This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stargate, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Stargate franchise 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.
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.
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)
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. – sgeurekat•c 11:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much promotional stuff, but that's a reason to cleanup, which anyone can do. – sgeurekat•c 10:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 outGateWorld 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)
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)
As GateWorld has insufficient evidence of having received "significant coverage in reliablesecondary 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)
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.
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.
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)