Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

Poll - Split Complexities from Stargate (Device)

I've started a poll on Talk:Stargate (device) about whether we should split the complexities section into a new article. Please let us know what you think. --Tango 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Affiliation section on Template:Stargate Character

Self-explanatory. It's in most other character infoboxes; we'd be able to include connections to other characters (if necessary). Lockesdonkey 16:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Necessary?-- Alfakim --  talk  17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
For instance, for:
Right? Lockesdonkey 20:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, but too long for some characters, Kinsey himself for example. I don't really think is necessary--Andromeda 20:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How about renaming Rank to "Organistion (Rank)" and including any major affilitions there (eg. "US Senate (Senator)") - some characters can have multiple Organistions listed if neccessary. --Tango 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think it will be too long, look at some of the 24 characters' affiliations: Nina Myers is associated with CTU, Syed Ali, Max, and the Drazens; Charles Logan is associated with the White House terrorists, Christopher Henderson, and Graham. They get up to four. And that's basically the most any Stargate character will get, either. I'm pretty sure that this will work. Lockesdonkey 03:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: If you think that this will make the Infobox too long, well, Star Trek character infoboxes are EXTREMELY long, and in small font. Look at James T. Kirk; the infobox takes up the entire top-bottom length of my screen, WITHOUT THE PICTURE. Contrast that with the (fairly long for a Stargate character!) infobox for Daniel Jackson; the part without the picture barely takes up half of my screen. Lockesdonkey 04:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
And really sorry for this, but not unnecessary. Infoboxes are intended to be at-a-glance "the least you need to know" about a person, and a person's rank, appearances, portrayer, birthplace, gender, and race are simply not enough to give you that feeling. You need to know "Whose side is this guy on?" and things like that. With out these affiliations marked, Frank Simmons, Chekov, and Jack O'Neill look virtually identical; had O'Neill not been promoted and Chekov's birthplace not been Russia, they WOULD be identical, but for actors and appearances, which don't tell you much plotwise unless you're already very familiar with the show, in which case you already know everything in the infobox. Adding the affiliation puts the character in context, so that it's clear to a Stargate newbie what the character's connections to other characters are--and that is ALL of what matters in a show. Lockesdonkey 04:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Locke here, it would be a nice thing to have for an "at-a-glance" kinda thing. It helps clear some things up quickly. American Patriot 1776 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
So is anyone up to adding this field? I'll add the text on all the pages, but I don't know the complexities of Wiki markup, and doubt that I ever will. Lockesdonkey 03:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1) That other projects have long infoboxes doesn't mean we have to do the same. 2) I still don't think it's necessary. Perhaps a modification on the rank field may work, but I don't think we need a new field. But I'll accept the majority vote (and I mean a real majority, no 2 vs 1) --Andromeda 08:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Major Stargate Action on the French Wikipedia

I just wanted to point out that there is Stargate action on the french wp, almost as large as here. Look at their Stargate Portal. Also, I want to point out that Stargate device is a FA in Italian. Recently I have been annoyed by people saying this porject shouldn't exsit. I am just pointing this out as further evidence as to Stargate's notablity. Tobyk777 07:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The French Wikipedians are very nice. I got a welcome on my talk page after I had only made one edit there. Their Stargate project might also benefit from more references... when I get around to it.
As for notability: Wikipedia:Notability is an essay, not a guideline or policy. And about half of it is arguments against deleting non-notable topics. For example, a lack of objective criteria for determining notability. Thus, claimes something to be non-notable is non-Neutral Point of View. Also, many believe existing criteria (like No original research and Verifiability) are sufficient to keep out things which are unencycopedic. There are other arguments... anyways, who has been saying this project shouldn't exist?
Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of our FA attempts have prompted comments along the lines of "this article shouldn't even exist", that's pretty close to saying the project should exist. --Tango 13:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to worry about this too much. As I've always said, to give our project credibility, we must keep it to the notable stuff. NO FANCRUFT ARTICLES, and just as importantly, no articles on minor things. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is with people who think the whole of Stargate is minor and that all we do is fancruft. It's all very subjective. We probably should have a policy on what is notable - how many episodes something needs to be in before it gets its own article, etc. We have some character articles on people that are certainly borderline, if not completely unnotable. --Tango 14:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a WP:NPOV method of determining notability is possible... it's more like systemic bias. At one point, I read that 1% of the articles on Wikipedia were on cryptography (a branch of computer science/mathematics). (Note - I do not have a problem with this. Crypto is awesome, IMO.) However, as a geek who likes cryptography, even I hadn't heard of the Voynich manuscript until I looked at WikiProject Cryptography's FA list. Does this mean it's a bad article and should be deleted or unlisted from FA? Not in my opinion. But I think it's safe to say that more people have heard of Stargate than the Voynich manuscript. (Besides, what's the point of an encyclopedia that only tells people things they already know about?) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, 1000 out of 1000000 is 0.1%, not 1%. Secondly, notability isn't about how many people know about something. It's closer to how many people would be interested in something, although that's not a brilliant definition, either. --Tango 22:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Determining what's notable is more complicated than the number of episodes it's in. Some things only appear once or twice but are massive in Stargate, the supergate for instance. For things that are minor, I think that we should do some merging of charcters and technology. Also, we now have sevral charcter lists. Perhaps a navigational template would be good to link them. Tobyk777 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course number of episodes isn't everything - that's why I said "etc.". Maybe we should have article along the lines of Minor Stargate SG-1 characters in season 1. --Tango 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "non-notable" is a good reason to delete an article. Notability is not a guideline or policy. Anything particularly bad can be kept out through policies like Verifiability and No original research, and the determination of notability tends to be POV. See Wikipedia:Notability#Arguments_against_deleting_articles_for_non-notability. Merging + redirecting is fine by me, though. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Notability is very much a policy. I know the notability page says "essay" at the top, but that doesn't really mean anything. A policy on wikipedia is something that has concensus support behind it, and a quick look at AfD tells you that deleting non-notable articles has concensus support. --Tango 21:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have complete consensus support... there are some who support it, and some who don't. Wikipedians have many different opinions on what should kept, cleaned up, merged, redirected, blanked, or deleted. Perhaps, someday, there will be a consensus, and then a guideline will be born. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedian philosophies. And Associations for various Wikipedian philosophies. Also see WP:PWDS. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
When I say "concensus" I mean it in the way it's usually meant on wikipedia - a rough concensus, or effectively a large majority. I know it's not a unanimous decision - there are too many people here for everyone to ever agree on something completely. If there wasn't a rough concensus to delete non-notable articles, then there wouldn't be so many AfD pages which say little more than "Delete nn" 10 times, and "The result was delete" at the top. --Tango 12:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I see. I was trying to point out that if you want to vote keep in an AfD for something considered by the community to be non-notable, there are plenty of reasons you can give that are completely within Wikipedian/Wikimedian policies and guidelines. Also, did you know that we get 2 million words per penny? "Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You can certainly argue that a particular article is notable. Notability is purely left to concensus in each case, there is no clear policy as to what is notable, but arguing that lack of notability isn't a good reason to delete will get you nowhere. Not Paper is indeed to opposite policy to notability - wikipedia has a lot of pairs like that (WP:IAR being the extreme case), AfD basically balances the two policies and decides which applies more strong in this case. --Tango 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia operates on consensus, why should we deprive Wikipedia of our small opinions just because we happen to be part of a large minority? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said you shouldn't, but you need to do so in some central place, rather than on individual discussions about specific articles/groups of articles. You're wasting your time otherwise. (Feel free to waste your time if you like, you're doing no harm) --Tango 15:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem of lack of notability is that if Wikipedians were allowed to create articles on ANYTHING, there would be WAAAAAY too much clutter and garbage for Wikipedia to be taken seriously.--Zxcvbnm 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, Zxcvbnm, you're a member of this project; you put the userbox for it on your user page; you're on the project page, and so on. I don't mean to attack you, but the argument you just presented is a fine example of what those who do not want our project and its associated pages in Wikipedia at all use to attack us. Frankly, a lot of the proposed notability criteria leave our project out in the cold. In spite of its popularity and longevity, Stargate is simply not as large in the public conciousness as, say, Star Trek or Star Wars and hence many would argue that almost all of the Stargate articles are non-notable. In short, we must, like it or not, act and argue like inclusionists when it comes to Stargate articles. There is, of course, an exception to every rule, and in this case it's that we must not tolerate stupid/fancrufty articles, which we must nominate ourselves in order to avoid being labeled as supporting the inclusion of fancruft. I'm hoping I sound clear. Lockesdonkey 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily inclusionist. I personally consider myself an eventualist who believes notability guidelines encourage systemic bias. But if something is unverifiable, or incurable original research or pov, well, those are all good reasons for deletion by me. But not just Stargate articles... that would be biased. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Total inclusionism just gets you ignored by most people on AfD. We need to argue that Stargate articles are notable, not that non-notable articles should be kept. We're not going to win the latter arguement, the former has a chance. --Tango 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not inclusionist, but I didn't want to put Stargate down, it was in fact me who started this Wikiproject in the first place. I believe that Stargate IS notable, but don't support EXTREMELY crufty articles like SGC Level 25 or something. The thing is, encyclopedias are supposed to be informative to people who don't know about the subject but not to the extreme that, for people who are not fans, it is tiresome to read it. There's also the problem of looking like a bunch of nerds when there is less on important wars in Africa or other issues than on the intricacies of Stargate. However, this is also due to readlily available information.--Zxcvbnm 01:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the points, particularly that this project should specify some kind of guideline or policy for inclusion. In nearly all cases, I think the following would sort out all our problems:

  • We should allow an article if (any of the following):
    1. Subject matter has many episodes
    2. Subject pivotal to stargate plot
    3. Article required for completeness in a set of articles
  • Do not have an article if:
    1. It is none of the above
    2. It merely repeats info from another article, but reworded
    3. It is very, very specific (e.g. Samantha Carter's Left Earlobe)
    4. You can't really say much about it, i.e. it is a stub
      • In which case:
        1. Merge it into a larger article
        2. Redirect it to a larger article

-- Alfakim --  talk  07:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Stargate infinity from the Topics template

Earlier this month, there was a disussion here about how stargate infinity is a joke, and how even the most hardcore stargate fans (like me) have never even seen it. Because of this, I think we should remove it from the topics template, because it detracts attention from SG-1 and atlantis, which are far more important. Tobyk777 07:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just no. Wikipedia isn't about the fans. It's an indiscriminate database of neutral information. Stargate includes Stargate Infinity, end of story. the infinity article already explains it isnt canon and that's enough really. -- Alfakim --  talk  07:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Project Featured article

I've set up a better system for this, if any of you are interested. You can vote on the next project-featured article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate/Featured. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Moon-catchin'

Okay, the website owner of Moon-catchin' has requested that we not link directly to their transcripts. However, we may still use their transcripts, and link to other parts of their site. So I was going to go through the episode articles and replace links to their transcripts w/ links to their sounds. You can still use their transcripts to check facts, you'll just have to look around a bit. Anyways, I'll be working on this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The sounds thing looks like just a few quotes - we have wikiquotes for that. Lets just use a different transcript site and forget about --Tango 11:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC) is actually the most complete Stargate transcript site I know of. They have all of the Stargate Atlantis transcripts (Gateworld has some too, but not all of them), as well as all of the SG-1 transcripts (even when other sites like StargateWiki don't). And the quotes are actually audio, so they provide something unique. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're not allowed to link to them, it doesn't matter how great their transcripts are. Even with the audio clips, the sounds aren't really worth linking to - most of them aren't very relevant clips anyway. --Tango 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you prefer a front-page link? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
E.g. to here. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If we can't link directly to a relevant page, let's not link at all. Between the other transcript sites, we should be able to find alternatives for each episode. --Tango 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing is actually more complex than that... I've been investigating whether or not episode transcripts are copyright violations or fair use. (Note: I'm not actually done researching this, and intend to start a separate thread when I am.) StargateWiki and Stargatefan both provide disclaimers that apply specifically to transcripts (see StargateWiki's disclaimer and Stargatefan's disclaimer). GateWorld and Moon-catchin' provide general disclaimers that do not specifically mention transcripts (see here and here). Also, MGM is aware of the transcripts at least on GateWorld and StargateWiki, and has not objected (which might be consider implied consent?) As for the legality of providing transcripts under fair use, it seems rather indefinite. On the one hand, the fact that they are crediting the original producers, not profitting, and more likely to increase MGM's profits than hurt them, are all arguments in favor of fair use. On the other hand, the amount of material being used might hurt a fair use argument. To my knowledge, there aren't any significant legal precedents that apply to episode/movie transcripts (song lyrics are different, since the lyrics are a greater proportion of the song material than transcripts are of the episode material). Anyways, I'm leaning towards the belief that a good enough fair use argument can be made that we can link to the transcripts, but not a good enough argument that we could, for example, put them on Wikisource. (However, if someone does object to linking to transcripts on the grounds that their fair use is questionable, a potential compromise is to link to other parts of the site, e.g. front pages.) (Anyways, the moon-catchin' site owner is nervous about us linking to transcripts on that site because they do not want to draw attention to them: if MGM did ask them to take them down (which is unlikely, given the GateWorld and StargateWiki examples), they would.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, just because a website owner has displayed disapproval, it doesn't mean you cant LINK to them. We CERTAINLY cant copy text from them, but we CAN use a hyperlink. The only reason we wouldnt would be out of consideration for their site not being noticed by MGM, as far as i see it. I suggest linking to their front page instead - if this is autowikibrowsable, let me know (i.e. if you merely need to trim all the links). dont link to sounds though, that's just off-topic. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is a guideline or policy somewhere against linking to copyright violations (it's a matter of not making Wikipedia look bad, not a legal issue, if I remember correctly). (As I have explained above, I am currently of the opinion that this is not clearly a copyright violation or fair use, the whole thing being rather vague....) As for the website owner's request: I believe it is only polite that we respect their wishes. So for linking to a front page, the old form would be:
* [ Transcript] from Moon-catching. Transcribed by Mandi Ohlin. Visited May 9, 2006.
and the new form would be:
* [ Gatenoise] from Moon-catchin'. Visited June 21, 2006.
I don't know if this is autowikibrowsable or not: a combination of your autowikibrowsing and human editing (by me) might be possible. Also, for articles for which we have no other transcripts, I was considering providing a commented-out transcript link (which would be visible only to editors, not casual readers). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

de-indenting. The above is autowikibrowsable i'm fairly sure (no manual needed). should i go through with it and change all the transcripts to links to the front page? -- Alfakim --  talk  16:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Unless anyone else has an objection. In any case, be sure to put the reason (request of site owner) in your edit summary, just to avoid any confusion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, why don't we wait just to make sure the site owner is okay with this solution, which will give time for anyone else to contribute their two cents as well? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The website owner has confirmed that this solution meets their concerns. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Junking up the technology section of the Ori page

Looking at the tech section on Ori (Stargate), it's way longer than it needs to be. Ori technology is linked to as the main article, yet the section on the main Ori page is almost as long as the ori tech article. There is simply too much junk in the section, some of which is OR. Almost everything in the section is redundant, and some things are just non-sense, (for example frequencies corespoding to colors). We need to do some major trimming and reworking of that section if not a total rewrite. Tobyk777 07:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

How's that? I've basically removed it all and added a short summary. Anything else can go in the main article (I think most if not all of it already is). --Tango 12:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh... because some of that stuff was quite good. So long as its in the main article instead, that's fine. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You can merge from an old version. I think most of the good stuff is already there. --Tango 18:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better now, good job. Tobyk777 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I think that we should move List of technology in the Stargate universe to List of main technologies in the Stargate universe. I think the latter is a more acurate title since it no longer lists every technology and since we have subpages for each race. Tobyk777 20:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the simpler name. As long as the subpages are linked to from the list, it's effective a list of all tech, just in multiple layers. --Tango 00:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Point 9 of the Fair use policy and portals

Point 9 states that only pages in the article namespace may use fair use images. You can see our internal debate at Portal talk:Stargate. I have this proposal to create an exception to Point 9 of the Fair Use policy for portals; I'm not asking for support; I'm asking for comment. Thanks. Lockesdonkey 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You have my support and you're right. It's something that everyone here ignores. But, In bringing this up: more people who want our destruction have come about. Tobyk777 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If I correctly understood his complaint, it isn't something that couldn't be changed. For example, in episode articles, we could include fan ratings (for example, from GateWorld), and the opinions of critical reviewers (I know GateWorld has some reviews, and most of them are there, in the External links). Also, if you use one of the "External links" for writing or fact checking, try moving it into a References section per WP:EL. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your're right and we could probably do better, but he said that he wanted our deletion, not our improvement. I left a message on his talk page. Tobyk777 23:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
They seem like an Immediatist. Or maybe they just didn't think of the possible solutions. I'm not sure. But your comment on their talk page seems reasonable, maybe they'll provide a more specific critique. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's quite the discussion it has generated. But, really, I don't understand by some people hate fair-use images so much in Wikipedia. --Andromeda 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I went through all of the subcategories of Category:Stargate and prepended all of the talk pages for the articles within them with the {{stargateproject}} template. Barring any uncategorized articles, and providing I knew what I was doing over the last 263 edits), they should all be templated. Can I use "templated" as a word? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Great job! Sure, you can use "templated" as a word, at least on talk pages. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Job Tobyk777 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice work -- Alfakim --  talk  02:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


If y'all want to upgrade the Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Stargate_Barnstar from PUA to Wikiproject Award, please go support the idea. --evrik 17:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I just gave my support, but I don't really understand the diffrence between A star and a barnstar. Also the award holders list was incomplete I just completed it. I think it has everyone now. Tobyk777 18:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

sga quote

i just dont get this quote at all:

Dr. McKay: "No no no no, he just doesn't like going through the Stargate."
Maj. Sheppard: "He's worse than Dr. McCoy."
Teyla: "Who?"
Maj. Sheppard: "The character that Dr. Beckett plays in real life."

please someone explain the joke here. -- Alfakim --  talk  00:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I to do not get this... American Patriot 1776 01:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Leonard McCoy in Star Trek was afraid of the transporter, which explains the first 2 lines. The last line isn't meant to make sense, but it's kind of comparing life on Atlantis to Star Trek. It's also slightly a joke at Teyla's expense, as she doesn't know about Star Trek, and Sheppard is just confusing her further. To summarise: It's funny because it doesn't make sense, so don't try and understand it. --Tango 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's one of Stargate's many inside jokes. Sometimes you just don't get them. There have been a few confusing to me. But if you do get them, they're halarious. It's another great thing about Stargate. Tobyk777 03:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
RDA was the best at this type of thing. When he was on the show Stargate was as funny as stand up comedy. Tobyk777 03:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutly. I mean come on, Mary Steenburgen?  :) American Patriot 1776 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your comment. Tobyk777 04:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
One of O'Neills random comments in Urgo, claiming that she was "hot". American Patriot 1776 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
O'Neill mentions her quite often. That, and his favourite colour being peredoe (or however it's spelt). --Tango 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's "peridot". Lockesdonkey 15:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


{{TVep}} is currently in use for all episode articles. There is a proposed complete rewrite of the template at Template:TVep/2. Please see the points for why this might be good or bad, and suggest whether this should go through. P.S. the template ultimately gives exactly the same output, but with more customisability. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about making templates to have a clue what thisn discusion is about. I'll leave it to the experts. As an expert in this project and in templates, I'm sure that Aflakim will represent us well. (I know I sound like a stupid idiot right now.) Tobyk777 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Project corodination

Hi, on our FL, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes's talk page, members of the List of TV episodes project have discussed how the list has been a huge sucess for both project, since it falls into both project's catagories. I then proposed that the two projects work togther and corodiate to co-produce a second FL with List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. I think that if the two projects work toghther, we can quickly and easily make another FL. I made the proposal on their projects page as well as on the our current FL's talk page. Please keep the thread in one place by responding to this comment at Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Looking for more participants for WikiProject List of Television Episodes. Thanks Tobyk777 08:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I was just turing the cites on our timeline into inline citations, but when I saved the page it cam out really screwed up and I don't know what I did wrong. Someone please take a look. Tobyk777 08:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a link? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Timeline of Stargate Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like its already been fixed. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fixed it, but I reverted most of the changes afterwards anyway, it was better before. The problem was simply butting the / at the wrong end of the tag. it's /ref, not ref/. The slash only goes at the end if you've only got one tag, not an opening on and a closing one. --Tango 18:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I moved the page from Kelowna (Stargate SG-1) to Langara (Stargate SG-1), because Langara is the planet, Kelowna is a country. I don't really know where to begin modifying the Kelowna page into Langara, so can someone please do this? Biscuit Knight 09:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the page to fit the new name a little better. --Tango 13:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved it to Langara (Stargate), as per our naming convention. Lockesdonkey 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

American or British english?

Which one should we use? It would make sense if it was American seeing as the show is American. Just curious. American Patriot 1776 00:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MoS#Disputes over style issues. I would say that while American English may be slightly preferable (because the characters are mostly Americans), it is not substantial enough to change articles from British to American English. Keep in mind that Stargate is broadcast in a wide variety of English-speaking countries, often in England and Canada before the United States. Also, some editors like me have been too influenced by both to use a single style consistently, and some editors are only familiar with the style used in their own country. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. I'm an American, so my entries are written in American English. However, I won't "correct" British English because both are correct and reflect the wide range appeal of both Stargate and Wikipedia. --Bark 14:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
American does indeed make sense, but let's just stick to general WP policy of everyone writing in what they know best. If you're quoting, quote in whatever English the character speaks (generally American, but not always), but otherwise, just make it up as you go along, it doesn't really matter. --Tango 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It's important to note, however, that the entire article should use the same type of English - so if the majority of the article is already written, you should stick to the type used in the article - to the best of your ability. --Tim4christ17 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. So far we have a list of 11 articles, but are there any important topics not listed that we should know about? We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality (B or higher). If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify things, regarding the importance/quality issue. Our original posting to you stressed quality, but in your reply you included some discussion of importance as well. In this recent posting I simply wanted to check that things are complete and up-to-date, and to see if you wanted to use the bot. I have tried to interpret the information we already have as best I can, and I've put the information into this table. Please can you check that I have your priorities correct, and fix anything that's wrong? That should answer the question I posed above quite adequately, and I apologise for any confusion. Walkerma 06:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Characters/Actors without articles

I haven't evaluated them based on whether they should have articles. Just recorded the ones that have links to them, but no articles OR actors who are listed in a character template. I also did NOT list directors/writers in the list. If there's already a list like this somewhere (or a place for this list) that I missed, feel free to move this stuff there. --Tim4christ17 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what point you are making or if you are making one at all. You said that none of these are in character templates. All of them are. Please be more clear on what you are trying to say. Tobyk777 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I meant that they ARE linked to in the template, but that the link went to a non-existant page. My "point" was only that there are quite a few Stargate person/character-related articles that could be started, and I was providing a list so people interested in starting articles would be able find them more easily. --Tim4christ17 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirsten Prout

One of the articles i have created has been tagged with the logo for your group, however i did not create the article with any intentions of stargate. Are you taking the recognition? I dont have much information of Prout as the IMDB only supplies limited information any other infortmation known about this actress could be added to her page . (Neostinker 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

I expect it was added as she played a role in the episode Birthright (Stargate SG-1) and is also mentioned in the article Jaffa (Stargate) Morphh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. American Patriot 1776 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProjects aren't a way of claiming articles or anything like that. Displaying a project banner is a way of saying, we've set aside a place on wikipedia where anyone can talk about stargate issues that could possibly affect a large number of articles including this one. This is a common misunderstanding with people who are unfamiliar with WikiProjects. See Wikipedia:WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I also just removed your signature in the actual article. That is noit permited. And the WP:OWN was direted at Neostinker, not the project. American Patriot 1776 21:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on RfA

Seen as you guys know me on Wikipedia better than any others, I'd really appreciate any comments on my RfA, just to add to the discussion if nothing else :). --Alfakim-- talk 22:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Topics that wander into "point of view", fandom, or just too much detail for an encyclopedia may be more appropriate on the Stargate Wikia and Stargate Wikia (Spanish). The Wikis complement each other. The Wikia has many references to Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedians would be welcome contributors to the Wikia. (Please keep in mind that although the sites are similar, there are content and stylistic differences.) --CocoaZen 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

spoiler tags

Seems some editors from the WikiProject Computer and video games want to remove the spoiler template and usage all together. Stargate articles show some excellent uses of the spoiler tag, and I thought you guys might want to add your input. See Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the spoiler warning thread yet but it seems to make sense to me to remove them in most articles. I can see the need on normal webpages but this is an encyclopedia. "Spoiler Warnings" just seems un-encyclopedic. IMHO, we're stating the obvious. Morphh 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but most encyclopedias don't have articles on Stargate SG-1 or Cowboy Bebop. Not only that, but we're not a paper encyclopedic, and we're highly connected to internet culture. Has the term spoiler warning even existed for very long? Wiki is far more likely to include deep details than your average bookcase encyclopedia, let alone deal with TV show topics that are current and active, and who's articles can be edited so fast. In other words, it's not a problem in other encyclopedias. Simple saying "un-encyclopedic" doesn't seem to.. mean much here.. Wikipedia is covering a lot of new ground, and you can't really compare this to what "the other guys" are doing. The very fact that spoiler warnings are exemptions from WP:SELF should tell you something about how this whole issue is treated differently than the norm'. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
They might have a point though. Basically EVERYTHING you read in a SG article is a spoiler. It might not be such a bad idea. American Patriot 1776 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
True, but SG spoiler warnings tell you which season they're spoiling for, and which they are not. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Every SG article containing spoilers doesn't mean we should warn. If there was a central place we could be sure everyone would read before reading other SG articles, then we could just put the warning there, but there is no such place, so the warning has to go on every article. --Tango 12:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings are important because they warn those who are reading the article for a "general idea" about something - or looking for information they've missed, but don't want "future events" revealed to them. And on the flip side, people who don't care if they see spoilers aren't hurt by seeing a spoiler tag. So by having them, we're helping one side while not hurting the other; while not having them would be hurting one side while not helping the other. --Tim4christ17 01:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaitiare Bandera article

I'm not a member of this project, but am a fan of 'Gate, so I decided to help out a bit and attempt to cleanup this article. I also added a brief filmography as well. --Electricbolt 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We thank you for your assistance. American Patriot 1776 03:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. In the future, do you think you could put your sources in a References section, instead of your edit summaries? It would make it easier for others to verify the information. Thanks!
Also, does anyone have "Atlantis Official Magazine #08" from Titan magazines, so we can cite the original source, using Template:Cite journal, and provide the other link as a convenience link?
Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll remember to put the sources in next time, it was my first time actually expanding an article like that. --Electricbolt 01:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be appreciated. If it's easier for you, there's no need to format the source like I did... if you just put the URL in the "References" section, it would be fine. (The important thing is having the source - formatting is secondary, and can easily be done later.) You can see WP:CITE for more help. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks --Electricbolt 03:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)