oppose an article because of the subject matter - it shouldn't fail for being obscure. --Tango 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I know that is the policy, but people oppose based on subject all the time regarlessly. Nevertheless; Aflakim, you said you didn't have time to improve DNA Resequencer. What were you going to improve? I could do it. Also, i'm going to award a stargate Star to Morph for his contribtions to DNA. Tobyk777 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I know people do it, but I would hope whoever makes the final decision doesn't pay attention to them. I plan to go through the edit histories once we get the articles featured and award stars to everyone that's made a significant contribution, so Morph will be included in that lot, but feel free to give him one now as well - there's no limit to them. --Tango 17:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of copyediting heavily.. brilliant prose. --Alfakim-- talk 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this article has gotten quite good and fits the criteria of a FA. Of course, the more good copyedits and brilliant prose the better. Let's make it happen and get it nominated. Morphh 17:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

SG talk tag

Do we tag redirect pages with the SG talk tag? Morphh 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not much point - people won't see them much. --Tango 19:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know if we use the tag to monitor how many articles and such are associated with the project (to include redirects). Sounds good though :-) Morphh 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's mainly just to advertise the project. There are a whole load of categories for stargate articles - those can be used for finding out what is associated with the project. --Tango 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt bother putting it on talk redirects. --Alfakim-- talk 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move: Trust (Stargate)

This page name is totally wrong to me. See here: Talk:Trust (Stargate). What do you think. --Alfakim-- talk 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag Request for comment

Some of you might already be aware of the spoiler tag dispute from Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. (For those of who who do not know about it, it is a debate on the use of spoiler tags and if they should be used on Wikipedia.) The editors involved have decided to file an RfC and start a new discussion page, in order for the debate to be more inviting to other editors. The RfC has an intro page at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC and then a structured discussion page at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. The debate is now better organized and not as heated as it was before. I'd like to invite anyone interested to get involved in the debate, even if it's just a small comment or neutral input. -- Ned Scott 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I've made a Stargate recent changes page. Thank god I got it in beofre surgury... anyway! This shows the changes made to articles or templates that are listed here, which is the clear majority of the Stargate articles here. If you find one not on there, just add it to the list and make sure that it is tagged with a catagory (which is probably why I didn't find it.) Anyway, hope it comes in handy! American Patriot 1776 04:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible stuff! --Alfakim-- talk 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gatenoise from Moon-catchin'

Why does nearly every single episode article have the following link?:

  • Gatenoise from Moon-catchin'. Visited June 23, 2006.

Linking to that websites transcript of the episode might be useful but linking to that websites index page, on every single episode?

Anyway, I, personally, think every link like the above ought to be deleted. Given how much of them there are, though, it seems like this might be a task best suited for a bot or something... TerraFrost 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see the point in these links. Fair enough if they were links to the individual transcripts, but they're not. The transcripts aren't even well formatted No Way Back 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They were originally to transcripts, but the site asked us not to link directly to them, so they were changed to the index page. I suggested changing them to another site that will let us link directly, but it seems that didn't happen. --Tango 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Further ways DNA Resequencer can be improved

Before I nominate it on FAC, I want to know if anyone has any new (not previously sugested) ideas on how to improve DNA Resequencer even further. Sugestions are apreciated. (Just a note: I just added more pictures. I don't think any additional picx exist on the net) 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the above discussion on moon-catchin', it seems to me that the links to their transcripts on the DNA Resequencer page ought to be removed. Or is directly linking to moon-catchin' links now allowed, whereas it wasn't, before? TerraFrost 17:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A few transcripts that are on that site are linked to. What's wrong with that? Tobyk777 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out this discussion. Basically, Moon-catchin' asked wikipedia not to link directly to their transcripts. A quick search yielded this. Are articles seeking featured article status excluded from this? TerraFrost 02:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I doubt any such exception exists for FA candidates. Plenty other places have transcripts online, why not go to one of them and ask to link directly to their transcripts? Gateworld has well formatted transcripts and I'm sure if they were asked first, they wouldn't mindNo Way Back 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Color change on Template:Stargateproject

The colours of {{Stargateproject}} where changed by someone who is not part of the project. Is this some Wikipedia police I'm no aware of or it can be reverted back to the project colours? --Andromeda 08:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it. The user seems like a big contributor on film pages so he seems to want our project banner to look like all other project banners. They both look good to me, but I think we should be allowed to make it look however we want so if someone wants to change it back then they should in my opinion. Konman72 08:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
How does one join the project? I've made a few edits in Stargate articles, here and there. Does that mean I'm a project participant, by default, or do I have to sign up, somewhere? What are the benifits of membership, if I do have to sign up, etc, etc, etc?
Regarding the logos... I dunno... on my LCD, I thought the colours that were introduced looked nicer than the current colours. Although I've also noticed that colours can vary quite a bit from monitor to monitor, so who knows... TerraFrost 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You join the project simply by adding your name to the list on the project page. --Tango 12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason to do so, though? Also, what's to prevent me from just joining every wikiproject? Is the fact that you've contributed verified? TerraFrost 07:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is preventing you from joining all projects and there is no verification, but there are also no benefits to joining so there would be no reason to verify. We weren't mad that a non-member changed the template it was that a non-member changed the template without verifying it with the members, who had decided on those colors for all Stargate related tags. Konman72 07:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There would be no reason to be mad either way, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a thing called respect, however. If a template belongs to a project and you don't belong to that project, you should at least ask them before modifying it, specially if the aspect of that template is a result of an agreement among the project members, like the colour in this case. --Andromeda 16:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but all talk page banners should have the same colour. And they do, except for this one. So change it. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 06:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know that is not a Wikipedia policy so it can be whatever color we want it to be. Now if you had asked nicely then we would probably be a bit more cooperative (not that I can actually change it ;) ) The entire project uses those colors so to change them changes a lot and it would be much better if the head members of the project were asked before the color for their template was altered. Konman72 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As Konman72 said, there's no official Wikipedia policy in this, so there's no "should be" and you cannot tell us to change it. We can have it the colour we want. --Andromeda 08:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is a policy. See WP:TS. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Pic

thumb|right Just a question, who is the woman in this pic? She doesn't look familier. American Patriot 1776 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea... She looks like she's wearing Ancient Egyptian clothes, but none of the episodes listed at the bottom as being on that DVD/Video feature either an Ancient Egyption woman, or a female Gou'ld, as far as I'm aware... --Tango 19:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea either. She was never in any episode. Tobyk777 05:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I beleive she was one of Ra's handmaidens in Mobieus Pt.1 although why she is on the DVD box cover is understandably confusing considering she had total screen time of around twenty seconds No Way Back 13:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I'm looking at her, and even though I understand that she was only onscreen for 20 seconds, I understand the decision to put her on the cover. I understand it completely. MM-MMMM, yep.  ;-) --Bark 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming of SG-1/A Screenshots

I would ask everyone interested to help us reach a consensus on the naming for the SG1/A Screenshots here. Thanks in advance --SoWhy Talk 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How does the track changes thing work?

How does the "Track Changes for WikiProject Stargate articles" thing work? I can't help but think it would be a useful addition to WP:SCOTUS - so if someone could tell me how to set it up, I'd appreciate it.  :) --Tim4christ17 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you just create a page and put links in it to every article in the project, and then use the related changes page for that page. (It's underneath "What links here" on the side panel). --Tango 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Who else was amazed witht the peagasus project

I was atonished by how amazing and spectacular the peagasus project was. It could possibly be the best episode of all time. Everything in it was brilliant. The shows mixed perfectly. Who agrees with me? Tobyk777 17:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did mix very well. I was however annoyed by one thing- Morgan le Fay in the older versions of the Arthurian legends was an ally of Arthur. It was only in the later legends that she became a villainess. I was hoping that either a) Daniel would realize this and it would turn out that in truth she had always been on Merlin's side or b) it would mean that she had started out as an ally of Merlin and had only later opposed him. JoshuaZ 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely an amazing episode. On my top ten, maybe better (have to watch it a few more times). If they can keep that quality level up there is no reason they couldn't go to 20 seasons! ;) Konman72 21:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope you are right, but with every season actor salaries become more expensive. At some point they have to cancel it due to costs. Tobyk777 21:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I know, but episodes like that make me regret it even more, and wish they would just give them all the money they want/deserve :P Konman72 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Plus, since that episode had both casts it probably was twice the cost. But they deserved it. However, it's sad that eventualy the studio won't be able to give them the money they deserve. Tobyk777 03:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That was perhaps the best SG-1 ever. The plotline was so deep, the characters so intense (spare Vala, which made Daniel's concentration even better), and the overall special effects amazing as always. Truely a gem. American Patriot 1776 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed Tobyk777 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Best episode ever. It's still on my DVR. Needless to say, I've watched it more than once. --Bark 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Links on main templates

Havent seen Pegasus Project yet, now I'm dying to! Back to Wikipedia things though...

The main templates, {{StargateTech}}, {{Stargate Races}} and {{Stargate Planets}} need a looking at. I think we need to get rid of links to really minor articles, and include all the major things. We don't want to overload readers with millions of useless links, we want to give them a good idea about all the major parts of the Stargate universe. So I suggest deciding on a body of major links below.

Add to/change the below sections as you see fit.--Alfakim-- talk 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard

I think the standard for inclusion in the templates is that, whatever the article is about:

  1. It appeared in/was mentioned at least 3 episodes, or:
  2. It influenced the plot significantly

Stargate technology

This template has links to:

Stargate races

Pretty much as it stands:

  • Ancients, Asgard, Furling, Nox
  • Tau'ri, Tollan, Aschen, Genii, Athosians, Prior, Jaffa: Sodan, Free Jaffa
  • System Lords, Kull Warrior, Tok'ra
  • Ori, Replicator, Unas, Wraith, Iratus bug, Re'tu

Stargate planets

Pretty much as it stands:

  • Earth, Alpha Site, Abydos, Chulak, Dakara, Langara, Tollana, Atlantis

I think the planets are fine. Mabe we should take out Tollana. On the races, perhaps the Iratus bug and Re'tu should be out, but again here I think they are borderline important enough. On the tech template, Project Arcuturus should dfeinietly be taken out. It should't even be an article. I should be mereged into the ancient tech article. The time dialation device should be in the other races section, since the asgard used it too. And i'm not sure about the diffrent asgard ships being there. Tobyk777 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Suggest a renaming of various things. List of Technology in the Stargate universe isn't a formal list anymore, so just Technology in Stargate is neater and better. I suggest doing the same with Alien races in the Stargate universe (Aliens in Stargate) by prioritising that list.

Also, templates: {{Stargate topics}} rather than {{StargateTopics}}; {{Stargate technology}} rather than talk. {{Stargate races}} and {{Stargate planets}}.--Alfakim-- talk 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the lists. They aren't technicaly lists anymore. They should be moved. With the templates I don't think it really makes a diffrence. Tobyk777 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tag usage

I know you guys have already been informed of the spoiler tag RfC, noted above on this talk page, but I thought I'd give you guys an update, since this might end up affecting {{sgspoiler}}:

I thought I'd let editors here know that revisions are being proposed and discussed for WP:SPOILER and its templates at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/guidelines. This is a result of the (still open) RfC going on at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. Any input and collaboration between fictional guidelines and WikiProjects is welcome and encouraged.

In addition, I proposed on the RfC talk page that it might be a good idea to have some WikiProjects discuss this issue themselves and also present a "group answer". It might be a good way to get a fresh take on the issue and avoid groupthink. Basically, start a discussion on how your project uses spoiler tags and notices, and what you think could be improved about the process and the WP:SPOILER guidelines. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


What do you guys think? Personally, I think spoiler tags need to be kept, but should be more discreet.--Alfakim-- talk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A discreet spoiler tag doesn't really do the job. It has to big enough to notice even if you're just scanning the page. I think they should stay as they are. --Tango 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

New character category for Stargate

Well, I haven't done much here lately, but I did get all of the Taur'i characters categorized a bit more. One thing I noticed was that there are over 30 characters in Category:Fictional American television characters. Some sub-categories in that category have less than five characters. That got me thinking, we may need a Stargate category for those characters, Category:Fictional American Stargate characters, what do you think?
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

PS. While most of the character categorizations were dry, there was one that made me giggle. When I categorized Harry Maybourne in Fictional kings, I nearly laughed out loud. - LA @ 08:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't like the idea. It would be discriminating against other nationality characters that can't have a category of their own. Also, I think that Category:Tau'ri is enough. We don't have that many character articles.--Andromeda 01:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Many of the Tauri charcter articles are too minor to be articles. I sugest merging them into a list of Tauri charcters. This will prevent more AFDs. Tobyk777 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I will spend some quality time on them in the near future. I will have a few recommendations after a more thorough look see, though right off the bat, only merge articles with the same exact categories, which is what I will be checking.
And no one else giggled when they read of the categorizing of Harry Maybourne under Fictional kings? *sigh* - LA @ 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed at Articles for deletion

The following article has been listed at AFD:

Please contribute to the discussion. I recommend that if you wish to avoid nominations of further articles, you start citing sources immediately in all articles, to demonstrate that their subjects are the subjects of multiple independent non-trivial published works that are independent of the show and its creators, and thus satisfy the primary notability criterion. Only two of the articles in Category:Stargate planets even cite any sources at all. Uncle G 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • What's "non-trivial" mean in this context? --Bark 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • More than a mere directory entry. More than "Weeble is a planet with coördinates PQR-XYZ and is the home of the Weeblings." Uncle G 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ha, weird that I was planning to overhaul this article because I felt it didn't do the location justice No Way Back 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis

I have created the Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis as a complement and expansion of the Tau'ri personnel of Atlantis list. I've moved Dillion Everett, Markham, Stackhouse and Brendan Gall profiles to it and created redirects from the former articles. I've also added a couple of more brief profiles.

I think Peter Grodin should be moved in too. Someone else? Ideas are appreaciated. --Andromeda 02:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Gordin should be moved in. There are sevral more things that should be in there too. There should also be a list like this for SG-1. Cat Tauri is still way too large and is ocupied with alot of minor stuff. With articles on minor charcaters were are just asking for more AFDs. I will help add to the lists. Tobyk777 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, links to the lists should be in the charcter templates. Tobyk777 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, we need to somehow link to the charcters listed on the recuing charcters templates on the main pages for both shows. Tobyk777 03:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved Peter Grodin and Marshall Sumner to the page and I've added images for Abrams and Stackhouse. --Andromeda 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis, I have made a few statements there. - LA @ 07:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle Lists

Ok, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, and I just make edits to Stargate pages where I see that it is neccessary, and I don't know if this is where to bring this up, but I felt I should bring up this idea. Since Wikipedia already has a page for the battle of P3Y-229, why don't we start making pages for each major battle that is shown on the show, such as the battle for Chulak, that immediately follows P3Y-229, and keep an order of succession for the battles at the bottom of each page. To go with this idea, a third battle could be listed already as the Second battle of P3Y-229, where Teal'c destroys the Ori Battlecruiser with the Supergate itself. This was just an idea though, thanks for letting me ramble about it. (Grizzwald 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

It's a good idea and one that I thought about implementing, but Stargate has never had too many big battles. Even the "Battle of Chulak" was only seen for about 4 minutes and had very little actually happen. The only reason I started the Battle of P3Y-229 article was because there was a lot of information about that battle. Perhaps others will disagree though, to me it is just a matter of having actual battles rather than slight conflicts, which is how I view the examples given Konman72 07:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind having a seperate Battle of 229 article, since it was a fairly notable battle when it comes to the Stargate universe. We'd need to be careful however as articles on skirmishes would probably be deleted quickly. If the current AfD that's oing on is any indication, I'd say non-project editors are going to be watching us closer than they have been in the past No Way Back 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most battles can just be discussed in the appropriate episode article. If there is anything beyond plot summary to discuss, then it might be worth a separate article, but there rarely is. --Tango 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Start a singular battle page for both series called Stargate battles. Under each series section there would be a description of each battle and how it relates to the Stargate setting as a whole. Do not just include battles fought by SGC and Atlantis personnel. A fairly significant battle took place between Rand and Caledonia where SGC personnel were only involved because of the Ori superweapon. Before that there was a battle between Rand and a religious splinter group. They are still Stargate battles, yet not fought by SCG personnel. Good idea? - LA @ 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


I completely disagree to this type of list/article. Timeline of Stargate provides all the information ever needed on this kind of thing; who would ever look for a list of battles? Stargate isnt a show about war (almost the opposite), this just isnt a needed article in any way.--Alfakim-- talk 21:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC) We should not have articles for individual battles; if you think it's necisary a list of battles might be fine. But, as Aflakim said much of this info may be redundant with the timeline. But, much of Stargate is about war, although I wouldn't say it's the major focus. Tobyk777 22:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Iris space

Does anyone know what episode it is stated that the space between the event horizon and iris is 3 microns? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The enemy within did. Tobyk777 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
(episode right after the pilot) Tobyk777 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! American Patriot 1776 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The SG-1 page needs updating

I'd do it myself, but I have other things I need to do; but it shouldn't take too long. Both the show page and the team page are a bit off. Lockesdonkey 02:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It does seem kind of off, but on the other hand, it's hard to find specfic problems. Tobyk777 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Episodes

What on earth happened to the leads of all our episodes? American Patriot 1776 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Did something get deleted? Konman72 19:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean?--Alfakim-- talk 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the template, all the intros are displaying gibberish/wikicode. Check The Pegasus Project to see. The template seems to be the culprit, it is displaying the same code on its page as well. Konman72 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You got it...huzzah! Konman72 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted something and the whole thing fell apart. i updated it to the new m:ParserFunctions code i wrote ages ago. --Alfakim-- talk 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Future episode spoilers

Why are plot details from episodes no one has seen all over the Stargate pages, specifically the Daniel Jackson page? mavhc 11:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The episodes are "in the can", and as far as the Daniel Jackson page goes, that information does have a spoiler warning associated with it. Bear in mind, I didn't write it, but I would assume that's the reasoning behind whoever did. --Bark 12:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Organise lists

Can someone help me build the following list of list-type-articles, so that they can be renamed according to an agreed standard, structured and spaces filled in? (Can also be more easily and usefully added to templates). Also so that they don't all get lost, I'm losing count of them:

Please fill in gaps with red links, and suggest actions to be taken, e.g. renaming, merging.

Standard being used so far: "List of..." only for ordered/alphabetised/complete lists. Otherwise the "list" is prioritized and more of an article.

List of Stargate lists

Lists to be prioritized, almost like articles
  • (Timeline of Stargate)
  • (System Lord) - prioritized list
Lists to be properly alphabetised/ordered

Action

Do we agree on the above action of renaming, merging, etc? --Alfakim-- talk 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also a note: I think we should use "List of..." only for proper ordered, alphabetised, full lists. If its prioritized, e.g. listing Thor above Kvasir, then its more of an article. --Alfakim-- talk 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And lists should be "in Stargate" (not, e.g., "in Stargate SG-1") - it gets complicated otherwise, because SG-1 and Atlantis cross over now, and are ultimately the same universe.--Alfakim-- talk 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on all points. Lockesdonkey 16:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not in everything. I fail to see why, if some race (for example the Genii) had only appeared in Stargate Atlantis, we have to take the "Atlantis" out the title. They're Atlantis characters, they have not appeared in SG-1. Same for the opposite.

Tau'ri personnel of Atlantis rename to List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate (and split the article into races - one section for Tau'ri personnel, etc)
Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis - merge into above list

No. They're two different things. One is just a list, the other mini-biografies. Most of the characters on the list are not relevant enough to get a mini-bio, yet they can be part of the list. Perhaps take the "Minor" out the title and put links the bios of the main characters too, that's ok. But they're two different things.

"Tau'ri characters in Stargate"? No. There are a lot more SG-1 characters than Atlantis characters. Looking for an Atlantis characters among a lot of SG-1 characters is a headache and a nightmare.

--also note here, evident from lack of "List of..." this would be a prioritized list of major characters, and can be split into two sections - Atlantis and SG-1. I'm envisaging an accompanying character list for each major race, you see (to go on templates) - we already have half the lists needed. --Alfakim-- talk 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Asuran characters in Stargate (see upcoming Atlantis episodes) - to include Replicator characters too." No until the Asuran debut and we have canon on them and their relationship with the replicators. For now, nothing on them in yet canon.

While the two series happen in the same universe, they also have enough things that made them unique and I think the series categorization is still the better option for some things. They are crossovers, but not enough to not keep track if one character is SG-1 or Atlantis. Take into account, too, that many people is still only a SG-1 fan or an Atlantis fan, but not a fan of both. We do not need to merge what has no need to be merged. It could be indigestible.

--Andromeda 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree on some of that (will change). The "Asuran" bit can and WILL wait until its canon - i was just suggesting it in advance. As for specifying Atlantis or SG-1, think about it, it makes no difference. If the Genii are only in Atlantis, then "List of Genii in Atlantis" and "list of Genii in Stargate" will be the same. But what if, in a future episode, there's a crossover? Do we then make "List of Genii in SG-1" or simply add the guy to the "List of Genii in Stargate" article (and what if every genii in atlantis crosses into sg-1, are the articles then copies of each other?) - i know this ISNT the case yet, but its the principle of it. The shows ARE set in the same universe, and based on the potentiality of crossover, but moreover on the maintenance of consistency in our database, lists should be "in stargate" when referring to characters/facets of the universe because its 1 universe. --Alfakim-- talk 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Also about Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis. It feels too much like a too-specific placeless list. I changed it above, let me know what you think. I don't like the focus on Tau'ri, i think i'd prefer a similar but more complete list of minor characters that simply influenced the plot, ignoring their race. It fits better that way into a useful database (esp. with a sg-1 counterpart). --Alfakim-- talk 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If the Genii appear in SG-1, then the name can change to only "Stargate". And about making no difference, I don't think so. It depends on the people. Some people are only fans of one serie. To navigate between a lot of canon to find only the Atlantis part of it that you're interested on could be very frustrating. Personally, I don't like to see the Atlantis part of canon diluted in the much bigger SG-1 part of it. I don't think we need to scrap all the series references.
If we have bios for Genii, Asgard, Goa'uld characters and so on, then a list for Tau'ri characters is not only correct, is necessary. So "Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis" yes, "Minor characters in Stargate Atlantis" no. Athosian and Genii characters have their own pages already. It looks like those "politically correct" policies that to not discriminate in favour of Tau'ri characters, you end up discriminating against them. --Andromeda 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1) The article itself can have two sections - Atlantis and SG-1 - if necessary. Otherwise the article itself will still be Atlantis-only, but it will just be CALLED "in Stargate" to retain the consistency of article-naming. The title would still be completely correct, and would allow for expansion. Also there's no need to be more specific than that due to the fact that nearly every article in this database already does treat both shows as one universe.
2) You've misunderstood. And at the same time you understand. Yes. There are gaps. We have Asgard characters in Stargate but no Ancient characters in Stargate. So these gaps need to be filled in for the major races, Tau'ri included. But as for Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis, that creates gaps - where are Minor Asgard characters in Stargate Atlantis? So I suggested removing the "Tau'ri" part from that name, to have a better article just about minor characters that influenced the plot a lot - and then within the article, you split it by race. --Alfakim-- talk 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not the same. "Minor Asgard characters in Stargate Atlantis" is not needed because there's only one Asgard character in SGA. Tau'ri characters, however, there are lots of it. So separate SG-1 and SGA pages are needed. And I think "Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis" is more consistent than having a "Minor characters in Stargate Atlantis" since, after all, except for the Tau'ri characters, the other characters (Athosians, Genii) have already pages of their own. So, take the "Minor" part out of it, add a bit about the main characters (like in the Athosian characters in Stargate Atlantis where Teyla has only a line and a link to her own page) and make it a "Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis". "Tau'ri characters in Stargate" may exist, but only to point to the SG-1 and SGA pages. --Andromeda 19:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Argh so much confusion, i'm sure you'll agree with me andromeda if you get this :S. okay let me explain. I'm suggesting lots of lists for major characters, divided by race:

Each of the above lists has two main sections - SG-1 and Atlantis.

These then cover all the major characters, divided by race and then subdivided by show. (on account of the rest of the database being from the viewpoint of "one universe, two shows" rather than "two shows, some similarities.")

What i was focusing on was the existence of the article Minor Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis. Seeing as these characters are minor, why not just have a singular more complete list for all of Stargate Atlantis' minor characters, considering the "Tau'ri" part is made redundant by the existence of the above lists (else where does Hermiod go?). So we end up with the above lists, plus

  • Minor characters in Stargate Atlantis and
  • Minor characters in Stargate SG-1

This completes the listing of characters in a navigable and sensible way i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfakim (talk • contribs)

Sounds like an excellent plan to me. And Atlantis fans shouldn't get lost because we can make redirects and then the Atlantis section will be in the table of contents. Just tell me any way I can help out ;-) Konman72 21:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I get it, but I think you don't. Scrap the "minor" page. Forget it exists. In fact, I'm going to rename it right now. It is NOT necessary. After all, apart from Tau'ri characters, who you'll put there? Hermiod? Teyla? They're already in the Asgard and Athosian pages. Jacob Carter? In the Tok'ra one. etc etc etc. A minor page is redundant. We only need a Tau'ri page to complete them all. --Andromeda 23:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Renamed to Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis.--Andromeda 23:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sure. I was accommodating the existence of "minor characters" articles, but if they're not needed then yes i entirely see your point. however, i was just suggesting one further step. I suggested we had articles like this:

and now we've also got Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis. I suggest merging this article into a SG-1+SG-A article (first in above list). The merged article will be split into two sections for SG1 and SGA, and will list the major tauri characters of both series. And yes, hermiod will go into Asgard characters in Stargate in exactly the same way, under a "Stargate Atlantis" section.--Alfakim-- talk 00:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging main characters from the two series it might be highly confussing, not to mention it will quickly go over prefered article size. I'll prefer if "Tau'ri characters in Stargate" was just an index page pointing to "Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1" and "Tau'ri characters in Stargate Atlantis". --Andromeda 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. For most articles, just use Ancient characters in Stargate - but if, and only if, this causes the article to be too long, then the page becomes an index leading to Ancient characters in Stargate Atlantis and Ancient characters in Stargate SG-1 (bearing in mind that these two articles might share some characters).
However, I think the index page should also then be a cut-down version of the "larger" two articles, like List of technology in the Stargate universe is a breakdown of major devices, whilst Ori technology, Tau'ri technology, etc., provide the "complete" list.--Alfakim-- talk 19:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was only talking about the Tau'ri characters article. It's easy to see that a list with mini-bios of all Tau'ri characters in both series will be over article size, so I don't think there's the need to prove it. Of course, if other pages get too big, they can be split too.
An intro can be good, but it must be kept short. Perhaps a generic description of the characters, but not a breakdown by character. That is for the detailed page. --Andromeda 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree then :). Do you agree with the way I've laid it out high above? If so, we can get a few more people to look at that and then go through with it. I hate having all these lists dotted everywhere uselessly. --Alfakim-- talk 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes to what we already talked about, but I just noticed a couple of things I didn't see before.
List of Stargate planets rename to Planets in Stargate
List of lesser planets (Stargate) rename to List of lesser planets in Stargate
No. Merge List of lesser planets into List of Stargate planets. I don't think the rename of that last one is necessary. The page is a list, after all. Perhaps "List of planets in Stargate", but it is a list after all.
And there's a characters list missing: Jaffa characters in Stargate.
Also, Stargate Atlantis DVD has a merge tag attached and it's not out of place, unless the article is expanded quickly.
--Andromeda 20:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I know its a list right now, im suggesting a prioritization so its more of an article. So Chulak, Earth, Langara, Othalla, etc, come near the top.
Also I'm coordination with templates:
based upon the {{StargateTopics}} main three subsections of Tech, Planets, Aliens (which i think is a good 3 way split to describe the universe).
So - merge Lesser planets into Planets in Stargate.
About Stargate Atlantis DVD, its seperate from Stargate Atlantis for a reason. The SGA article should transclude the Season Boxset info from there, but the actual DVD article needs to remain seperate so it can expand independently of the main SGA article without cluttering it. Look at the Stargate SG-1 DVD article to see why that info cant go into the main Stargate SG-1 article. so i say dont merge because the article WILL get bigger, and although it isnt YET, the article's content-focus is inherently different.--Alfakim-- talk 00:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I know it is separated for a reason. I'm just saying that the article should be expanded quickly or it would be reason to merge the info back. Right now, with the information it has, there's no reason for it to be a separate article. Someone should work on expanding it a là SG-1 article, and soon. --Andromeda 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is fine i think. It's not large like the SG-1 simply because there arent that many dvds yet. It could do with a lead-in however, I'll see about adding one. But in principle: articles are merged away just because they need expansion (when expansion is very possible).
But as for all this lists discussion, are we in agreement now? --Alfakim-- talk 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I think so, for now. --Andromeda 17:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Help me find SGA poster!

On the Stargate page there are posters for SG-1, SG-A and SG-I to introduce their sections, but the SG-A one is very low quality. Please can someone find a good resolution (greater than 300px wide) version of that poster! If not that one, then the poster simply needs to include all 5 original regular characters, the "Stargate Atlantis" title, and be shaped portrait-style like a poster. Thanks! --Alfakim-- talk 18:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gate images

Hello all...

I would like to know if anyone knows who created these two images. I can't tell from the image pages. I need to get in contact with the person. - LA @ 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like they were uploaded by someone from the German Wikipedia - Pythagoras1 --Tim4christ17 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, according to the Commons page, Pythagoras1 made them himself with OpenOffice. --SoWhy Talk 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kindly change Template:Stargateproject

See WP:TS Your Talk template is in violation of this protocol. Please alter your template's colour scheme. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 03:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stargate project template is standardized with the colors of other Stargate templates. That's how it was desgined, not to be standardized with other proejct's templates. It can't be both, and I think that the way it is is better. Tobyk777 05:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I could see some minor tweaking (such as making it appear as an actual box, instead of having that weird tab on the bottom), but I don't think the color scheme is a major issue. Remember, WP:TS isn't a protocol, it's a style guideline. A general suggestion that doesn't always have to be followed, especially considering we're talking about the talk namespace and not the article namespace. Like I said, if this seemed like an issue, then by all means change the template, but.. I don't see the issue. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"While this is not a firm policy, it is advised that any new talk page templates should be based on the standard design." Advice accepted, but for project coordination the template is project-coloured (that blue is used for all SG stuff).
As for the weird tab :P - it's useful. i use it anyway. and if not, it can be made useful - what would you like there? currently it lists article/project-to-do's, which is pretty good i think.--Alfakim-- talk 06:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant the appearance of a tab, not what it shows :D -- Ned Scott 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
How's this look? Takes up less space, still pretty, and looks more "standardish". -- Ned Scott 07:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. Perfect. Issue setteled. Tobyk777 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No, issue not settled. Colour. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I keep seeing stuff on the talk page for WP:TS, such as Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Enforcement, that show there isn't a strong consensus for this enforcement of colors in the templates. You can keep pushing the issue if you want to, but it won't get anywhere. -- Ned Scott 00:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I already said: the color is standarized with other stargate templates, not with other projects templates. It can't be both and the way we have it is better. Tobyk777 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That is not a solution. The whole rest of Wikipedia has precedence over the preference of some little WikiProject. I'll tell you what, if you can find another Project banner with different colours, I'll leave you alone. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a disputed guide is the "whole rest of Wikipedia" (hell, you're the only person to ever say anything about this to us anyway. And the only reason the other banners aren't different colors is because those people aren't as cool as us and you know it!....just kidding. Seriously, it's our template, we can do with it what we please. If the color coordination becomes an actual policy and is not being disputed like crazy, as this one is now, then we will gladly change it. Until that happens I ask that you leave us alone ;-) (I'm trying to be especially light-hearted here lol). Konman72 07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted this message on Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Take a look at this: "While this is not a firm policy, it is advised that any new talk page templates should be based on the standard design."

WikiProject Stargate is a well organized WikiProject that does a very good job of using tasteful and useful design choses in templates and articles. They feel that using a different color works better for their project, and have discussed the issue of the color choice before. The group has a large consensus and valid rational for being excluded from the color requirement, while meeting other requirements. For a guideline, this is about as far as it can go. If you want them to change it then you'll have to upgrade this page to policy or try to convince them in discussion. -- Ned Scott 12:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Final check to agree on list reorganisation

Please see here.

I've discussed this reorganisation of the SG-database's lists with Andromeda and a few others, and I think we've got it about right now. It should help to make things easier, and they can be more easily added to templates.

Just a final check: does a significant majority agree to this mass-renaming and re-ordering?--Alfakim-- talk 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree, it all looks excellent to me. Konman72 07:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree on all points, again. Lockesdonkey 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Strongly The lists are a mess. I also propose that we make a List of Stargate Lists. Who agrees? Tobyk777 15:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    Good idea, I'll add it to the above.--Alfakim-- talk 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    is there/could there be a list of all stargate articals or would that be too long?Nicoli nicolivich 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Nicoli nicolivich 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a list of all Stargate articles would be Good. Tobyk777 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a majority then :) - i'll do this now.--Alfakim-- talk 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lifespan of the Ancients

Hi, I just noticed on the Ancient (Stargate) page, it never actualy states how long the lifespan of the anceints was. (Before acension) I was about to add this info when I realized that I didn't know it. In "Frozen" it was hintted that they could live millions of years, and since Ancients tend to remeber their entire history this would be supported. But, was it ever actualy stated how long unacended Ancients could live? Tobyk777 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you quote the part the hints that? The frozen ancient in Frozen lived in a dormant state for millions of years, but that doesn't say anything about their normal lifespan - it was effectively stasis. I don't think there has been any mention of their lifespan, so I'd guess it was close to ours, but that's pure speculation. --Tango 03:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I remeber fraiser saying something similar to (but not the exact quote): "She was in stasus for millions of years, but a life form with her regenerative propoerties could concevably live much longer than that." Tobyk777 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Oma Desala?

I just started the Ancient characters in Stargate article by merging in all the individual ancient biographies, except for Oma Desala. I'm not sure if she should be merged or not. Is the most important Ancient to date, but her article is not that long. Opinions? --Andromeda 02:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think her article is long enough to be separate. I think Orlin should have his own article (major character in multiple episodes qualifies him, I think), and Merlin probably should - at least I'm expecting much more info during this series of Atlantis, so we should have enough for a full article soon. --Tango 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think Oma's article is borderline long enough. It could go either way. Merlins should be in a list now, but might later become long enough. On the other hand, I think some Goa'uld might need some merging. Like Amaterasu and some others. Tobyk777 04:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Orlin has only appeared twice, I think he's better in the list page. While his role was big in both episodes, there's not that much information about him. I agree that, for now, Merlin should be in the list, with the option to break him off later if, and only if, needed. After all, one of the points of this is to have less pages with less chances of AfD. I'll keep Oma separated for now. Thanks! --Andromeda 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stargate WP barnstar ribbon

If you get the Stargate barnstar, yet use ribbons on your user page, the following ribbon has been created by Zscout370. I think we owe him little thank yous... :) - LA @ 07:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:StargateWP barnstar ribbon.png