Talk:Stargate fandom

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Stargate task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Timing

Does this mean 5:33am GMT? Simply south 17:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Please don't put entire links on the page, it results in the page looking messy and cluttered, please use [] on the ends of links Disturbed_uk 16:54, 11 January 2007

It mentions 2,000,000 million posts. Surely this should be just '2,000,000'?

GateWorld Play

Is anyone going to write anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.166.209 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica

I noticed that Gateworld covers news on Battlestar Galactica even though it is not Stargate related. Why is that?--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GateWorld has always covered other scifi shows. It was just in the early 2000s that the focus was changed to Stargate, but they are still reporting about the other shows on their respective subpages. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an ad

Umm, this article is an advertisement for a website. Is this allowed these days? I'm confused since an article of the same nature I posted once was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.169.144 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much promotional stuff, but that's a reason to cleanup, which anyone can do. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move to GateWorld. Move to Stargate fandom to correct capitalization. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Fandom → Gateworld — This article should be restored to its original title for the website Gateworld. A separate article should have been created for "Stargate Fandom", instead of co-opting this page's edit history. - TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support. I agree with TheRealFennShysa Gateworld and Stargate Fandom should be separate articles. Powergate92Talk 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It fails notability..... end of discussion..... If this article is merged again its goin to be deleted. This discussion is closed because of following guideline, Straw Poll Guidelines point 6: Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can obviously not be overridden by straw polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is ultimately pointless. GateWorld lacks notability so it can't be redirected folks --TIAYN (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've struck through your comment about the discussion being closed - I'm sorry, but that it not up to you to determine - especially since you've made edits canvassing for people to come here and vote. You are misinterpreing guidelines, since the survery section is part of the requested move procedure. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the A→B move request; the content at Stargate Fandom exceeds the umbrella of GateWorld, and would not belong therein. Further, I oppose spinning out GateWorld to its own article because it does not appear at this time to meet the nutshell description of the Notability guideline. Lastly, as to whether the content at GateWorld should have been moved or copied&pasted to its new home as opposed to moved seems moot now; although it seems to me that the move preserves the edit histories for contributors, allowing for lauding of their edits and further inquiries as to their sources should the need arise. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 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 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment whatever happens, the current name is wrong. Stargate fandom is the proper capitalization. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too true. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

There's precisely one bit of information, which one anonymous editor keeps trying to add, which doesn't belong here. Indefinite semi seems fine, since there's very little call to actually edit this article. I expect there are other articles which would be better cases t try out flagged revisions on. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stargate fandom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fan campaign

Seems it's fairly common, though not in the majority of cases when a TV series is cancelled, for hard-core fans to organize a campaign to keep it going. Ought we have an article about how that works?

Jim.henderson (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reliable sources that cover this? If so, sure. If not, probably not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]