Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Arts WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! —Mirlen 13:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Following up from this, list articles under these headings and then we can decide which to submit to Wikipedia 1.0. We should probably submit about 7 in total. This list can also act as a list of things that need to be improved to help them get into WP:1.0. Criteria can be found here.

FA status

  • None

A Class

B Class

Things we'd like to get into WP:1.0

Well, the fact is that I don't know how I feel about that. The fact is that I don't like very much the idea of releasing articles outside the net, sorry. --Andromeda 09:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we don't want everything there. In a paper encyclopedia we're just gonna want to submit our very core articles about what Stargate IS. Stargate should thus go in there, and maybe Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Stargate (device). I also like Ascension (Stargate) a lot. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Staff Weapon vs Staff Cannon

A while ago here we decided to split these two pages. I just saw that someone put them back toghther. There was never any dsicusion here or on the talk pages. Since they are two diffrent pieces of technology they should be on sperate pages. Or, perhaps we could have 1 page called Staff Weapon Varriants which lists and descibes all staff weapons like the ones on the hatak, and the al-kesh. The way we have it now doesn't work. Tobyk777 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Go slow on creating pages like that. Staff Cannons are sufficiently irrelelvent to go into Staff Weapon i think.-- Alfakim --  talk  15:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

DNA Resequencer (Stargate) for WP:FAC?

Hi, After working hard on DNA Resequencer (Stargate) I think it is as good as it can be. It had a peer review which didn't give any evidence to the contrary. I think we should nominate it on FAC. What do you guys think? Tobyk777 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Too much treating fiction as fact; not much info on the prop/graphics effects; and, truth be told, neither very important (like Stargate) nor very amusing (like Spoo in Babylon 5) within the fictional universe. LD 20:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well it's pretty hard to make an article on a fictional subject non-fictional. On the importance issue: It's not extremely important to stargate, like Stargate (device, however, it's not minor either. I have refrnced about a dozen episodes, and many articles in addition. I would have to say that it is a medium impotance in stargate. Also, I dont see how spoo is amusing. And even if it is, are featured articles supposed to be amusing? Tobyk777 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Although most of these objections are valid, they are impossible to fix. Since I think the article is now as good as it can possibly be, I am going to nominate it. Come and support it!!! Tobyk777 00:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Forget it the voting was so terrible that it will never pass. Espeicaly since the objections are unfixable. Tobyk777 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just did a major rework of DNA Resequencer

I just did a massive upgrade of the article. I want to know what you guys think now. Tobyk777 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Really nice. IMO, it can be moved to A-list. But I am still afraid it won't get the FA consensus, according to the resent Stargate developement. --Tone 20:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. With, the way it's last FA nomination looked I almost decided to give up, but since then it's made massive progress. I will move it to the A list. Right now, It's also a Good Article canidate. It has not been approved yet. It would be good someone approved it. As for it being a FA; I thought that subject matter had nothing to do with it. I thought that WP's plolicy was that FAs are judged by the quality of the article, not the subject they're on. Tobyk777 20:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I just read User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction and I must admit he has a point. Still, IMO both perspectives should be included in articles and clearly separated. Anyway, in the particular article, it will be really hard to get more out-world info, since the device is not so widely used as Stargate or some weapons in the series. So I suggest it stays as it is, eventually with the GA label. --Tone 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There already is lots of info about the real world in this article. There are sections for other fictional works, the prop, and its plausibility in real life. There is nothing more that can be added. It's 100% complete. It exhausts the topic. User:BrianSmithson/Writing about fiction states that articles should be written from an out of universe perspective. After I read his argument, I agreed, so I reworded the whole thing to be out of universe. Does it still sound in universe to you? If it does ill fix it. Also, I don't know what you mean when you say: "is not so widely used as Stargate or some weapons in the series. So I suggest it stays as it is" Tobyk777 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that was rather unclearly formulated, I'm tired already, it's late here. What I wanted to say: the thing that is present in real world is dna manipulation, not a fancy device that would do the thing. The second thing: there are only few episodes that involve it as a plot element. Stargate (device) is in every episode, some weapons have more significant roles also. But it doesn't matter in fact, the only reason I mentioned it was the idea of having an article about more prominent Stargate thing driven to FA. I checked the last improvements and the article should satisfy the out of universe perspective also. As you said, it is more or less complete so not much is to be changed unless next episodes give us more material. --Tone 22:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The colors are giving me a headache.

Some, most notably Jacob Carter and Genii have mismatched colors. It should be red for Tau'ri, and then a special color for non-Tau'ri humans, right? So it should be changed to...

  • If it contains "Tau'ri" then it's red, regardless of any other words in the "race" category.
  • If it says "Human" but not "Tau'ri", it should be a different color.

Good idea? LD 21:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already the case. I will check JC and Genii - they must have been filled out badly.-- Alfakim --  talk  21:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
JC is working; Genii (and Genii characters in Stargate Atlantis) isn't. LD 20:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's working to me. Tau'ri are Red, Humans orange. -- Alfakim --  talk  21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This orange looks very simmilar to red. Could it be more orange? --Tone 10:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's quite obviously orange on my monitor. If you'd like it more orange change the colour code at {{SGColor}}.-- Alfakim --  talk  11:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You know what, either it will look too much like Tau'ri or too much like Ori if it's orange. So I'm changing it to blue, if there are no objections. Don't worry, it will be easily distinguishable from Asgard. LD 17:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The'res a reason Non-Tau'ri humans are orange and not blue or green. It's because Tau'ri are red and they're from the same species. Tau'ri and non-Tau'ri humans are related, and so are the colors that identify them. You may change the tone of red/orange but, please, don't make it blue! --Andromeda 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, alright! But I'm bad at distinguishing colors, and thus I find it hard to decide which orange to use. Could someone kindly do this, for the sake of my (and other near-colorblinds like myself's) eyes? LD 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Horrible organization on Ancient (Stargate)

Hi I just tagged Ancient stargate for cleanup because I feel that the organization is terrible. In order to keep this thread in one place, please respond here and here on the talk page. Tobyk777 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Copying my response from Talk:Ancient (Stargate)--One response=nobody else cares=do it. Now. I would, but I have neither the time nor the patience nor the knowledge of the details of your plan (in spite of what you put above) to do it myself. LD 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi a little while back, I added links to stargate pages from portal stargate. It was my understanding that portals are supposed to be navigational tools. Our portal now has almost nothing useful except for a tiny catagory box. After I made what I think was a major upagrde to the portal. It was reverted. You can see the "upgraded version" here. I think this version does what a portal is supposed to do, help navigation. I think that our current portal, doesn't. Who agrees with me that the extra links should be added to the bottom? Tobyk777 23:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we do more things with the portal? Yes. This is the way to do it? No. Dumping a bunch of templates at the bottom doesn't "upgrade" a portal or make it useful. Well-organized content does. That's just messy, confussing and not very helpful. --Andromeda 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

DNA Resequencer has been promoted to a Good Article

Great work everyone. This is a great acomplishemnt for this project. Congardulations to everyone who helped. Thanks Tobyk777 20:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks very close to vote stacking. I also think that the Stargate (device) article is in better shape, so we have a much better chance improving that article per the earlier objections and resubmitting it. JoshuaZ 01:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


This looks like a polci violation Tobyk. At least, you should understand that FAC isnt vote-based. nothing is vote based. just getting a load of "support" votes wont get us on the front page. i also agree that Stargate (device) is more likely by a significant margin to get FA. DNA Resequencer, im sorry to say, is just not going to make it due to its improminence. but however: checkout the main Stargate Wikiproject page. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right. I just deleted the section on the proposal. I didn't think that was breaking the rules sorry. Tobyk777 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, Aflakim, thanks for prompting it to a Wikiproject:Stargate FA. Tobyk777 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Camulus

Would someone try and find a good pic for him? Thanks. American Patriot 1776 01:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

also in rpely to above.

you can get pics for this project here: www.stargatecaps.com -- Alfakim --  talk  14:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

about citing episodes

theres a trend going on to say "In the episode "Blah blha"" if its SG-1, and say "In the episode "Blah blah" (Atlantis)" if its atlantis. however the two shows are pretty much sisters so i see no reason to presuppose a citation refers to an sg-1 episode. in general i think all episode citations should say which show they're from.

the best way of doing this is to scrap text like "In the episode "episode" this and that happened", and instead say "this and that happened ("episode")". that way you can use the {{sgcite}} template which will automatically generate an appropriate episode citation, eg:

{{sgcite|Need|1|show=all}} - gives - (1: Need)

{{sgcite|Rising|A|show=all}} - gives - (A: Rising)

-- Alfakim --  talk  13:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A wiki of stargate's own?

Has anyone considered forming a stargate wiki along the lines of Memory Alpha or wookiepedia to allow for greater detail about the stargate universe without the need to worry about whether things are important in the real world? There seems to be a lot of material in stargate articles that's fan-produced analysis, or fictional technical detail, and thus not really wikipedia appropriate, but perhaps it could find a safer home somewhere else? Night Gyr 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear so that no one wastes time setting one up:
Stargate-SG-1-Solutions Wiki already exists. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think people should focus on improving the ones here before branching off. Also, Stargate isn't such an expansive subject as say Star Trek/Wars, making it harder to get information.--Zxcvbnm 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats wrong. Star Wars has about 12 hours of video. Stargate has about 200. Stargate has just as much info. If people go into the methaphorical aspects, and the deaper meaning, it could potenitaly grow as large as memory alpha. Stargate has an amazing amount of info. However, there is a Stargate wiki already. It's right here. The only problem is that you have to be a member of the website to contribute. Tobyk777 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The existing one is also pretty inactive, with about four edits a day. Night Gyr 05:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The point where it makes sense to branch off and form one's own wiki is when one's articles are being deleted. Memory Alpha and wookiepedia both make sense since many of the "minor" characters and details have been deleted when put here. At present, we have not gotten to the more esoteric subjects of Stargate and so we have not yet had that problem. When that does occur, it will then make sense to actually run a splinter Wiki. One thing that would however make sense is to move(subject to the GFDL) material from stargate articles here to articles on the current Stargate wiki. (Also an incidental note to the comment about the number of hours, Star Wars has about as much material as Stargate if not more when one takes into account the expanded universe setting). JoshuaZ 05:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
As it is now, I get the feeling that while many of the articles may not need to be deleted themselves, they really feel like they go into the kind of detail that doesn't seem appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia. There are all sorts of things that have various degrees of influence on the plot of stargate, but the degree of information that would be considered comprehensive for a fanreference would be overkill and need paring for a more general work. Wormhole Physics, which is up for deletion, is one example of an article that while it may matter to a fan, is a bit on the overly fannish and irrelevant to the real world side. Night Gyr 01:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Season 4???

Hi, I just noticed that on our article, Stargate SG-1, under plot summary it gives a summary of seasons 1-3, then 5-9. where is 4? Did no one ever write it? Also, I should sugest that these season summaries be copied into List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, under each season before the episodes. Tobyk777 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing much happens in season 4. and i dont advise copying them across. duplication can be very tedious, and it will clutter up the List article. remember - its a list. if people want the overview, they can go to the sg-1 article. -- Alfakim --  talk  10:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In 4, Apophis dies, Heruur dies, and the Zatarc plotline is uncovered. Tobyk777 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Important - Referencing

Looking at a number of the pages in WikiProject Stargate, all of the ones I have seen are underreferenced, if referenced at all. The few articles that do appear adequately referenced turn out, upon further inspection, to cite other Wikipedia articles, which is against Wikipedia policy. (See WP:Verify and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited, which specifically states that we cannot cite ourselves.) Do not be offended - I am sure the information is accurate, and the articles are in general well written aside from this. However, external references are needed to verify them. I can try to help, but there's a lot to do, and it seems to me that, for now, perhaps all of these articles should be marked with the following template:

Armedblowfish 00:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


This is not correct. The citations are not to other wikipedia articles!!! They are to the episodes themselves!!! They link to the wiki articles on the episodes as a bonus. The episodes themselves are the primary sources off which our project is based. Since we cannot link to DVD /TV show footage, we link to summaries of the DVD footage. Tobyk777 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The template you listed is commonly used when the acuracy of the article is in dispute. Anyone who watches Stargate would tell you that our articles are at least 99% correct. We are all Stargate fans at this project, we know about Stargate, and know when something is incorrect. Our articles are acurate. Please dont go around putting that template on acurate articles, especialy if they refrence episodes as sources. Tobyk777 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, every single project has plenty of unrefrenced articles, in fact it is a major problem on wikipedia. Our project is better than many at providing sources. Tobyk777 01:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, I have found Stargate scripts. Adding these external links to wikipedia articles mentioning episodes should be relatively quick (a day to a few weeks, depending on the number of articles and how hard we work), and make both of us happy, no? Armedblowfish 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
We could easily link to those scripts. I propose a comprimise. The sample citation which fits both of us:

1. Stargate SG-1 episode: Children of the Gods | See Transcript

Is this satisfactory? Tobyk777 03:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Generally, other biliographical information is included, but I think we can do that only on the episode summaries themselves. :) Armedblowfish 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Stargate it might be better to just put those external links in the articles for the individual episodes, since every episode has its own, and have the cites link there indirectly. That way if the transcripts change location or better transcripts are found we don't have to go through every citation in every Stargate article updating them, just the episode articles. Bryan 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Suppose that the article on the episode lost the citation. Then, anyone looking at that citation in other articles would not be able to find the external link either. While we should certainly include the external links in the episode articles first (as a higher priority), we should also work on including it in the other ones (especially those which cite a lot of episodes). Armedblowfish 10:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "losing the citation", if you mean the external link goes dead then this isn't really an issue. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead", the reference is still valid and useful even if the site is currently inacessible. I suppose there's no major harm in including it in both the episode article and the episode citations, I just don't see much benefit for the extra effort required. Bryan 15:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't get involved with what further steps you want to take to address this issue. If you want a further review it should be from someone independent. For clarification, though, my view when I reviewed the article and gave it GA status was that the references were to actual episodes, and that these are legitimate sources which are publicly available for verification. In my view at least, references don't have to be to things that take the form of text. I still think the references were okay, though a bonus might have been adding a new References section to tell us where we can get the DVDs (i.e who has marketed them, what year, etc.) that contain these episodes, while making clear somehow that all citations are to the versions found on those DVDs. The existing References section could then be retitled "Notes". If you could add links to published scripts that would be a further bonus, as long as they were the actual scripts, not draft scripts or something.

This issue must surely affect a lot of articles for which the main sources are the actual movies, episodes of TV programs, or issues of comics, etc. E.g., many articles refer to events in movies that are based on simply looking at the movie - which is the main reference. Other references are needed only to support claims about points of interpretation. E.g. if I wrote in the Brokeback Mountain article that certain events take place which we can all see for ourselves, I can use the movie itself as my reference. But if there is a controversy of interpretation, for example the controversy about whether or not it is implied that Jack Twist is murdered, I would have to say:

"Movie critic X argues that Jack is murdered based on grounds X, Y, and Z. <citation>. Movie critic A says that this is left ambiguous on the basis that B, C, and D. <citation>"

The same would apply on an issue of the movie's meaning, or its actual or intended emotional impact, or whatever.

This is only the view of one editor. I don't know if there is even any consensus for or against it within the Wikipedia community. I'll see if I can get a better sense of this and report back if anything comes of my efforts. :)

I do agree with Armedblowfish that the article should be self-contained. Whatever it references should be referenced directly, not by way of other Wikipedia articles. Metamagician3000 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


BTW, the additional referencing steps I've suggested would be among the things that I'd think helpful to get it to FA status, irrespective of the debate about whether it deserved a GA badge in current form. Again that's just one editor's opinion. Metamagician3000 11:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
By analogy, this debate may interest you. I see a lot of debates like this, but no definitive resolution of the issue. Metamagician3000 12:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As a result of these points, I suggest we get going and start putting references into the episode articles. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Primary transcript site?

Okay, the sites I've been linking to, to add transcripts to episode articles, are Stargatefan, StargateWiki, GateWorld, and Moon-catching. Of those, Stargatefan and GateWorld only have their own transcript for a minority of the Stargate SG-1 episodes. StargateWiki has transcripts for almost all of them, though is missing a few in Season 6. I have yet to find a broadcasted episode that Moon-catching doesn't have.

Anyways, the question is which one to link to from non episode articles referencing the episodes. I think it should be either StargateWiki or Moon-catching, as they are the most inclusive. StargateWiki looks more professional (though it should be noted that none of these are official transcripts - I doubt the producer releases transcripts, so these are fan-transcribed). However, StargateWiki was, to my great annoyance, recently down for a number of days (due to a MySQL problem). Moon-catching was down shortly after StargateWiki came back up, but came back up the same evening. So the question is (given a choice) which one should we link to from other articles when referencing the episodes?

For the record, I do not beleive referencing more than one transcript in an episode article is excessive.

  1. Sometimes sites go down (like StargateWiki and Moon-catching recently, though fortunately that wasn't at the same time). For something as important as a transcript, it is good to have a backup.
  2. Not all transcripts are equal. Like I said, these are not official transcripts (there aren't any), but written down by fans, who make mistakes. If a transcript is suspected of having an error, it would be good to have another to compare it to. Secondly, although a transcript should (hopefully) include a complete record of what is said, there is more that goes on in an episode (visually, tone of voice, etc). Different transcripts may contain different discriptions of what else there is.

Armedblowfish 03:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts. Linking to another wiki might be objectionable. But I dont know how stable mooncatching is, and it doesnt sound dedicated. For now i would go with StargateWiki.
To add the transcripts to the citations just add | [linkurl Transcript] behind the </ref> tag. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean before the </ref> tag? Well, StargateWiki is at least not part of Wikipedia, or even the Wikimedia Foundation. And in this case, it is (almost) a primary source, so it's sort of like linking to Wikisource (which is allowed). Armedblowfish 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

episode categorisation

There is currently a half-implemented scheme we should work to fully implement. It is that all episodes articles are categorised under Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes and Category:Stargate Atlantis episodes, by their season number. So for most of the episodes, the categorisation looks like: [[Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes|8th Season: New Order]]. This forces the category to order the articles by their season, effectively turning the category page into a comprehensive listing (see the page).

This can easily be extended so that the category lists each episode by its genuine order. Simply use this categorisation: 

[[Category:Stargate Atlantis episodes|2.03: Episode title]]

where 203 is the exact episode number. This will cause that episode, in the category, to come under the heading "2" and be ordered by the number "03".

This is the best scheme for the job, and works rather neatly. I think we should implement it despite one problem: season 10. Because wiki only uses the first character, season 10 episodes (e.g. 1011, ep 11) will come under season 1, as episode "011" (i.e. listed before even the season 1 episodes). I think we should go ahead anyway. They'll still be ordered by season, but there'll just be a missing heading "10". There's no better way of doing it. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I've started this (for the ones that are already referenced, since StargateWiki, my main transcripts source, is down), and I'm using a similiar but slighly different format, eg:
[[Category:Stargate SG-1 episodes|1.01: Children of the Gods]]
The main difference is the period. Sorry, I just started doing it that way because it seemed to make more sense to me. For the sake of consistency, we should continue using the period, as it could affect ordering. Armedblowfish 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently using this as a method of keeping track of which episode articles I've added external links to, so can we delay changing it for like a day? As for the problem with the season 10 episodes, I've thought of two solutions: 1) letting them remain ordered alphabetically and 2) using the roman numeral X. The former will probably be better once season 11 episodes come out, but there you are. Armedblowfish 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes we can indeed delay. As for X, I also thought of that but yes - considering Season 11 is pretty much a definite, it's better to stick with the 1011 thing. It'll just mean that the (1) heading will first have all the season 10 episodes (in order), and then all the season 1 episodes. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been busier than expected with non-Wikipedia things, so maybe delay longer than previously anticipated. You can change the already sorted/references ones, if you have the time/energy, just don't sort the ones that are still alphabetical yet (they are unreferenced). But anyways, since putting the season 10 episodes with the season one episodes would make the section really long, I'd personally rather see the season 10 ones left unsorted. Or we could consider mathematical representations of non base ten number systems (e.g. A=10, B=11, C=12, etc.), with a note at the top explaining the organization. Or perhaps use X for now and switch to alphabetical once we start writing articles on season 11 episodes. Armedblowfish 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I was just considering hexadecinal as well. We should definitely use that. A for 10, B for 11 and so on, with a note. definitely. agree? -- Alfakim --  talk  16:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Excellent, though it will definitely require an explanatory note. Armedblowfish 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
You could just make Season 1 episodes 01.xx. But should they be listed in chronological order, or is someone looking for an episode more likely to know its name? In that case alphabetical order is more useful. We've already got them in series order on the 'List of episodes' page. —wwoods 22:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Most browsers have search functions. (IE, all the Mozillas, Opera, Lynx, Links). Organizing the category is useful too, because it's the first link people click on from an episode, and it's much lighter than the lists (easier for people with slow internet connections). In any case, I think it's already done. As for using 0, that would put everything except season 10 and beyond under the 0 heading, which would be hard to sort through. Armedblowfish 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I fixed the rest of the articles before reading this post. I hope I didn't create too much mess... --Tone 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's cool. I went through your edit history, so as long as you only recated 5 Stargate SG-1 episode articles, I've referenced them. (I haven't even gotten to referencing the Stargate Atlantis ones anyways.) As for your slight format change, it is insignificant and shouldn't affect the ordering. I also went through User:Diabound00's edit history and referenced the episode articles he or she categorized. So assuming you are the only two people besides myself who have categorized Stargate SG-1 articles, I think I've referenced them all. Armedblowfish 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

stargate wikistory

I restarted and refreshed the Stargate Wikistory. Join in it should be fun.

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Wikistory/Stargate

-- Alfakim --  talk  09:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Naming convention

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Naming convention. Episode articles are named in different ways for different shows and I think they should all follow the same standard. I guess we would need to rename Stargate articles because the other standard is more widely used. --Tone 21:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Atlantis Trascripts

As I was adding trascripts to articles refing episodes, I realized, that we didn't have a soruce for Atlantis transcripts. So, I found one: [1]. Now we can inprove our refing of both shows. Tobyk777 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was just adding those. I'm using references from Moon-catching and GateWorld. Moon-catching consistently has transcripts. GateWorld has different things for different episodes, including transcripts, summaries, review, analysis, etc. For the primary transcript site for Stargate Atlantis (the one we link to from non-episode articles), I suggest Moon-catching, since they seem to have transcripts for everything. Armedblowfish 02:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging Asgard articles

Having a look, I think we should merge all the Asgard characters articles into Asgard characters in Stargate. The only exception would be Thor, or maybe even not. I have a strong mergist tendency these days... Can I proceed? --Tone 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the idea. Those articles are just not long enough. We did the same some time ago with Wraith characters in Stargate Atlantis. It is just a question if we should merge all of them or leave links to longer articles. --Tone 15:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Merged for now. I think it should stay this way or eventually have Thor as a separate one but not the others. Maybe some time later. --Tone 16:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio! Conversion (Stargate Atlantis)

A section of the article says it comes from scifi.com, and it does. I do not believe this qualifies as fair use. Therefore, the article should be deleted and rewritten. Armedblowfish 14:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, the copyvio material is still in the page's history. The only way to get rid of it is to delete the article. Please make modifications to the temporary pages, which will replace the articles after they are deleted. This information is contained in the copyvio template. Armedblowfish 15:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. "If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (engaged in directly making money off the content) and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted." WP:CV Armedblowfish 15:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Stargate_task_force/Archive_3&oldid=1190094561"