# Talk:Sector General

I had made a chart of the four-letter classifications with species, but I'm not sure how to put it up here.  Can anyone help? Thanks --Japonai Narya 21:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- - - 2 months later, and I have the chart up (finally!). Any help/imput is truly appreciated.
Should it be in this article or a separate one?--Japonai Narya 21:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think it really needs a separate entry.  Putting it in this one should be fine.  Extreme Unction 12:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm presently looking at Hospital Station, and it gives the gravity of Cinruss as <1/12th Earthnorm. I remember verifying the 1/8th figure given in the article from either Star Surgeon or Star Healer. This is either an inconsistency or a retcon - any idea which? --Kizor 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Likely inconsistency.  There are a few such instances in the series (some physical classifications, the Telfi, etc.).  Either value is acceptable from Prilica's physiology, although a twelfth of a gee becomes difficult from a planetary science perspective.Michaelbusch 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I find your education in planetary science extremely cool. Thanks - I see no reason not to go with the more likely figure, especially with this discussion on the talk page. --Kizor 16:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As I read through more of the series, it's clear that time is passing. Conway goes from his twenties to greying. Is there any indication of the rate? I've heard that it corresponds to real life, which would be a great idea, but it'd have to be sourced. --Kizor 00:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, so much for that. Code Blue - Emergency refers to the events of Star Surgeon (a 24-year gap) as having happened nearly 20 years before. --Kizor 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, holy carp. White had been practicing. --Kizor 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the rate of aging in this high-tech universe is somewhat slower than real life, although it does become apparent, especially from Mind Changer.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freiberg (talk • contribs) 15:21, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I am going to put some quotes up on Wikiquote, and have a link between the two wikis.  Anyone object?--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:HospitalStation1962Paperback.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Done --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that someone put a lot of work into this, but I think it's too much detail for a Wikipedia article, and propose to remove it - I've added a link to Gary Louie's The Classification System under "Further reading" instead.
Does anyone known if any other source provides a guide as comprehensive as Gary Louie's or if it was reproduced in any  of the books? --Philcha (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I rated this as a B class article. It seems to cover everything one would expect, and is decently sourced and has out of universe information. GA status would seem to be only a small step from here. The one thing i would change is the list of code letters and species - it seems like too much information, and too in-universe to be of help (having not read the books, the names of the species is useless to me).Yobmod (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the mini-review. I agree about the list of species codes and am removing it. In any case the article links to a copy of the list. --Philcha (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm revising the lead to make it summarise the main text. While doing this, I'm removing the details about the more extreme environmental requirements, which is accurate but IMO unnecessary in an overview of the series, and also the bit about the anthropic principle as this: is never mentioned in the series or any review I've seen; is nonsense, as there at least 3 varieties of anthropic principle, and none of them implies that carbon-based oxygen-breathers are the majority of intelligent species. --Philcha (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the posts above, and I think it's important to create an article for the physiological classification scheme, not just for xenobiological purposes, but also because it's referenced in all the Wikipedia articles on each organism.  I just created a new article for a species list: list of species (Sector General). Nicoleta (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If you do, the first hazard is WP:NOTABILITY - borrow some sources from Sector General.
I often use sortable tables ({| class="wikitable sortable" ... |}). You might try it. --Philcha (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)