Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 9

Discussion subpages

 * /Templates

Archive

 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2 (April 7, 2006)
 * Archive 3 (May 17, 2006)
 * Archive 4 (June 18, 2006)
 * Archive 5 (July 14, 2006)
 * Archive 6 (August 14, 2006)
 * Archive 7 (September 16, 2006)
 * Archive 8 (October 31, 2006)

Naming of episode articles
Greetings, Stargate editors!

As you may be aware, for the last several weeks there has been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about how Wikipedia articles on television episodes should be named. Editors from many areas of Wikipedia, including members of several different television WikiProjects, have worked together and come up with a general guideline that article titles should include disambiguating phrases only when there is another article on Wikipedia with the same name as the episode name. Thus, if you were creating episode articles for Knight Rider, the episode Circus Knights would not need any disambiguation, whereas Nobody Does It Better (Knight Rider) would, in order to differentiate it from Nobody Does It Better (song). However, the guideline also recommends that Circus Knights (Knight Rider) exist as a redirect to the episode.

The discussion has been fairly well-advertised at the Village Pump, in many WikiProjects' talk pages and on the talk pages of many television program episode lists. However, the editors contributing to the discussion at WP:TV-NC felt that it was appropriate to make one last call at affected WikiProjects for discussion before people started moving episode articles to new names.

We appreciate the work that editors do in every area of Wikipedia, and want you to feel included in the decision-making process. Thank you for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yaksha (talk • contribs).


 * I agree as long as the disambiguations are always created. Otherwise, our precious sgcite template will no longer work. -- Alfakim -- talk  12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't sgcite be edited to fit the new system? LD 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We could make the template check to see if a disambig page exists, if not it could then link to the non disambig title. Another option would be to make an extra parameter to over-ride the default link. Not that it matters much, since redirects work fine. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Chances are, the redirects will exist for most pages anyway, so checking they if the disambiged page exists would just be checking if the redirect exists, so is pointless. An extra parameter would require the person using the template to check where the episode is, which defeats the point of trying to make things easy by using templates. After discussion on the other page, I've been convinced that there is no problem with having the template link to the disambiged page which will redirect to the other page if necessary. --Tango 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Page moves
Just giving everyone here the heads up that i'm going to start moving pages now. The title with the disambiguation will exist as a redirect to the non-disamgibuated article, and i'll clean up any double redirects the moving may cause. -- `/aksha 05:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, all done... -- `/aksha 07:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of work - good of you to take it on. There are a few pages, though, that will have to go back to the original location. I've moved one already - Maternal Instinct (capital "I") is too close to Maternal instinct (lower-case "i"), especially since there already is a disambiguation page at the latter page, so the SG-1 article has been returned to Maternal Instinct (Stargate SG-1). I'll try to list the others over the course of the weekend, before moving them, but "maternal instinct" is a term with wide-spread use outside of the Stargate universe - hence the rapid fix. --Ckatz chat spy  09:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A trio of additional urgent moves:
 * Message In a Bottle (Stargate SG-1). Numerous uses for the term, including two TV episodes, the song, a film, and some books. FYI, the article should probably be moved to "Message in a Bottle (Stargate SG-1)". I haven't checked MGM's site yet, but I think that the official title would be small-"i".
 * Shades of Grey (Stargate SG-1). Another common term, which is disambiguated at Shades of gray (disambiguation). Both variants ("grey" and "gray") are sent there.
 * The First Commandment (Stargate SG-1). The most likely page for someone entering the term "The First Commandment" is the biblical reference.
 * That's it for now - I did a perfunctory scan of the moves and nothing obvious jumped out at me. I'll leave a note if I find any debatable ones over the weekend. Thanks again for all the work! --Ckatz chat spy  10:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...the non-disambiguated forms should have been redirected to the disambiguation article then. It seems like the articles have already been moved back. I'm turning the non-dabbed forms into redirects for the disambiguation pages instead of the stargate articles. I mean...if "Message In a Bottle" is going to redirect to "Message In a Bottle (Stargate SG-1)", then you may as well put the article there. But "Message In a Bottle" now redirects to "Message in a bottle (disambiguation)" -- `/aksha 11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops... I forgot to change the "MIaB" redirect - sorry! Thanks for catching that one. --Ckatz chat spy  19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Yaksha has jumped the gun on this, as the decision has not yet been made about these suffixes, and the guideline is under dispute. If anyone has an opinion on the appropriateness of these moves, for or against, we would appreciate if you would weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television).  Thanks. --Elonka 07:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not working, Elonka. I understand you feel there is more to discuss, but consensus has been reached. Your words here are misleading. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Elonka dearest...you do realize the people here, at Project Stargate, gave their consent/agreement/okay-ness with this? The guildline is not under dispute. The only thing we don't agree on is how to deal with wikiprojects that want to do otherwise, which isn't the case here. -- `/aksha 08:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, then I encourage anyone interested to come to the RfC, to offer their opinions about whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television). --Elonka 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand, we did that already... of course people are still welcome to come... but... are you even reading these messages? --- Ned Scott 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, what Elonka claims is not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia.  There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ned, Milo, and Yaksha's opinions aside, what are the opinions here? Is Ned correct that everyone here is "okay" with having their articles moved around?  Is there any dissent, or does no one really care? --Elonka 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (spoiler free)
is nominated at AfD by Shakla. Matthew Fenton (talk· contribs· count · email) 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

compulsive archiving
It's not that the recent archiving is controversial or anything like that, but I've just been noticing that people seem to be archiving lately simply for the sake of archiving instead of for talk page size. If the talk page isn't massively active, and there's no issue about the size of the page, then why archive discussion less than two weeks old? Sometimes I get the feeling people just like to fight for something, even if they never had a strong feeling about it one way or another.

At the very least now the above note about episode titles was kept, which was originally archived on the same day that a comment was left on it.

Not everyone checks talk pages very often, and some conversations show people not directly involved with us what's been recently going on. Again, not a major issue, but there's no point in archiving that which doesn't need to be archived. I know two weeks seems like a long time to some people, but it's not. If the talk page isn't "full" then calm down. I've seen a lot of discussions where someone responded to conversations that hadn't been active in a month, and more quality discussion came from that. Clean it out when you need the room, or when it's really old or a simple open and close issue (like, where is that link? here is that link. done). There's no harm in keeping them if you can, and there is likely benefit when it's reasonably recent. -- Ned Scott 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pages should only be archived when they get too long, yes - not just because they are old. About 30 sections in the TOC probably counts as too long. -- Alfakim --  talk  18:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Category for WikiProject Stargate participants
There is currently a renaming request for many WikiProject "participant" categories at User categories for discussion. Our participant category, Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate, is one of them. It sounds like a fairly non controversial issue to me, and I have no objection to it. It might seem odd to even worry about it, but considering we want to encourage people to use quality standards when writing, then a little nitpicking like this can help set a good example. Not that it really matters much in either way. However, some editors are a bit bothered that the WikiProjects were not asked first and seem to be opposing based on that alone. Personally, I think it's such a minor issue I'm not bothered by that.

None the less, we can have an individual discussion on it if anyone wants. -- Ned Scott 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or...
Is the glyph in the project title (on the project page) below the line of the other letters? Lockesdonkey 04:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be that we're suffering from the vagaries of diverse web browser rendering. When I edited the page yesterday the glyph was way above the line of the other letters, and I edited it to make it line up correctly on my browser. If other browsers already had it lined up then that would have lowered it below the line. My browser is Firefox 2.0 and I'm using the Classic skin, what're you using? Bryan 03:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a partial screenshot showing how this looked to me before I edited it, BTW:


 * [[Image:Temporary partial screenshot illustrating odd WikiProject Stargate layout on my browser.png|150px]]
 * Bryan 04:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I run Firefox 2.0, too; I never bother to mess around with skins, so my Wikipedia skin is MonoBook. Lockesdonkey 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And the same for me:
 * [[Image:LD-WPSG-Screenshot.PNG|150px]] Lockesdonkey 04:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just tried switching over to Monobook and I get the same thing you do. So it's definitely something to do with the skins. I'll take a look at the HTML source and see if I can identify what the difference is. Bryan 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm stumped for the time being. I suspect there's something buried in the CSS somewhere that's changing how images are aligned in different skins, but this is out of my field. I'm going to go in search of HTML experts to consult. Bryan 06:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem fixed if you just use a complete image. I've already done it, go see. -- Alfakim -- talk  06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd still like to know what the issue is for future reference (I posed the question at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Variation in how Monobook and Classic skins align inline images if anyone else is also curious), pages shouldn't render differently like this. Also this solution still looks a bit off in the Classic skin since Classic gives Wikipedia: namespace pages a light yellow background color, a PNG or SVG with transparent background would be better. Bryan 07:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  23:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

New WikiProject: WikiProject Science Fiction
To give some coherency to the many little sf-oriented communities on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh?! (GateWorld)
For some strange reason, the spam blacklist has tagged GateWorld as spam, though I can't find it in the actual list. I've asked about it here: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist —  Brother Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: Looks like it's been fixed. —  Brother Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

template sgspoiler|3
The spoiler template used in pages like Seth (Stargate SG-1) creates a gian blank area in the page because it moves the plot below the bottom of the infobox. Has anyone notices this? - Peregrinefisher 18:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's an Internet Explorer problem, I believe, as it doesn't like the double use of div tags (for the infobox and the spoiler warning). It happens on most pages with a spoiler warning and an infobox.  —  Brother  Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IE is 80% of all browsers, so we should probably fix it. It's a common problem, because wikipedia is written in firefox and read in IE.  I notice that if a normal {{spoiler} tag is used, the problem goes away.  That would be an easy solution. - Peregrinefisher 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It works with the normal spoiler tag? Strange.  I'll have to look at the SGspoiler code again.  —  Brother  Flounder  (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The infobox doesn't even use a div tag by the looks of it. While it would be nice to make the page work in IE, we shouldn't make the page non-standards compliant in order to do so. Firstly, it could break it in other browsers (encouraging people to use IE), and secondly, it discourages Microsoft from fixing their broken brower. I can't work out what IE is doing - it's putting the first horizontal line of the spoiler tag in the right place and then waits until after the infobox to put the rest of the tag in. Very strange. --Tango 12:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. It only occured if your screen was small because the text of the spoiler tag wasn't allowed to wrap to two lines. -- Alfakim -- talk  18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Article? Information?
So ... Stargate series 3? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the only article I've seen that reports anything other than rumours and speculation. We need for more before we can write an article on it - a title would be good, for one thing. --Tango 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy Crap in a Puddle Jumper! Awesome. Just one question. Is that picture on the Gateworld site of a weird variant Stargate. It might be just me, but it looks a little different from the normal Stargates to my eyes...--Quadraxis 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like a normal stargate to me. At first glance, I would guess it's a screenshot from "Prisoners", but it's been a while since I've seen that episode, so I could very easily be mistaken. I expect it's just a random screenshot, it doesn't look like any information about this new series has been released, which would presumably include publicity photos. --Tango 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After checking the episode, I'm not certain, but I think it's from Prisoners. --Tango 12:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather looks like a CG-ed Stargate from a convention, rather than being from an episode.-- Alfakim -- talk  20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

For uploading Stargate images
If you're uploading a Stargate image, use this: WP:WPSG/Image. Select your licensing tag (tv-screenshot), then in the description box, type:

You can also specify relevant information (recommended):

e.g e.g. e.g. e.g.


 * The "from" parameter is to say which Stargate show the image is from. You can use abbreviations.
 * The "of" parameter is to describe what the picture is of.
 * The "in" parameter is the article which the image appears in. Including this parameter generates fair use text.
 * The "source" parameter is a web address for where the image is from.

The more information you add, the better the output will be, although no extra information is strictly necessary. Using this template also adds the image to the correct Stargate image category. -- Alfakim -- talk  21:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article on Third Stargate Series
Tone has started an article on the next Stargate series at Stargate: The third series. I think that this article could use a better name, possibly Third Stargate Series. What do you all think? —  Brother Flounder  03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The other shows start with the word Stargate. So Stargate third series sounds the best to me.  However, I'm not sure it matters at this point.  I'd leave the current title and just redirect the other two for now.  Since they'll all be redirects once we find out the real title, I'm not sure there is much point in moving it around.   Morphh   (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% sure we should have an article on a planned series that hasn't even been named yet, but if we're going to, it shouldn't have a title that looks like it's pretending to be the name of the series. Third Stargate series would be good, I think. --Tango 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also note Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To do
At present each article contains a trivia section, we need to mass these (and if possible - integrate) - see WP:AVTRIV, trivia is non-encyclopaedic (ref: Talk:Line_in_the_Sand_%28Stargate_SG-1%29, Talk:The_Road_Not_Taken_%28Stargate_SG-1%29) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC) A mass trivia page may read more like a fan guide than an encyclopedia. These sections should be considered 'notes'. Only relevant info unable to be presented in the body of the article should be listed. The link matthewfenton provided takes you to an excerpt from the stargate episode style guide pertaining to such note sections. Please refer to it when editing or contributing to a note section. thanks Mwhope 16:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Massacre trivia sections.

Noticed no mention of stargate in this list so I added some refferences to I'm sure theres more I didn't think of.
 * Fictional_applications_of_real_materials

WikiQuote Links?

 * link the note sections of each episode with the corresponding wikiquote page (a la There But For the Grace of God) This may allow for some of the noted trivia to be presented in a manner concordant with WP. Mwhope 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Sgspoiler up for deleteion / redirect
Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Spoiler-season, which is basically what sgspoiler uses, is also up for deletion, Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4. Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter, and can see it going either way (for both). -- Ned Scott 04:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In a strange twist, Sgspoiler was kept but Spoiler-season was redirected to {{tl|spoiler}]. Sgspoiler is now independent of Spoiler-season and will still operate in the same way that it did before. -- Ned Scott 20:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great news that it got kept! Stargate deserves it's own spoiler template.


 * They've both been closed as no consensus now - the closing admin on the spoiler-season one changed their mind. --Tango 20:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced Sgspoiler on all articles now. On some it was replaced with spoiler, and on others it was replaced with spoiler-season. I've introduced a new paramater for sgspoiler (FORCESHOW) that should satisfy those worried that it unnecessarily displays the show. --GunnarRene 22:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you do that when the TfD decided to keep the template? --Tango 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It was "no consensus", not "keep". I made those changes to reflect the compromise worked out in the discussion so that we won't lose the functionality if there's a re-nomination. --GunnarRene 20:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The only difference in appearance between sgspoiler and spoiler-season is that sgspoiler links to the episode section, while spoiler-season links only to the list of episodes article. Do we really want the Stargate spoiler notice to link to List of Stargate SG-1 episodes rather than List of Stargate SG-1 episodes? Isn't it possible that the section leads will spoil people unintentionally? What do you think? --GunnarRene 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcripts
These duplicate an episode, verbatim, all these links to "Stargate SG-1 Solutions" need to be removed. WP:EL: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no problem now, as the episode transcripts are now official. In fact, I'm not sure they weren't before. I guote from one article: Screenplay (PDF). Distributed by MGM. Prepared by Casablanca Continuity. Retrieved on 2006-10-15. Linked to from Official Stargate SG-1 site. Cheers.-- trlkly 12:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags on episode pages
There have been a lot of attempts recently to get rid of spoiler tags, both in general and in specific cases. I think we should try and meet the people making those attempts half-way by only using spoiler tags where actually necessary. One place we have them and don't need them is episode pages. I think it is obvious that the "Plot" section of an episode page is going to contain spoilers about that episode, so I propose we remove all spoiler tags from such places (unless they refer to spoilers of an episode that comes after the one the article is about). Any objections? --Tango 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I my self as a TfDer of a particular template can say I'm not trying to get rid of a spoiler boilerplate but rather standardise on spoiler, frankly I see no reason why ten templates when one suffice. The whole "to give adequate warning for each season" is moot and could be construed as "censoring" and really multiple templates would only be needed if there was no way it could be structured better. Also, I believe we are supposed to avoid over use of these "meta templates" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't need to detail your general objections every time someone mentions the word "spoiler". We all know your views. I asked a specific question about a specific use of spoiler tags, and your comment was completely irrelevant to that use. My question was not about giving specific seasons in spoiler warnings, it was not about giving multiple warnings on one page. This is not the place for your crusade - the place for that was TfD, any you failed (for now, anyway). If you have something constructive to add to this discussion then go ahead, otherwise, please keep quiet. --Tango 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh how pedantic, remember to be civil as well. Oh and assuming I have a crusade.. what next.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Matthew.. just stop man.. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet
After recently being shown that page I have come to the conclusion it desperately needs a rewrite to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies. (Notable it encourages spam, copyright violations, MoS violations, trivia and misc.) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please specify your complaints a little more specifically? The trivia bit should be removed, definitely. The copyright status of transcripts is definitely questionable, I'm not sure if all the links should be removed, but we definitely need to consider it - do you have any references to the legality of transcripts you can link me to? I don't know what you're referring to with the other complaints. --Tango 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly it encourages over-linking (linking from the bar in the infobox) - WP:CONTEXT
 * Encourages the use of a template or a standard lead-in, this is bad on multiple fronts, firstly it not only limits the expansion of the lead-in but is also unneeded transclusion (there is an essay WP:TCB, though I've not read it - see also WP:LEAD)
 * It furthermore encourages over linking to several non-notable fan sites. Spam. GateWorld is probably the only notable there. While trivia violates WP:AVTRIV, it if can't be integrated it should be excised. The transcripts violate copyright as they are just lifted straight from the episode with no information on copyright, etc, see . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that linking the bar in the infobox is overlinking - and infobox for a TV episode linking to the TV show seems reasonable to me. The lead template should be substed, that needs changing. I don't think the external links section encourages spam, it encourages citing sources - it should be titled "References" rather than "External Links", though. --Tango 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide a valid rationale why the same link is needed twice so close to each other? and fan sites are not generally a valid source, GateWorld probably qualifies as a valid secondary source.. but I do not know. Also I never said the section encourages spam, I'm talking about the links the page states are useful are non-notable, basic spam. Also sources should preferably be cited using the ref mark-up, for verifiability, naturally. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's easier for a reader to find the link they want, as it's their twice. It's not a large gain, but it does pretty much no harm at all, so why not have it there? The stylesheet should be changed to explain how to do the references correctly, I agree - I suggest you go ahead and fix that part. --Tango 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the infobox is generally seen as "stand-alone-ish" from the article, so it's ok to link in both the article and the infobox, even if it's "close". -- Ned Scott 07:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I think. The infobox is a summary - be definition, a summary contains information that is repeated elsewhere. I see no reason not to link that information both times it appears. --Tango 12:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some questions regarding this style guide as well that had been brought up by User:MatthewFenton above and didn't seem to be addressed, specifically in regards to transcripts / plot summaries. This concern came up as a result of perusing some of the episode listings for SG1, and I noticed that many of them had been tagged  .  Before I dive headlong into these articles to do a lot of summarizing of the plot summaries, I wanted to check in here and see if any information could be found.  Interestingly our style guide here points to Thirty-Eight Minutes as being a 'good' example of a plot summary - it seems to me that the summary in this article is every bit as long and detailed as the tagged articles.  This seems to be in contradiction to the previous guideline The "Plot" section should not be an exhastive list of everything that has happened in the episode, but instead a succinct synopsis of the important elements of the plot.  Furthermore it seems to contain a lot of in-universe perspective that is proscribed by the Manual of Style.  Is it indeed a consensus that Thirty-Eight Minutes is a 'good' example of plot summary?  The plethora of  tagged episode articles would seem to indicate that editors in general do not agree.  I would like to improve upon these tagged articles to bring them up to standard but again, before I do I wanted to check here for some kind of guidance.  Thanks.  Arkyan 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Road Not Taken
The Road Not Taken (Stargate SG-1) - someone nominated as a copyvio. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Walter Harriman
While looking around, I have found a lot of references to "Sgt. Davis" and "Technician", all played by Gary Jones. I think it would be good if all of these could have one standard "correct" name, which I believe to be Walter Harriman. Jacobpauldyer 11:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There isn't really "one standard correct name" - he's been refered to by various names at different times. Walter Harriman is the most recent, I think, but when talking about old episodes, it's probably best to use the name he had then. --Tango 11:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found the reference I was looking for. Episode 901, he introduces himself to Col. Mitchell as "Chief Master Sargent Walter Harriman". I think it's fair to assume he knows his own name. Jacobpauldyer 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Templates & Project Member Tags
I think that we need to have our own list of important Templates and Userboxes etc in one place. Now obviously, we already have a few, but I might suggest that the templates be revised. I know I've been quiet for a while, but that's because I have been extremely busy elsewhere.Alteran Ancient 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message
Just so you all know, I've set things up so that as soon as someone adds their name to the Participants list at the project (i.e. joins the project), they are presented with the following Welcome Page: WikiProject Stargate/Welcome.

We should use this page to introduce new editors straightaway to the core principles of the project. If we can get our principles sorted, e.g. the episode style sheet, writing style, etc., then these can be summarised in the welcome message. -- Alfakim -- talk  15:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. I think I'm going to draft a proposal episode style sheet pretty soon. Matthew

71.142.240.224 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'the Alliance of Four Great Races' or 'the Alliance of Five Great Races' ?
would'nt it be 'the Alliance of Five Great Races' if we're a member now? i don't know though, they didn't change the name when a member of the alliance went extinct, so i guess it wouldn't changed when a new member joins? Idon&#39;texist 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Humanity has always been the 5th race, regardless we are not a member of the alliance, if it even still exists, that is. Matthew

oh. wait. if we're the fifth race, how we not in the Alliance. I'm confused. Idon&#39;texist 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Humanity hasn't always been the 5th race - in the episode of that name the Asgard said we were well on the way to becoming the 5th race, in Unending, they said we were the 5th race. It's not really an alliance anymore, though. The Ancients have ascended and don't do much these days, the Asgard are gone, the Nox are isolationist and pacifist (although Earth should try and contact them again and see if they are more willing to be friends now we've advanced a bit more) and the Furlings... well, who knows? Humanity is more the heir of the alliance than a member of it. --Tango 21:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

kay. i was just wondering. nevermind then. Idon&#39;texist 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the original lable the show gave should be the one used. In Episode 215 "The Fifth Race" an Asgard mentions exactly what Tango|Tango presents. therefore I say 'the Alliance of the Four Great Races.' 71.142.240.224 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)    edited 02:42, 18 May 2007 (PST)

Stargate Universe
Saw edits to the third series article by an IP addy saying a name had been chosen for it so went over to gateworld to confirm, and sure enough it had, so I went and moved the article over to that and also redirected Stargate universe to it as a common mis-capitalization.. Will add a little redirect here notice to the top of the page in a few minutes.. EnsRedShirt 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An additional note - it is a working title, and as such may well change before the series goes to air. --Ckatz chat spy  22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I sure hope they do change it as well.. :-\. Matthew 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless, of course, they're actually intending to visit an entirely different universe every week. Just think of the possibilities, once unbound from the constraints of the physical laws of our universe. A universe where time runs backwards, one with planets made of cake, the "Wizard of Oz" universe... the mind boggles. --Ckatz chat spy  23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it may turn in to Stargate: Sliders... --Tango 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. broadcast
I'm sure many of you are aware but I thought I would mention the reason why myself and possibly others are not participating in the WikiProject. The U.S. has not aired this season yet, so we're quite a bit behind many of the posts going into the project. I also won't review any of the posts, articles, or participate in the project discussion because I don't want a spoiler. Anyway.. just thought I would mention it. Sorry.. hope we get on the same schedule again so I can join back in. Morphh  (talk) 0:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings up for deletion
It is being discussed if Wikipedia should include spoiler warnings or not. Feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sgspoiler
Template:Sgspoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Character-specific templates
There's recently been a rash of templates created for minor characters, detailing every single episode that character has appeared in. These templates are then being put at the bottom of the episode page for each of those episodes. Is that type of thing really necessary? This information can all be found on the character's own page, without also being on every episode page. Also, where does one draw the line? Hathor gets a template, and she was only in 3 episodes. So does every single character in more than 1 episode get their own template at the bottom of every episode they were in? That would get extremely messy and ugly looking, I think. You can find the current templates here. (Oh and as a side note, if you are going to keep them they should probably translated into North American TV-lingo instead of European, since it's a North American show... ie: season, not series). --Maelwys 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found another large set of useless templates created by the same user, for example: Template:Series 1 of Stargate SG-1. These might be a little more usable, but still strikes me as being fairly overkill. Template:SG-1 contains all of them, and is the only place any of them are linked, and is only posted on one page. --Maelwys 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support deleting the templates, especially for characters with only a handful of episodes. There might be an argument for characters with many episodes (Jacob Carter, for instance), but even then I think the character's article is enough. --Tango 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * TFD'd here: Templates for deletion. Please add in any that I may have missed. Staecker 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a whole bunch to the list. --Ckatz chat spy  03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes
Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Television episodes, it was known as Centralized discussion/Television episodes. Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sokar Stories
Template:Sokar Stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

System lords
Hi guys, what's new at the project? I've come across TfD for the XX stories templates. As far as I remember, a consensus was reached some time ago that only Apophis, Anubis, Ba'al and eventually Yu are the only system lords that can have own articles. The others are to be merged. Or was there another talk more recently? Brief me up, otherwise we should do the merging. --Tone 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I only vaguely remember the discussion, but your list sounds about right to be. If the others haven't already been merged, be bold and merge them. If someone reverts you, then we can have a big discussion on it, but chances are everyone will accept the merger. --Tango 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Voila, I did the basic merging. I also cut off the trivia section per new guidelines. The only problem is that the list has become quite big now. Shall we leave it as it is or is it better to split it in two lists, one for System Lords and one for the rest of them? --Tone 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merging lots of characters together is done because there isn't much to say about them. Some of the characters on the list have a lot said about them. We have two options - split of some of them again (ie. decide we got the list of ones that can have their own articles wrong) or cut down what we've said about them (ie. decide the information isn't really notable enough for inclusion in that much detail - much of it is in episode articles anyway). I think the second option is best in most cases. --Tango 23:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you choose to cut down the information, it would be appreciated if you could move it over to the Stargate wiki, unless we have larger articles already. That way, the information gets saved somewhere and you can link to it from here. Jaymach 06:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with cutting the details. It's all already covered in the episode articles. By the way, I let Ra his own article, he appeared in the movie after all. --Tone 07:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Flagisalis
I have started the article on Flagisalis chem_tom 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is really notable enough a Stargate topic. What does everyone else think? -- Alfakim -- talk  03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been in multiple episodes, so it's not completely non-notable. **SEASON 3 SPOILER** It's not likely to come again though, now they've left that planet. **END SPOILER** It's borderline... --Tango 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question re. O'Neill and Landry
I know this isn't really the right place for asking questions about the show, rather than our articles, but I'm going to do it anyway (the answer might be worth mentioning somewhere, so it's not entirely off-topic). In "Shroud", a little over half way through, O'Neill calls Landry "sir". By my understanding, they are both Major Generals, and in fact, I thought O'Neill was Landry's boss (although I'm not sure if that's been stated anywhere, it might just be fan speculation). Is this just a mistake by the writers, or am I missing something? --Tango 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be "habit" (O'Neill was only recently made a general), could be a mistake, could be a "well, I don't think so, no sir"-type thing...forget about it. LD 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage
The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:SG-1
Template:SG-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Maelwys 17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Could we maybe get a database of pics that can be used on wikipedia for stargate. It would make articles a lot more interesting with pictures, and easier for the editors instead of having to hunt for free license pics --Estrill5766 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There are no free license images for Stargate, only fair use images, which should not be used for decoration but for helping with critical comment.
 * Category:Screenshots of Stargate SG-1 and Category:Screenshots of Stargate Atlantis will help you find images that are already at wikipedia. Don't forget to add a fair use rationale to every image you want to use. – sgeureka t•c 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

New guideline on fiction: Delete Stargate-related articles?
I would like to call the attention of members of this project to the recently revised guideline at WP:FICT, which now states that all sub-articles on fictional subjects must independently meet a new (stricter) notability ruling than what was in place prior to the new guideline. If enforced, the new guideline would likely result in the deletion and/or merging of hundreds of articles on fictional subjects, such as fictional characters, television episodes, fictional locations, etc. There is active discussion / disagreement related to this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction), and in the interests of ensuring the topic is fully discussed by interested editors, I would invite members of this project to participate in that discussion (whether you agree with the new guideline or not). Fairsing 22:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed on Talk:Stargate Atlantis
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Stargate Atlantis regarding the Setting section. Some more opinions would be useful. --Tango 15:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Policies section
I have added a "project policies" section to the main page. Please add to it. It should include all the recommended reading on wikipedia policies relevant to us, and also any subpages where weve decided on policies for the project ourselves. I've already added a couple of the internal policies from memory of past discussions, but feel free to discuss them where you like. -- Alfakim -- talk  20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some things
According to the notability discussion currently going on, a huge merging of the episode articles is going to happen if there are no improvements to the style. For a start, the plots should be written more in out-of universe style (not really hard), trivia sections should be deleted and details about production and reception are welcome. In prose, of course. Besides, after merging almost all Goa'uld articles into Goa'uld characters in Stargate, I intend to do the same for at least for the Tauri ones on a separate and all other to one that I can't find a good name for at the moment. --Tone 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job with the list. I had a look at this and other SG lists recently and was surprised at how concise the information was compared to articles of other shows. I also checked the episode articles a few days ago because I also think the notability check of WP:EPISODE will sweep over them sooner or later (and I support the application of this guideline). So I checked what SG-1 episode articles may survive (I'm not so much into Atlantis). A list is provided below, with the bolded entries possibly making the cut for the reasons stated. I am only planning to work on "200" in the near future. – sgeureka t•c 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of boredom, I checked whether a good SG-1 episode article could be written that satisfies WP:EPISODE, without the episode actually receiving much media attention (i.e. no awards or New York Times coverage etc) or even special treatment by the producers (i.e. no DVD specials other than the ordinary audio commentary). You can see the result under Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1). Neat, huh? And with a little copyediting for prose, I guess this proves that almost all SG-1 ep articles are safe from WP:EPISODE if the enforcers (e.g. me) just want to see the potential of an article. BTW, it took me about three hours to write up the "Production" and "Reception" section, including the time to read the two TV Zones and the other web sources, and to listen to the DVD commentary. – sgeureka t•c 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

SG-1 episode articles possibly worth saving
Note: Beginning with Season 4, all but 3 episodes have audio commentaries. Beginning with Season 5, TV Zone devoted two out of its 7 specials per year to Stargate (~70 pages or more; with interviews, individual episode previews and reviews). Beginning with Season 6, about six episodes per season have specific DVD episode featurettes. Beginning with Season 8, an official Stargate Magazine is/was published. Producer Joe Mallozzi blogs since Season 8. Some episodes may have received special media coverage, for examples for actors coming/leaving and episode landmarks (100th, 150th, 200th episode). Quite a few articles were nominated for awards, with a few wins.

Having said that, almost all Stargate ep articles are in a not-so-good state per content and style guidelines, and it is unlikely that they will be improved much because (1) there are just too many episodes, (2) gateworld.net is already doing a great job with them, (3) SG-1 fans have not been very active with bringing up ep articles to at least GA (not a accusation, just an observation), and (4) SG-1 is cancelled now, with fan devotion slowly going down. Below is a list of SG-1 episodes that may have notability without having their notablity established in the article. The articles that have the best chance to establish notability easily are bolded.

– sgeureka t•c 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 101 Children Of The Gods - pilot episode; nominated Golden Reel Award
 * 107 The Nox - nominated for Emmy
 * 118 Tin Man - nominated for Gemini
 * 121 Within The Serpent's Grasp - nominated for Gemini
 * 217 Holiday - nominated for Gemini
 * 301 Into the Fire - nominated for Leo
 * 306 Point of View - nominated for Leo
 * 309 Forever in a Day - nominated for Leo
 * 313 The Devil You Know - nominated for Leo
 * 317 A Hundred Days - nominated for Leo
 * 322 Nemesis - nominated for Emmy, won Leo
 * 401 Small Victories - nominated for Emmy and Gemini and Leo
 * 406 Window of Opportunity - a fan favorite
 * 412 Tangent - nominated for Gemini
 * 413 The Curse - nominated for Leo
 * 418 The Light - won Leo
 * 422 Exodus - nominated for Emmy
 * 501 Enemies - main baddie dies (Apophis), nominated for Emmy and Gemini
 * 503 Ascension - won Leo
 * 512 Wormhole X-Treme! - 100th episode
 * 513 Proving Ground - nominated for Leo
 * 521 Meridian (Stargate SG-1) - main actor Michael Shanks (Daniel Jackson) leaves the show (controversy)
 * 522 Revelations (Stargate SG-1) - new baddie comes (Anubis), nominated for Emmy and Leo and VES Award, won Gemini
 * 601/602 Redemption (Stargate SG-1) - new main character Jonas Quinn, nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
 * 603 Descent - nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
 * 605 Nightwalkers - nominated for Gemini, DVD featurette
 * 612 Unnatural Selection - nominated for Leo 2x
 * 616 Metamorphosis - won Leo, DVD featurette
 * 619 The Warrior - nominated for Leo
 * 622 Full Circle - supposed to be final episode, DVD featurette
 * 705 Lifeboat - won Leo, nominated for Leo
 * 706 Enemy Mine - won Leo
 * 713 Grace - won Leo
 * 717/718 Heroes - regular character Janet Fraiser dies; nominated for Hugo, nominated for Leo (2x), DVD featurette
 * 721/722 Lost City - main baddie dies (Anubis), supposed to be final episode, Don S. Davis leaves main cast, nominated for Emmy and Gemini and VES Award, extended DVD featurette
 * 801/802 New Order - actor Richard Dean steps back but remains main cast member, episode right before SG Atlantis begins; nominated for Gemini
 * 806 Affinity - nominated for Leo
 * 813 It's Good to be King - nominated for Leo 2x
 * 816/817 Reckoning - nominated for Emmy and Leo, DVD featurette
 * 818 Threads - won Leo, nominated for another Leo, DVD featurette
 * 819/820 Moebius - supposed to be final episode, last episode with RDA as main cast member, won Leo, DVD featurette
 * 901/902 Avalon - Ben Browder replaces RDA, Beau Bridges replaces RDA, Amanda Tapping gets replaced with Claudia Black for a few episodes, start of Ori arc, extended DVD featurette
 * 903 Origin - third part of season opener, nominated for Gemini
 * 906 Beachhead - Amanda Tapping rejoins the cast, nominated for Gemini
 * 920 Camelot - nominated for Gemini 2x
 * 1001 Flesh and Blood - Claudia Black joins main cast
 * 1006 200 - 200th episode, nominated for Hugo, DVD featurette
 * 1010/1011 The Quest Part 2 - nominated for Leo
 * 1020 Unending - series finale

Good job. There is not much additional work in bringing most of the articles in a state where they pass the notability criteria. But when info like above is added, it better is in prose, otherwise it looks like another trivia section. --Tone 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks excellent sgeureka, thank you for putting so much into that. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that double episodes (like Children of the Gods ) have a single article for both, so if one is kept the other is kept as well. The The Quest Part 1 is also in that category.  JoshuaZ (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comments: there has been limited but some success (I can't cite an example off the top of my head) of having episodes saved due to their being plot important even if they don't have much else. I suspect that a handful of episodes such as The Enemy Within could get this argument made for them, not sure how well. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Double episodes of course have some extra advantage. And I think no one is expecting all articles dealing with the episodes to be perfect right away, but it needs to be obvious for outsiders that progress is being made. I think we can let go of about half of the episode as separate articles very easily (mainly those one-offs of the first few seasons that wouldn't have much fan backing anyway), and then we need to agree on a case by case basis what other articles can/should be kept and start working on those. There is not much to be gained in being too strict in the beginning, or too lax in the end. Collaboration avoids making false decisions. – sgeureka t•c 12:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
In the Screenshots of Stargate SG-1 Category there are a lot of images that are screen cap from the television broadcast and have a network logo. Is it worthwhile for someone to go through this category and upload DVD screenshots in their place? Ank329 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination
Input requested at Articles for deletion/List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate/2nd nom. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we start to Transwiki?
Although there haven't been any major proposes for deletion of Stargate articles, shouldn't we start to transwiki the existing articles to in case that someday someone plans to delete f.e. the episode articles. This would also give us the opportunity to recreate the individual character articles we had in former times. Diabound (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still reading up on the transwiki procedure, but I think I/we could start in about one or two weeks. Transwiki'ing should be fairly easy, but during or after it we have to make sure that all wikia articles are properly linked from wikipedia. For a merged list of characters, this can look like Smallville characters (season 1). For a merged list of episodes, the new layout could look like this:


 * {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" style="background: #FFFFFF;"

! # !! Title !! Wikia link !! Written by !! Directed by !! Original airdate (HBO) !! Viewers
 * - bgcolor="#CCCCCC;" style="border-bottom:3px solid #ccb751"


 * }
 * So I think that is what we have to agree on first before just blindly starting the transwiki process (if this is the preferred procedure at all). – sgeureka t•c 13:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Copying existing articles to that wiki sounds like a great idea if anyone wants to do it. I don't think it should be with the assumption that the ones here will eventually be deleted - I, for one, intend to oppose any such mass deletions. The idea that only episodes that have won awards should article doesn't work - it would mean that the article should be primarily about the award and what resulted it in getting the award, rather than how it fits into the series, and I think it's the latter information which makes for a better article. A lot of improvements need to be made to many of our episode articles, sure, but that's not a deletion criterion. It's obvious, to me, that at least some episodes (for example, the award winning ones) are notable enough to deserve articles, which means either including all of them, or drawing a line somewhere, and I can't see any reasonable place to draw sucha line, which leaves me thinking they should all be kept. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Notability and Notability (fiction) disagrees with some of your points - it's not the in-universe notability (i.e. plot) that matters for wikipedia fiction articles, but the out-of-universe notability and/or real-world coverage. Current episode reviews have been going on for several months ago, starting with minor shows, but they have already reached Angel (TV series) and Farscape. So obviously I won't sit here on my thumbs doing (or trying) nothing until SG-1 eps are under review. WP:ILIKEIT !votes get ignored if nothing happens with the articles (often because there aren't any sources to begin with), so don't expect that your opposition against merging/redirecting (not deletion) will have any weight. Episodes that don't follow the notability guidelines will get merged/redirected after the review by force, if necessary, and it seems even the admins agree that these articles may only be revived if significant real-world information has been added (arbcom will have a preliminary "final" decision about this action in about 4-6 weeks). The only improvement we can curently do is to expand the real-world content of episode articles we want to keep (as we should anyway), and merge the other ones at our own pace. The only reason why I currently consider merging the non-award episodes of the first three seasons is because the others already establish a minimum of real-world notability, or have easy accessible audio commentaries for real-world content. If my cleanup attempts turn out to not be welcome in this project (which I am trying to find out right now), I am at least preparing other SG fans of what lies ahead. – sgeureka t•c 20:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * An advantage of transwiki would also be the fact that we could keep long episode summaries, while Wikipedia discourages them. About starting with transwikiing, I won't hav problems to copy several articles a day to the Wiki.Diabound (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons we don't like excessive plot summaries is because of copyright issues. They would apply just as much on Wikia as here. There may be a middle ground between what is accepted here and what is a copyright violation, and things in the middle ground could go on Wikia, but copyrights do need to be taken into account. --Tango (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a minor transwiki test plus more
The more I think about it, the more I think that transwiki'ing is the easiest and quickest solution for the episodes. I started a season page in my userspace for SG-1, but that was so much work that I gave up after 4 episodes. Instead, I've done the following things.

I replaced the table in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes for Season 1 with Episode list. The other seasons will follow. The major changes are that I merged the name of the writer, the director, an alternate episode number (so that there will be 1->214 and 101->1020 in the end) from the episode articles, and added a wikia link. What is left to do is
 * 1) Decide about a line color between each episode. (I am not very creative in this matter and have found other people are happy to kill over this task. Fine by me.)
 * 2) Decide if this will be the future layout of all episodes/seasons. I mean, for example, the wikia link can still be moved around. I need to know this now rather than later.
 * 3) Decide if we will be going with the production code (number in which the episodes were produced), or an alternate counting system (eg. 312 means episode 12 of season 3), or both.

As a test, I transwikied The Enemy Within (Stargate SG-1) to Wikia:Stargate:The Enemy Within (the full link looks like http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/The_Enemy_Within ) and Emancipation (Stargate SG-1) to Wikia:Stargate:Emancipation. With some preparation (completed now, no-one else has to do it again), this was surprisingly quick. The procedure is as follows:
 * 1) Copy the Infobox Television episode from the wikipedia ep article to the top of the wikia article, and remove the "(Stargate SG-1)" from the links in "Prev =" and "Next=".
 * 2) Copy the plot from the wikipedia article to the Summary section in the wikia article. Check beforehand if the wikia plot summary is better than what we have/had at wikipedia. Tweak accordingly.
 * 3) Copy the notes from the wikipedia article (if there are any) to the Notes section in the wikia article.
 * 4) Add all (relevant) cite web templates from the External Links section on wikipedia to the Sources section on wikia.
 * 5) Delete SG1-stub from wikia because the article likely is not longer a stub.
 * 6) Important Add (e.g. ) to the bottom of the wikia article. This will leave the GFDL license intact.
 * 7) Preview. Check if some of the redlinks in the plot summary can be removed.
 * 8) Important Leave "Add content from [wikipedia article version link]" or something similar as an edit summary. You get the wikipedia article version link by going to the source wikipedia article, click on the history tab, click on the last date at the top (e.g. "01:56, November 13, 2007"), and copy the url (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_of_the_Gods&oldid=171090096 ). Click Save on the wikia article. (An anti-bot window will pop up, but it's obvious what you have to do.)
 * 9) You're finished except that all images have to be transwikied from wikipedia. As this can be done later, no need to write about this now.

So, and what we have to do then is decide which episode we are going to keep as articles on wikipedia. I could set up a non-binding poll soon. Generally speaking, no more than five to eight episodes per season should remain on wikipedia, giving preferance to those article winning (or being nominated for) awards, fan favorites, and those articles you would personally improve (because it is your favorite). We can have another poll later to decide if we can lose a few more episode articles that don't establish notability, but this will be for a different time. – sgeureka t•c 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All of SG-1 Season 1 is transwikied to wikia now. – sgeureka t•c 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As one of the admins over on the Stargate wiki, I'm just curious if you're going to be doing the same thing to the Stargate Atlantis episodes? We're more than happy to take them, as I hate seeing people's work go to waste when they've obviously spent some time writing up synopsis' for each episode. Jaymach (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no current plan to also transwiki the Atlantis episodes. If people would like me to transwiki them as well like I do with the SG-1 episodes, I'd volunteer. But then there also needs to be consensus to cut down on the ATL episodes on wikipedia as well, or all of this would be in vain. I also admit that I kind of lost interest in Atlantis in Season 2 and haven't been very involved with fandom since (although I still watch the show), and I have no idea in how far these ATL episodes would/could make for good articles per WP:EPISODE. Anyway, this would have to wait some more weeks until SG-1 is transwikied in full. It's also not a good idea to change the wiki procedure with ATL episodes while the show is on a weekly run. – sgeureka t•c 21:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I used User:NedBot to move images over for Digimon Wiki, and can also do this for all of the Stargate articles. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the real problem?
Most of the discussion here doesnt seem to consider this:

"All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

"Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

I was afraid that means all episodes have to go, but Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) is indeed good work and may suffice. --Echosmoke (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that when these ep articles were created, the policies and guidelines were not as strict, and we now have to deal with these legacy articles or be overrun by time. I guess the majority of episodes with audio commentaries and a little source-digging can become like Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) (which was three hours of work, including watching the ep with the commentary on). If this inspires you to work on an ep article as well, then great. :-) But until all episodes are up to such a state (which will likely never happen), thinking about some other (reversable) options is also fine. – sgeureka t•c 01:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright she acted as if they were long lost friends but i understand now. i was seeing other goofs so i thought i would add as it can be funny to notice but stargate is still #1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.117.112 (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)