Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Future of technology articles/lists

The fictional technology of the Stargate universe is currently covered in the following lists and articles:

Fiction lists have so far always been kept at AfDs, but it seems the tide is turning, as there were a couple of AfDs for fictional item lists of popular franchises recently:

If an AfD for the SG tech articles and lists came up, I don't know how good their chances would be to avoid deletion nowadays. From my reviewing of countless sources for the current Stargate SG-1 article, I did not come across much actual real-world discussion (production, impact, relevance) of SG tech – SG mythology, on the other hand, garnered plenty of attention from scholars and some from the producers. I'd guess Stargate (device), List of starships in Stargate, List of Earth starships in Stargate and likely Atlantis (Stargate) have the highest potential to be improved to WP:GA or WP:FL quality (I am confident I have enough non-trivial real-world info to improve the first three to GA or FL myself) and therefore do likely not have to fear much from an AfD. But the rest has little raison d'être apart from a section here and there.

A solution could be to stop focusing on listing technology for the sake of listing them, and instead remove technology that has self-explanatory titles ("Life signs detector", "Memory device", "Pain stick"), remove technology that has no relevance for the overarching plot ("Tacuchnatagamuntoron", "Nish'ta"), and merge one-time technology ("Ark of Truth", "Vocuum") or arch- or race-specific technology ("Thor's Hammer", "Sangraal", "Attero device") into the prose of respective episode summaries or the arch/race article where relevant. There would only be a few fictional technology items that should be covered in a little more depth elsewhere ("Zero Point Module" or "Naquada" come to mind), and those could e.g. be covered in Mythology of Stargate in their own sections. Scholars have also focused on the military aspect of SG-1, so weapons and parts of Earth technology in Stargate may be covered in a new Military in Stargate article if done right. There would be technical need for a separate technology article/list anymore.

Mind you, I have no problem admitting my lack of interest in technology (both real-world tech and fictional) and therefore am much harder on this topic than than other fans would be. I also do not have the time to do anything with the SG tech articles before I have finished a lot of other wiki work. But I want to initiate this wikiproject to think about the future of its articles before the community sets a seven-day limit to decide their fate. A first step is to ask how many editors here have strong attachments to the stand-alone technology lists and would oppose any move to get rid of them (as I said, the mentionworthy content would be merged elsewhere). – sgeureka t•c 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like technology (both fictional and real) but I tend to agree with you. We really don't need lots of miscellaneous lists, and tidying them up would be a good idea. Like you, however I also have a bias, but in my case it's a bias against lists of trivia on wikipedia in general. Whatever we do we don't add to miscellany and trivia like this: List of fictional ducks. Personally I don't think that it's particularly encyclopedic, so merging them into more substantial articles sounds like nothing but a good idea to me. VJ (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the technologies in Stargate as well. And I amy have some good ideas to trim them (since I once spent lots of time trimming the Ancient tech page, and now it has grown again;
  1. Keep all the main technolgies, merge the one-time ones to the episodes/characters, and then merge the technology articles to Technology in Stargate.
  2. Some of the main technologies from the series were found on the spaceships (hyperdrives, shields, Asgard plasma beam weapons), so those technologies can be merged to the spaceship articles.
  3. Keep the guns, since there is some real-world info out there (I know from an Atlantis DVD extra somewhere that they use P90s because the bullet cartridges go down, instead of flying everywhere and hit people, and in some other extra, they use certain blanks to avoid fire risks)
  4. Concerning the techs that would stay like Naquadah, there could be just a sentence or so about Naquadriah, since I remember is the upgraded version.
  5. The Stargate article should stay, since that is the most important part of the series of all, and there are some real-world info there, though it could still do with trimming here and there.
I hope this could be of some help. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I like your second point, which I hadn't considered at all. But what do you suggest a common sense exclusion criterion for your version of (main) Technology in Stargate? I've had a similar thought of keeping one tech list around, but even renaming the article List of recurring technology in Stargate still leaves a crufty-looking 100kB list behind, or leaves the floodgates open for unexperienced fans to expand it again (my first cut-and-paste-and-nottrimmed attempt of a recurring tech list in Feb09). I agree on the rest of your points. – sgeureka t•c 07:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we can just explain the main technologies in just a maximum of two or three sentences. For instance, though we could reword it;
  • Drone weapons are cross projectile/energy weapons designed to cut through and destroy its targets including starships. They are found on various Ancient outposts and ships, and require an individual with the ATA gene to fire them. The Ancients once experimented on a mini version.
I also have no objection to removing the self-explanatory techs, including the drone weapons dare I say :) The way I see it, if the tech is to have just one page, for the Ancient tech section, the technologies that could stay would be ZPMs, drones, ATA gene and the Dakara superweapon, maybe a couple more? I also like your idea of arcing technolgies, like Janus's work. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I have just been going through the list on Earth technology in Stargate. This is what I have considered, just a thought;
  • Real or semi real – keep
  • Anti-Prior device – seems self-explanatory, though it could be merged to Ori (Stargate)
  • Anti-Wraith retrovirus – keep to an odd sentence or two?
  • Anti-Replicator gun – merge to Replicator Disruptor
  • ATA gene therapy – merge to ATA gene
  • Chimera – insignificant, remove/merge to "Covenant" and "Bounty"
  • Dialing computer – merge to Stargate (device)
  • FRED – seems insignificant, could remove to which episode it comes
  • GDO – merge to Stargate
  • Iris – merge to Stargate
  • Holographic projectors – insignificant, remove/merge to "Smoke and Mirrors"
  • Kull disruptor – not decided, could keep to just one sentence or two
  • Locator beacon – seems self-explanatory
  • McKay-Carter Intergalactic Gate Bridge – merge to Stargate
  • MALP – keep
  • Naquadah generator – seems self-explanatory, merge to naquadah?
  • Nuclear weapons – most seem one-off technologies, could remove
  • Portable scanners – seems insignificant, remove
  • Prior Plage vaccine – merge to Ori, just give it a mention there?
  • PWARW – insignificant, one off, mentioned only, remove
  • Railgun – ship based tech, merge to the starship articles
  • Spacecraft – merge to Earth starships in Stargate or remove altogether
  • Staff blast armour – not mentioned much, so it could be removed
  • X-699 – one-off, merge to "Bounty"
If this happens to the other technology by Goa'uld/Ancients articles, it could work to be cut down to around 5-10kb each. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the list. One thing we should be careful of, however, is that some tech that's self-explanatory: e.g Anti-replicator gun is only self-explanatory if you know what a replicator is, so we'll have to be extra careful to work at this from an out of universe perspective. It might make more sense to merge all anti-replicator weapons to the main replicator article, all anti Wraith weapons to the main Wraith article etc. The Stargate (device) article is very notable (many non fans might not know the show but they'll recognise a stargate) so I agree with the keep there, but obviously move Iris, DHD, GDO, Dialing computer and any stuff like that there, and create re-directs. VJ (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think that techs that are self-explanatory that are unknown to non-SG fans (if they have an interest to read SG related articles) should deserve a mention of somesort. But techs like "portable scanner" can go, because that is obviously self-explantory and even the non-fans would know what it is (it is a scanner that's portable). -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're all in agreement I'm going to make a start on removing some of this stuff. I'll start on the Ancient technology in Stargate article as that has such gems as "healing device", which er... heals people, and a "life signs detector" which shockingly detects lifesigns VJ (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. It might help though for later if you could make a list of fictional tech elements that you removed (1) to give a transparent overview of what has been done and (2) to later find the redirects which should be retargeted, or be removed from articles and then be RfDed. You could use the talkpage of the main tech list or of the tech sublist for that. – sgeureka t•c 11:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done that, I've also provided links to the relevant diff should someone want to take something I've deleted and merge it with an episode article, or restore it if they disagree with me. Furthermore, God that article's a mess. Once I'm finished removing the junk and moving sections out, I'm only going to be left with the ZPM, Control chair, Hyperdrives (which should possibly be in the spacecraft article) and various weapons and little else. If the other lists are the same, I can see it all tech being merged into three articles Technology in stargate, Weapons in Stargate and Spacecraft in Stargate. Where we can put the major recurring tech, It appears as if everything else can be farmed out to the episode articles, or deleted. VJ (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, on my sandbox I have managed to have experimented and turned the Earth technology in Stargate article to this. Note it is just around 5kb. Do you guys think it's alright or am I taking this to far? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good Mathew, the Ancient Tech article will probably end up that short as well, as I said in my previous comment. Perhaps we should merge all the Tech articles into down into three Good ones instead of the mess we have now VJ (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I envision the race articles to be turned into story arc articles down the road (not much unlike Stargate SG-1#Plot overview), which wouldn't require that much of change. Therefore, I'd argue that Anti-Prior Device could be merged into Ori (Stargate)#Priors, and Anti-Wraith Retrovirus could be merged into Wraith (Stargate). Naquadah generators seems very much related to Naquadah, where it could be easily mentioned. MALP is one of the more notable Earth technologies, but I wonder whether it couldn't also find a home at Stargate (device) or Stargate Program. I am completely unsure what to do with Locator beacons - the name is already self-explanatory, and if I remember correctly, it's also only used by SG teams (e.g. the part of Stargate Program discussing the SG teams might be a suitable merge target), and it's only used to beam the SG teams or objects up to Earth spaceships and probably only the Deadalus-class ships (i.e. List of Earth starships in Stargate as a merge target). – sgeureka t•c 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you are on about now. I am neutral about merging the Earth technologies to other articles. Though to be honest, this is about my umpteenth attempt on how to reply, and I have no idea what else to say for now. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stargate episode infobox

{{Infobox Stargate episode
| Image    = [[Image:Example.png|250px]]
| Caption = John Sheppard arrives in Atlantis
| serial_name        = Rising
| show               = SGA
| type               = serial
| writer             = [[Robert C. Cooper]] and [[Brad Wright]]
| director           = [[Martin Wood]]
| script_editor      = 
| producer           = [[MGM]] and [[Sci Fi Channel (United States)|Sci Fi Channel]]?
| executive_producer = [[Brad Wright]] and [[Robert C. Cooper]]
| production_code    = 101 and 102
| cast                  = 
* [[Joe Flanigan]] as [[John Sheppard (Stargate)|John Sheppard]]
* [[Rachel Luttrell]] as [[Teyla Emmagan]]
* [[Rainbow Sun Francks]] as [[Aiden Ford]]
* [[Torri Higginson]] as [[Elizabeth Weir (Stargate)|Elizabeth Weir]] 
* [[David Hewlett]] as [[Rodney McKay]]
| budget             = 5 million [[USD]]
| tv rating = 3.2 in [[Nielsen Rating]]<br>0.9 in Syndication Rating
| music              = [[Joel Goldsmith]]
| guests             =  
* [[Robert Patrick]] as [[Marshall Sumner]]
* [[Richard Dean Anderson]] as [[Jack O'Neill]]
* [[Michael Shanks]] as [[Daniel Jackson (Stargate)|Daniel Jackson]]
* [[Ona Grauer]] as [[Ayiana]]
* [[Paul McGillion]] as [[Carson Beckett]]
* [[Craig Veroni]] as [[Peter Grodin]]
* [[Garwin Sanford]] as Simon
* [[Christopher Heyerdahl]] as [[Athosian characters in Stargate Atlantis#Halling|Halling]]
* [[Dan Shea (actor)|Dan Shea]] as [[Siler (Stargate)|Siler]]
* [[Reece Thompson]] as [[Athosian characters in Stargate Atlantis#Jinto|Jinto]]
* [[Dean Marshall]] as [[Bates (Stargate)|Bates]]
* [[James Lafazanos]] as Wraith
* [[Andee Frizzell]] as [[Wraith characters in Stargate Atlantis#Hive Keeper|The Keeper]]
| length             = 43min (each episode)<br>86min (put together)
| date               = July 16, 2004
| ended              = 
| preceding          = 
| following           = "[[Hide and Seek (Stargate Atlantis)|Hide and Seek]]"
| Episode list = [[Stargate Atlantis (season 1)|List of season 1 episodes]]<br>[[List of Stargate Atlantis episodes|List of ''Stargate Atlantis'' episodes]]
}}

Recently, Trust Is All You Need created a new episode infobox specifically for Stargate-related episodes. While the effort is appreciated, I have removed the infoboxes for now pending the outcome of this discussion. By implementing this, we end up with what is effectively a fork of the standard box, which means that any improvements to that template have to be manually identified and updated in the SG 'box. As well, it appears that some of the fields in the SG-specific box are non-standard, which adds a needless level of complexity to the process without any substantial benefit. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, TIAYN has now (twice) restored the infoboxes, despite a request to discuss first, so I'll wait to hear what others think before removing it again. --Ckatzchatspy 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I want to discuss, but i don't understand why you would remove them NOW, when you could do it when wer are finished with this discussion. You are also removing promotional episode images which i uploaded. Why remove? --TIAYN (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Image deletion was inadvertent, as demonstrated by several of the pages where I incorporated content changes other than the template call. Apologies if I missed something. However, given the concerns over the template, it is more appropriate to remove it and discuss, as it can always be reinstated if consensus dictates. (Otherwise, it might be added to more pages during the course of the discussion, which would only complicate removal.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm generally not in favour of forked infoboxes of any kind. Somewhere in the archives is the discussion where we abandoned a Stargate-specific character infobox for the standard {{infobox character}}. (a) I (and others, apparently) prefer the standardization across the Wikipedia, (b) For the technical reasons Ckatz brought up, and (c) it makes things easier for people not familiar with the project to work on project-covered articles if we don't have special variables and criteria for our articles.

As for the potential edit warring going on; why don't both participants stop here and now and just discuss? Remember, there's no wrong version. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a reason for Stargate characters removal, it was identical to the main character template... But the same can't be said about this template, it has different build up and different points on it such as Budget which the main don't have. Just to make it clear, most of the Stargate episode articles re-created after the merges of Sgeureka has been established by established users not newbees. As said the template is different, and many other "big" series' has their own episode templates, such as Template:Infobox The Wire episode and Template:Infobox Jericho episode among others. --TIAYN (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think my point of contention is that we don't need separate Stargate episode infobox. If it does have additional variables such as "budget" (which I can't find at Template:Infobox Stargate episode, btw), will those variables be used every time so as to necessitate their inclusion in an infobox? Do those variables specifically define the base of the episode in some fashion the default does not? Why do Stargate episodes need a separate template?

You're right, in that primarily WikiProject members have been editing the few remaining actual episode articles, but we don't want a new template with new/esoteric variables to be barriers to anybody who wishes to in the future. It's not a catastrophic point, I realize, but one nonetheless.

There's also the unaddressed technical aspects that Ckatz brought up.

Eschew obfuscation, I say. My 3¢. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need for this new 'box. Any additional information can be covered in the prose. An infobox is not intended to be the end-all resource for data, it is simply meant to summarise the key data points. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This infobox does not "end-all" resources, most of it is copied from the Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode, and as seen here, its more tidy then the original and another pluss is that you can edit this infobox. Seen as the main infobox is protected from being edited. All those section headers can be used perfectly. You can use all of those section without summarising to much which is what Huntster is afraid about... This is a simple infobox that is more tidy and is easier to control seen as the other one is close for editing. The Stargate franchise is a "Big" and evolving one, its getting new spin off series and is the longest running science fiction franchise in the US... This is one of the reason why IT should get its own infobox.... See at the Doctor Who episodes all of them uses the specific Doctor who episode templaet because as said before, wikiproject members are those that usually creates these templates... And if you are a member of this project it will make sure its easy to notice this infobox. --TIAYN (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On the right you see the Stargate episode template in work.

Erm, my point was that your infobox contains too much information. The reason the main infobox is protected is precisely to keep editors from adding more and more fields. Bloat is bad, which is why I oppose this 'box. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Stargate is a long-running franchise doesn't seem to hold off much weight since compared to the likes of Star Trek and Battlestar among others, Stargate is a pretty obscure and ignored one. I too oppose this box for the same reason as Huntster, that there's too much information, and with that, then there seems to be not much point in the production (apart from behind-the-scenes) and reception (apart from reviews) sections, which is bad. So far, it seems that only the infobox's creator, while the other users in this discussion seem to oppose it. As far as the wikiproject members are those that usually creates these templates goes, in most cases, just about all the members are on board for the idea, but in this case, most of us seem against it. At the end, the consensus may be that the infobox isn't worthy of keeping. Also, certain articles (like Lifeline) are currently a GAN, so the reviewer may also say something negatively towards the infobox. If that does happen during the review, I will swtich back to the conventional infobox. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Lemme try and keep myself from getting tl;dr. (a) It's a very nice infobox. (b) Some aspects of it would be awesome if implemented in {{infobox television episode}}. (c) I don't think they're likely to be, although I would certainly support the initiative. (d) I want to maintain aesthetic and technical cohesion with the Wikipedia. That other people aren't doesn't really concern me at this juncture. (e) The inclusion of additional fields is not enough for me to discount d. (f) I am not trying to dissuade further discussion, far from it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Gateworld Stargate fandom?

Main page: Talk:Stargate Fandom § Requested move

Something that someone should take a look at - Trust Is All You Need has competely moved and merged Gateworld into one article now called Stargate Fandom - this seems inappropriate - the article on the website alone seemed fine and was well referenced, and while I can see a mention along with a link in this "fandom" article would be appropriate, completely taking over the page history of the original seems excessive. Comments? I'm tempted to move things back to their original locations... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't think I have any objections to the combination. The website article had 10 references, five of which were primary sources, and one was plainly unreliable as a Yahoo! Group. As a standalone article it seems rather tenuous for meeting the muster of Wikipedia:Notability, but this combined article is an apropos place for information about the website, and builds upon it to make a larger, more appropriate article. My 3¢ — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TheRealFennShysa Gateworld and Stargate Fandom should be separate articles. Powergate92Talk 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, the reliable sources available for GateWorld are very, very slim.
  • "GateWorld.net is to Stargate followers what the ancient circular rings are to the premise of the show: a portal (duh!). Back in 1999, SG-1 fanatic and recent college grad Darren Sumner founded the fansite out of his tiny apartment. Since then, it's become the most respected Stargate gathering spot on the Web — 19,000 people are registered members."
  • "There are fan websites like the amazingly-detailed Gateworld..."
  • "... GateWorld was honored as Best Genre Web Site."
  • Mallozzi's blog: "I have always been a supporter of Gateworld and consider it the premiere site for Stargate fans online. In fact, I was the one who suggested to MGM Marketing several years back, that they look toward establishing some sort of working relationship with Darren and Gateworld. As I explained to Darren in a recent email – My comment in yesterday’s blog entry was not intended as a blast at Gateworld, but as an example of how fan expectations can be raised or unintentionally misguided by a misinterpretation of the source. Gateworld’s attributing of the non-existent quote was simply another link in a developing chain. While I could have contacted them about the article in question, at that point it was already too late. It had been published and my apparent words officially reinforced. The point of my commentary was not to critique Gateworld but to go on record now, before the episode airs, and make it clear that I had been misquoted. Asking for a quiet retraction would not have solved the problem."
That's it. Everything else is a primary source to the website itself or its forums, or an unreliable source like Yahoo Groups. While I understand the desire to have an article devited to the website, we need to make sure it meets the muster of the Notability guideline, just like our episodic articles do.

For a comparison, check out Talk:Memory Alpha; that article has 29 secondary sources and has had six AfD nominations, one of which was a redirect, but was overturned at DRV. I'm not saying "if they can have an article, so can we", so much as "they have twenty-nine! reliable, secondary sources versus our three-to-four and look how much contention there has been there." I think we should assume good faith on TIAYN's part, and see how this topical article turns out. My 3¢ — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if anyone has an interesting in finding more potential sources for a Gateworld article, I suggest you start here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I've checked the Google archives some times now and i can't find a thing... --TIAYN (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you were looking at, since the link I gave above shows about 300 mentions of GateWorld in other media sources. Of course I can't vouch for the quality/reliability/etc of those sources, but it is a place to start. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
All the articles goes in the same manor, they state from a report from GateWorld, according to GateWorld... etc. They don't actually talk about GateWorld but GateWorld's reports. --TIAYN (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
THe GateWorld article was merged because of lack of notability... The article itself could never become a GA of any kind because of lack of notability outside the Stargate community. The Stargate franchise already lacks media coverage, what makes you think that they are than going to coverage GateWorld? (no harm ment) When merging it into Stargate Fandom we can include much more information from reliable third party sources, which mean if we work hard enough it can become a GA. It's a chance to include the GateWorld article itself, since its notable enough to have its own section but not its own article..--TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
If that's the case, you should have either redirected the Gateworld artcile to a new article at Stargate Fandom, or put the original up for deletion, if you believe it to be that non-notable. As it is, you've made a mess of things, in regards to edit histories. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, i'll give you a point for that one.... but still the article should stay were it is!--TIAYN (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Gateworld and Stargate Fandom should be separate articles per WP:OFFTOPIC as Stargate fandom is "a community of people actively interested in the military science fiction film Stargate and the television shows" and GateWorld is "an English-language news site-based webpage for British-Canadian-American science fiction shows". Powergate92Talk 18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As GateWorld has insufficient evidence of having received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (meeting the Notability guideline), the information should preferably go somewhere (see WP:PRESERVE). I think it fits fine in the fandom article as the website is an evidence of the topic; however, merging it into the overarching Stargate article would also make sense. For now, since TIAYN is still working on the fandom article, I think we should assume good faith and see how it turns out before demanding its dismantling. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
GateWorld is a fansite (and new site) but most recogzised as a fansite, meaning it those fit in the Stargate Fandom article. --TIAYN (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove tag at List of Stargate Infinity episodes

I added the refimprove tag to the List of Stargate Infinity episodes article as the article needs more references per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research but Trust Is All You Need keeps removing the refimprove tag saying "You don't need references for episode summaries" see my talk page and his talk page. Powergate92Talk 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this is related to a particular article, how about it get discussed centrally at Talk:List of Stargate Infinity episodes? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody really cares about Stargate Infinity, its kind of "Ground zero" of some sort... --TIAYN (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggest we delete all reference of it from wikipedia and pretend it never existed? :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
hehe, good one --TIAYN (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92's disturbing edits

Powergate92 is adding reference tags to all the main stargate pages without having a clue of what he is doing. He is even adding ref improvement tags on FL's and the Stargate SG-1 page which is the best sourced article in the stargate wikiproject. Powergate92 has this belief that we should reference plot overviews, while not a dumb idea, it has never been done, see Lost (TV series) and Star Wars, which are both two featured articles. Can somebody talk to him, he is not listening to reason. --TIAYN (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not listening to reason no your not listening to reason! As i said on your WP:Verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}." and WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research" there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says plot overview don't need to be referenced. Also after i am done here i will report you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for removing the refimprove tag, removing references (see this edit) and edit warring. Powergate92Talk 18:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Call it WP:IAR, if you like. A plot summary is obviously sourced from the fictional work itself, it serves no purpose to make that explicit. --Tango (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority if not all of the wiki articles follow my rules, you can't expect Stargate related articles are going to be the only ones that follows your stupid guidelines can you? --TIAYN (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Also your rules are not the Wikipedia rules. Powergate92Talk 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Powergate over here is not listening to reason, while i see the need for guidelines. I follow how FA are written and all them share on thing in common. Plot or overview section are not referenced, while i know this goes against the guidelines. It seems to me that this particurlar one is not followed. I've asked powergate92 to start a discussion about this many times, but he denies and rejects and wants to continue edit warring instead. My reason for doing this, is that most of those rules when referencing guidelines and list of episode articles are that the majority of them are refernced the same way i reference them. See FA Star Wars, Doctor Who and Lost (TV series) among others. Here are FL List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Lost episodes and List of Doctor Who episodes. All those FA and FL and more are referenced the same way i reference them, but he is bent on following these guidelines which no one follows, at least the majority as i've noticed.

Just a note, i'm note the only one that disagrees with this guys edits, an example is this. I would love to discuss this, so we can get to a conclusion about this guidelines which is not being followed. So any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not guidelines these are Wikipedia policys. Powergate92Talk 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Which are not followed by the majority of the wikipedia community. --TIAYN (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming that this argument is about no references on the plot overview? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well more, but the most important being not referencing the episodes sections in the season articles and list of .... episodes articles and plot overiews in main articles and episode articles among others. We should not reference either of these because the majority of FL and FA content does not reference this way. According to Powergate92 its a wikipedia policiy, but as i've noticed with these FL and FA's no one seem to care about that rule, its seems to have been forgotten or simple been seen as idiotic. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Certain policies maybe ingnored and stupid, but they are there. I'm not saying a totally agree with Powergate, but the user does have a point. As far as plot is concerned, this little thing I found states that "plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." However, users could argue that this guideline refers to the episodes, but I think this does deserve some merit. WP:Verifiability doesn't give out context to fiction in general, but does refer to more or less everything. I sense that there may not be an end to this discussion anytime soon. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

CRUFT - removal suggestions

Bah, the cruft just never ends!

Kull Warriors were no more than a plot arc. They don't deserve a place in the main stargate template, and nor do they deserve an article!

Ancient technology · Earth technology · Goa'uld technology · Starships (Atlantis · Earth ships) --- all of these should just be Technology in Stargate. NOT NOTABLE ARTICLES! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather disagree...even in their minimal forms, there is still enough material to justify separate articles. One single article would be far too big. Just because there's a lot of material doesn't necessarily mean there is always excess cruft...just that there is a lot of material to cover. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There is already a discussion on this before. The Kull warrior article has real-world behind the scenes info, and hence not that crufty. The technology articles I agree with, but merging them together would mean the page would be far too big. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd merge them together and majorly cut them down. Seriously, the most we're looking at is a line or two per notable piece of technology. It's FICTION, guys! --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how much out-of-world stuff you add to a crufty article, the very idea of the article is crufty, and hence it's cruft. It's cruft on notability grounds, not verifiability grounds. Kull Warriors just aren't important. They're a minor plot arc in one season of a science fiction show. It's just not worthy of a whole article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Stargate Infinity characters

Do we need a List of Stargate Infinity characters article as that article has the same info that is in the Cast and characters section of Stargate Infinity article. Powergate92Talk 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there seems a need to it, no, since the page is just cut 'n' pasted from the characters section on the Infinity article. Unless someone with knowledge on Infinity could expand on it somehow, then I believe it should be merged again to the Infinity article. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Definitely merge the list back into the main article. Too small and non-notable to stand on its own. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I just merged the List of Stargate Infinity characters article back into the Stargate Infinity article. Powergate92Talk 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot

I think we should start using a archive bot to archive discussions that are 31 days old or older as most other WikiProject's use a archive bot. Powergate92Talk 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-open Stargate portal

I wish and to re-open the Stargate portal, but i need support from you guys. can i get some? --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was closed was because it was badly out of date. I also feel it is fairly redundant given the fairly small number of articles we now have, thanks to Sgeureka and other's excellent cleanup efforts, and fairly unnecessary, given there is only SGU upcoming...right now, there isn't even any firm info on future movies. If you want to reopen it, there has to be some statement or agreement that you or others will be responsible for keeping it up to date. Otherwise, it'll simply be killed off again. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Stargate portal re-opened or not? There does not seem to be a consensus regarding its current status, so can we reach one? Black Sabre (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Stargate Universe (SGU) episodes edits by Powergate92

Why do we need to remove the tabel on this page? Powergate02 sais we need to because of a GateWorld source which is not even "sure", which is evident by two things, the first: it starts with a "may". The second:the writer, David Read said:

"Folks, please remember that this is yet to be confirmed. I placed a question mark in the title because it has yet to be verified — not because I wrote it in disbelief. Just keep it in mind, it is still early and there is no guarantee until a formal announcement is made."

There are no reason to remove the tabel! --TIAYN (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, I removed the tabel because it violates WP:No original research. Powergate92Talk 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Also I did not say I removed the tabel "because of a GateWorld source" I said "The DVD has not been announced yet so the info should not be in the article. Also this article from Gateworld says that Stargate Universe season 1 may be release in "two separate DVD sets" volume one and volume two." Powergate92Talk 21:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning Discussion

A discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#SPOILER ALERT disclaimers discussing whether spoiler alerts should be added to all articles that cover a fictional topic or if spoilers should be removed by removing all plot summaries from all articles, except for any sentences that can be sourced to secondary sources only. Note this message was originally posted at other WikiProjects by User:Collectonian. Powergate92Talk 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I get a little help here.

You may have noticed the long string of edits to List of starships in Stargate by Aircraft Enginer (talk)/Aircraft Enginer (contribs). This user keeps removing deletion notices and keeps uploading non-free images for the article. Are we going to clean up this mess now or wait until the image deletion date of 27 November to clean up? [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've performed a mass-reversion of all his image additions and other changes. I'll leave a warning on his talk page later regarding this mess. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Aircraft Engineer apparantly hasn't heard of the concept of discussing. If this continues, I think the only long-term solution to prevent this is to block him for edit warring. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I've left a "final warning" message on the talk page. I'll begin deleting these images in a few days. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and response. :D [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Gate glyphs in episode lists?

I recently removed the gate glyphs at List of Stargate Universe episodes, but was reverted. Then I realized that similar glyphs are on the other episode lists too. This seems like a clear case of fancruft. Appropriate for the Stargate wiki perhaps, but not nearly notable enough to include in a 2-3 sentence description of an episode. Is there any possible encyclopedic value to listing these? Staecker (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside from "fancruft", I don't see any reason to remove them since they're interesting, informative, and sourced. The images're libre-licensed, they're accurately sourced to the episodes themselves, and current/long-standing consensus is that we prefer them in the articles as opposed to not. I'm not adverse to discussing it, but I don't see any terribly compelling reasons to remove them from the lists of episodes at this time. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well the cruft issue is exactly what I'm talking about. Why not list the the number of times per episode that the stargate is used? How about the number of times that the word "chevron" is spoken? How about the social security number of every character on the show, or some such other random information? WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the glyphs (or any of these other made-up ideas) are about as indiscriminate as it gets. As for long-standing consensus, I'm suggesting that it be re-examined. Have there been discussions of this issue before? Staecker (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Answering my own question: the glyph templates were discussed on this page at this archive and at a TfD here. To clarify- I don't think the templates need to be deleted- I just think it's ridiculous to list the addresses in each episode. Staecker (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree though that it's indiscriminate information, and moreso that it's "random information". The central premise of the Stargate series is travel to different worlds via the Stargate; displaying the identifying information for those different planets in the unique manner as the show isn't "as indiscriminate as it gets". Now, while they're not necessary (and I don't think anybody would argue they are), they add something special, some flair if you will, to the Stargate LOEs.

They're libre-licensed, reliably sourced, they don't seem to fail any policies or guidelines, and we (members here, and other editors who've contributed) think they add quality to the LOEs. Their "cruftiness" is both a matter of opinion (of which yours, I respect) and directively undefined outside of Wikipedia essays, and I don't see anything in "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" that would support their removal. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider this from the first ep of SG-U:
"During an official visit to top secret base Icarus, an attack is made, forcing the team to evacuate. Before they could evacuate to Earth, Dr. Nicholas Rush dials the nine chevron address ( ), sending them to Destiny , an Ancient starship located billions of lightyears from Earth."
I believe that the glyphs do not add quality to this listing. They are totally distracting, especially considering the big red question marks. Here's what the inclusion of these glyphs connote to me: "ZOMG I can't see all teh glyphz0rZ!" As a reader of this fine encyclopedia, this looks to me like some fanboi game rather than encyclopedic content which is meant to be brief and informative. I assume I'm not going to agree with THOR (much respect), are there any other opinions? Staecker (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some glyphs to help start more discussion here. If not, maybe RfC? Staecker (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait; both contributors from previous discussions as well as myself have disagreed with you on this matter and feel they should remain, so you went ahead and removed them anyways? That's a rather blatant contravention of consensus. I've replaced their bold removals (see WP:BRD), especially as you inaccurately categorized them as "inappropriate" when it's only by your determination that they're such; either continue discussion here and engender the support you desire, or accept the maintenance of the status quo. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK- maybe a bad idea on my part. I was just trying to draw more eyes to this discussion which I thought had stalled. Of course I know that the consensus is against me so far, and of course "inappropriate" is my opinion. Really I'm not trying to make more enemies here, just trying to get more input. We'll see if RfC brings any more opinions. Staecker (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See above discussion and previous related discussions here and here- Episode lists for various Stargate series (e.g. Stargate SG-1 (season 1), Stargate Atlantis (season 1), and similar) contain "stargate addresses" for various planets. These are sequences of unpronounceable symbols (free-licenced svg graphics) which can (sometimes) be seen on screen during the episode while the stargate is dialing the address. Are the symbols themselves appropriate for inclusion in the episode lists? Staecker (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose use of these icons. The Wikipedia-wide general consensus is that iconic widgets like this are a terrible, terrible, terrible idea in the middle of article prose, and usually a poor idea even outside of prose, as codified at WP:MOSICON, a stable guideline for quiote some time now (predating the creation of these icons and their related templates). The SG WikiProject coming to some localized "micro-consensus" doesn't change any of that at all, and guidelines trump project preferences about 99 times out of 100. These icons don't mean jack to anyone but the most severely obsessed SG fans (and I say that lovingly as an SG fan). They certainly serve no encyclopedic purpose; try the Stargate Wiki instead. The templates spewing the icons into article prose are also being TfD'd. Furthermore, just because the SVG images are "freely licensed" doesn't get us off the hook; those SVGs are derivative works of the copyrighted creative output of the SG film's and series' production departments, and as such they are copyright violations. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
User:SMcCandlish has brought the templates to a TfD. If you are familiar with the relevant WP policies and guidelines please read over his rationale and contribute to the discussion here. Staecker (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that for instances where describing the functions of the Gate and Gate addresses, displaying Gate symbols in the body of the text as an illustrative example is acceptable(i.e. "Two Stargates are connected by inputting the seven-symbol address of the destination Stargate (for example: insert 7 glyphs here). The first six symbols indicate the point in space the destination gate is located at, while the seventh indicates the point of origin: Earth's symbol for this is Earth glyph.") However, I am opposed to the inclusion of Gate addresses in episode or episode list articles, because it is visually distracting, interrupts the flow of text, and is essentially meaningless to all general readers and most fans. Declarations: I am coming in from the Signpost mention of this discussion. I am a Stargate fan, but not a regular editor of Stargate articles. -- saberwyn 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Technology in Stargate was up for deletion...

... at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in Stargate, but consensus was it should be kept. However, I am torn about the result since I think the concerns about overdetailedness and glossary-style were spot on. In particular, I think AFDs for the three sublists (Ancient technology in Stargate, Earth technology in Stargate, Goa'uld technology in Stargate) could end differently.

I believe (feel free to disagree) that all wikipedia articles should be improvable to either Good Article or Featured List to earn the right to exist. But Technology in Stargate can't be improved to Featured List since there is not much (if any) real world information per technology items to solve the in-universe problems. And a Good Tech in SG Article would need to be completely differently structured than the current article and talk about Concept&Design, with just the very important tech items (ZPM, MALP, Sarcophagus,...) listed at the end. Nearly all other tech items, if they are relevant at all, could be mentioned in prose in other contexts (Stargate (device), the Starship list, the race articles or in the episode lists). Yes, a lot of in-universe detail would appear to get lost, but isn't that the point (not to mention that the important info is still there, just elsewhere)?

This is just meant to be food for thought, as I don't have the time to implement the ideas. But I'd still like to see what other editors feel or if anyone would oppose vehemently. Or maybe someone else feels up to the task or has other/better ideas. – sgeureka t•c 21:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The individual race tech articles could/should be merged with the main article and everything trimmed down significantly to include just the primary, most used, best known tech. For these types of list articles, I'm not very concerned about presenting lots of real-world information, just limiting the presence of over-detail and minor stuff. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a replay of this, and like last time, I to agree with keeping the very important stuff, and remove the one-time items/items that are self explaining like lifesigns detector (they detect life signs, it's a no-brainer on what it does really). Also, all those technologies are still found on Wikia, so the fans who read the technology articles don't have to be disappointed. I suppose we could lay it out differently after the mergings, but I believe that may require an additional discussion, but that's just my opinion. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Content

Bringing to attention questionable content appearing across SG:U pages that are appearing heavily as fan-site and/or tabloid-like. Specifically, to cite as example, the "Controversy" section on the article Sabotage (Stargate Universe). Wiki serves as an encyclopedia and not as a fan-site or entertainment periodical (or gossip column) and inclusion of this sort of material, especially in the manner and method of its inclusion, detracts from the purpose of the article and degrades the overall quality and resource-value. If such information/inclusion is deemed necessary and crucial, it at minimum needs a major rewrite, overhaul, a lot of cross-reference and citation.

As the mentioned article alleges "Controversy" - what controversy existed outside of few livejournal blogs? This section in this article is especially biased and one-sided. Was there actual controversy among the communities of disabled individuals? What did disabled individuals have to state on the matter? Did any credible media outlets and sources have insight on the matter? Etc. As-is, this article appears to mainly dealing with solely internet "drama" and is misrepresenting.

There are also multiple other "minor" issues with this section (and the article proper) that need correction, such as the improper inclusion/inline citation of sources (URLs improperly included mid-sentence), the improper format for URLs (lacking http:// for example), etc. Bandlero (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Ancients/Ori

Did they reveal the home galaxy of the Ancients / Ori, in one of the SGU featurettes?

http://stargate.mgm.com/view/content/1666/index.html

The galaxy shown behind Jackson on the monitor when he speaks about the original home galaxy is image:M33.jpg the Triangulum Galaxy.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool :-) Morphh (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

List of stargate literature

The dates given by wikipedia are wrong for the publication of stargate books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.115.237 (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the dates are e.g. the UK publication dates, which can differ from US dates. If you have a reliable source for a date, you are encouraged to fix the dates (and cite the source). – sgeureka t•c 06:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS

I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV#Updates to the MOS. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stargate articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Stargate articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Guinness World Record

Hello, I've started a discussion over at WP:RSN that may be of interest: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GateWorld as a reliable source for Guinness World Record information? Maccy69 (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Naquadriah

Is Naquadriah supposed to be naturally occurring now? What with two Icarus-type planets, and Jonas Quinn's home world...

76.66.193.224 (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The first Icarus planet is status unknown. Quinn's world was naqada-rich, but was turned in to naqadrium by both 1) Goauld experiments, which started the conversion, and 2) the detonation of Quinn's country's fission weapon, which accelerated the process dramatically (I can't remember the episode number - it's been a couple of months since I watched SG1 through - but it's the one where they build the drill-looking tunnel-digger and have Vala Maldoran crawl through the tunnel at the end and detonate something on a fault line, I believe - I'm going to say it's in season 8, episode 18?) - so it was not ever stated as naturally occurring, and in the two cases where its origin was mentioned, it was explicitly stated as artificial in origin (although the one on Quinn's world is left unanswered for a season or two, until that episode mentioned above). I believe one can extrapolate from that and say that wherever it occurs, it's a sign of the intervention of technology, but not certainly enough to state it categorically in narrative voice without a canon source. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is support unopposed. Although a nominator, I haven't seen opposition. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This Project was active a while back. However, the last discussion was last year, and there was only one discussion last year. Well true, Stargate (film) was the first, but this is the only theatrical film out of all Stargate franchises. I'm thinking about turning this Project into a task force of WP:TV, but there is just a film... only one theatrical film. Still, I'm certain the franchise is mostly television. --George Ho (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WP:FLRC delist nomination

I have nominated List of Stargate SG-1 episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 18:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Wormholextreme.jpg

FYI, File:Wormholextreme.jpg has been nominated for deletion as having an invalid FUR. It appears to me that the article should be expanded to cover the image's subject, and provide commentary on the parodying of Stargate through the show-within-a-show vehicle in this episode Wormhole X-Treme!. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Stargate_task_force/Archive_12&oldid=1083275074"