![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
![]() | WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll. |
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)
{{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? -- Ckatz chat spy 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
On the right you see the Stargate episode template in work.
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)
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)
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. Powergate92 Talk 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Powergate92 Talk 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Powergate92 Talk 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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."
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. Powergate92 Talk 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I've removed some glyphs to help start more discussion here. If not, maybe RfC? Staecker ( talk) 21:42, 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)
... 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)
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)
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:
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.
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
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Δόξα τω Θεώ 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
![]() | WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll. |
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)
{{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? -- Ckatz chat spy 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
On the right you see the Stargate episode template in work.
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)
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)
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. Powergate92 Talk 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Powergate92 Talk 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Powergate92 Talk 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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."
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. Powergate92 Talk 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
I've removed some glyphs to help start more discussion here. If not, maybe RfC? Staecker ( talk) 21:42, 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)
... 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)
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)
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:
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.
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
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Δόξα τω Θεώ 20:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)