Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force/Archive 2

message: I was thinking about doing a list of SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1 similar to the Atlantis personnel in Stargate Atlantis I've already done, but after 9 seasons, that list will be a huge work to do. I have already done a bit. Would anyone be interesting in collaborating? Thanks! --Andromeda 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could let me know what help you need I'll do what I can. 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page has been started at SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1. All help is very appreciated. Thanks! --Andromeda 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1 

message: Should the episode numbers start from the start of the season, or should it be the episode to date. It looks as if 7 or so from season 2 are episodes to date, and the others are just their respective season. Mortein 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... dont get you.. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the episode pages, should it say the episode number from the current season "Season 3, Episode 6" ("Point of View"), or from all the seasons "Season 3, Episode 51". I think either way is fine, it's just some articles have it one way, and others another way. Although it does sort of make more sense the first way. Mortein | Talk 04:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh rihgt. DEFINITELY the first way. I didn't realise there were articles that did it the other way. I must change them. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode Numbering

message: * Jaffa
** First Prime
** Jaffa Resistance <- Stub
** Jaffa High Council <- Stub
The First Prime's are just elevated Jaffa, and a Resistance and High Council section can be created to cover what little we know currently on those issues.
Lady Aleena  00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One [[Jaffa (Stargate)|Jaffa]] article

message: Here is my proposal for the Known Asgard article, I just need to do the episode lists...
Known Asgard proposal
:Seems you were quicker than me, but I really like what you did. If there is anything that I can do, tell me. Diabound00 10:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Episode lists are needed, if you could gather that data, it would be a great help. Lady Aleena  11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recomend that you go to www.gateworld.com. On each character page there is also a list of episodes in which the character appeared. Diabound00 12:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, but keep Thor as having his own page. He's a fairly significant character by himself, and deserves an article of his own. LD 21:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Important characters should keep having a seperate article. --SoWhy 13:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All Asgard on one page

message: * Is it Baal or Ba'al?
:I'm for Ba'al btw. can i move the article?-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baal

message: * Does "Stargate" always come with a capital letter? Or are there special cases? (and then so does "Gate" always have a capital?)
:You should not use an apostrophe with the word gate. Gate is also used as a verb. Since there are many stargates, they don't need to be capitalized. The only time stargate needs to be capitalized is when the title of the show Stargate SG-1 and Stargate: Atlantis is used. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. and also when discussing the Stargate specifically. although i disagree with the apostrophe. it's like the apostrophe before flu. - you dont really need it as flu is in common usage like gate.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only time ascension needs to be capitalized is when it is in an episode title or used as a proper noun. Otherwise, the process of ascending need not be capitalized. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else agree? it always seems silly to me to say someone ascends rather than Ascends because it just looks like they've gone up.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In this case Season 8 needs to be capitalized. If you are talking about this season, then it does not get capitalized nor when we are discussing the various seasons. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The above are all absolutely right, this is corroborated by the show itself. Goa'ulds is especially wrong.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitals

message: *Though I'm not certain, I beleive that it's settled that the plural of "Goa'uld" is "Goa'uld", not "Goa'ulds"; the plural of "Ori" is "Ori", not "Orii", and that the plural of "Wraith" is "Wraith" when referring to the whole race ("the Wraith" not "the Wraiths"). LD 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above are all absolutely right, this is corroborated by the show itself. Goa'ulds is especially wrong.-- Alfakim --  talk  04:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plurals

message: On each episode infobox of the SG Atlantis episodes there is US airdate. I think it should be just the first airdate there is since resently some episodes aired in Canada several weeks before they will in the US. --Tone 15:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the episode infobox standardised accross Wikipedia? -b 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, it is standardised. The problem here is that it has US airdates although it should have just general. I will let a remark there. --Tone 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates 

message: Currently, the articles, System Lord, and Goa'uld have lists of Goa'uld.  Each has it's onw advantages.  Goa'uld is more acurate, more detailed, and more complete.  System lord, is cleaner, neater, and has more mythological backround.  I propose that we somehow merge the 2 lists.  what do you guys think?  Tobyk777 05:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. Bring System Lord over to Goa'uld and just mention which Goa'uld's are system lords. Keep the System Lord formatting. Lady Aleena | Talk 08:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but I disagree. While I think it's a good idea to merge the information, I find the System Lords formatting messier, with each table having different columm widths, and not having the characters listed alphabetically, which makes more difficult to find the one you're looking. --Andromeda 05:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then reorder the syslords one alphabetically. but i'm opposed to the idea of merging them. System Lord and Goa'uld are totally different articles. take one look at the content and you'll see. even the content of the lists is different. there's no reason to merge these. -- Alfakim --  talk  06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only difference between a System Lord and a normal Goa'uld is that a System Lord is recognized as having control of a system or several systems. A System Lord sits on the council. What else do we really need to put in that entry? There are far more Goa'uld than System Lords, so the System Lord entry should be ported over to Goa'uld. Lady Aleena | Talk 07:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two lists can be merged nicely, specially now that someone broke away List of Goa'uld from the Goa'uld article. Also, the System Lords article has information about the Asgard that should better be moved to the Asgard (Stargate) page. --Andromeda 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant lists

message: Hey, should we all decide on an article to make reallllllly good, work on it together, and then submit it for Featured article? I'm up for it, and thinking of maybe a System Lord, main character or Stargate (device). -- Alfakim --  talk  07:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest Stargate (device). It is the most general article of all about the topic. Will you ask for peer review? The article is long enough already, there might only be some smaller improvements. --Tone 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article could have a few more revisions yet, particularly to arrange information and make things very clear for non-gaters as well as interesting and pertinent. yes peer review would probably be a good idea. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Drive 

message: The alien race from Deadman Switch played by Sam Jones is missing from the list. They are an odd race that they are slave of the Goa'uld but not taken as hosts because they can't be.
Just FYI... (working on something else at the moment and took a break)...
Lady Aleena  05:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once off alien race missing 

message: Does anyone if the Korelev is a Daedalus class ship?  As I haven't heard anything about it other then it exist but someone keeps saying it's a Daedalus class.MarineCorps 03:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's an Earth ship it most likely is because like the Daedalus and the Odysseus there is only one type of ship Earth can manufacture. Care to tell me in which episode it has been mentioned as I can't remember hearing that name before? --SoWhy 12:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it hasn't been mentioned yet this info can't be presumed correct. We should not include information as definite that has yet to be confirmed in the show. --SoWhy 13:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nyet. As of "Crusade", it's an American-built Daedalus-class ship, given to the Russians in exchange for renewal of the American lease on the Stargate. LD 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korelev

message: I know that we decided that Stargate (device) was going to be our article imporvment drive, however, I think that although it's a pretty good article, it's no where as close to FA status as Stargate SG-1.  Our SG-1 article, is outstanding.   I put it on the Good Articles list.  Does anyone here think SG-1 is good enough to become a FA?  Tobyk777 05:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think Stargate SG-1 should be our drive instead. However, I currently dislike the article for one reason: it's Summary section is awful. The division of subsections within it is also terrible. The whole "Show Summary", "Plot Summary" and "The SG-1 Fictional Universe" could really be condensed into "Plot Summary" with one or two minor subsections like "Major Details". Until that area is sorted out I don't think it's any way near FA.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Articles

message: All of the Stargate templates now have a home, :Category:Stargate templates. Stargate has more templates listed than Star Trek does. I thought Star Trek would have Stargate beat. Stargate only has 1 movie compared to Star Trek's 10. ST has 28 seasons to SG's 12. Fasinating, indeed. :) Lady Aleena  17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stargate templates have a home 

message: I know that this has been bandied about before, but I intend to do it. I think I'll be able to do it at some point, but later this week. It will be as a sandbox of my user page. What do you think? Lockesdonkey 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got everything through SG team members; that's the bulk of it, I think. User:Lockesdonkey/Sandbox Tau%27ri. LD 04:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  SGC personnel in Stargate SG-1 has been created but it still needs work. Help is very much appreciated. --Andromeda 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Earth characters in Stargate SG-1 

message: Look Wikipedia:Peer review/Stargate (device)/archive3 and you are welcome to comment. Regards, --Tone 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for Stargate (device) 

message: For articles that need to be improved or written, can't we just take some parts of the Stargate Wikis articles on them?  This would seem to be the best and easiest course of action to get these articles written and/or improved. American Patriot 1776 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if those are released under the GFDL and if they agree to it. Even if they do it would be better to write them ourselves.  SoWhy Talk 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stargate Wiki 

message: Could you all read over this article for any errors?  Just made it.  Thanks. American Patriot 1776 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Frank Simmons (Stargate)|Frank Simmons]] 

message: Hi Over the course of 2 and a half weeks, i have written almost this entire article.  (With the exception of some minor edits from some other people.  What do you guys think.  I was thinking of nominating it for a Featured atrticle.  Also, if you guys have anymore pics for the article it would be great.  Tobyk777 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it good? Yes. Featured? On the WikiPortal Stargate page, perhaps, but not on Wikipedia. LD 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Tobyk777 21:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Main Page features have to be the best of the best; the main article for Stargate SG-1 still has to be improved to become an FA, but it's been called an official "good article" and is undergoing peer review (see above). The DNA Resequencer article, while informative, does not come close to the high-level writing, good organization, and quality citiation in Stargate SG-1, nor does it match the general interest, which is normally an unofficial criterion for Wikipedia FAs, unlike SG-1, which is a TV show as a whole. The only thing that I have seen which is not general-interest that has become an FA is Spoo, and that is because it became something of a cult phenomenon (in addition to being downright funny). LD 21:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[DNA Resequencer (Stargate)]]

message: It's three different colors! Look at Robert Kinsey, Walter Harriman, and Tau'ri! I don't really know how to fix it, so could somebody please set it back to that red color (like on Tau'ri), as it originally was? Lockesdonkey 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Andromeda 08:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong witht the SGColor Tau'ri template? 

message: Hi all. I don't know what you think about it but I'm very unhappy with the current way information is treated. Some articles feature infos that have not been confirmed in the show and are only from interviews and fan pages and those informations are written like they were definite. Could we reach a concensus if we want articles with (some times wrong) speculations treated as facts? For example Daedalus-class battlecruiser#Korelev stated that a ship not even mentioned on the show before yesterday to be seen in an episode. Well, I watched the episode and there was no such ship, merely the info that the Russians got the construction plans for it. More such informations circle in various articles.
So I wonder: Do we want articles with infos we know for sure or are they to become another fan page filled with speculations? --SoWhy Talk 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making too big of a deal about it.  So in 1 or two articles there are a few speculative sentences.  So what.  Most of the speculation is very reasonable, or is made by incplications from the show.  For example, It was stated the the Ancients are more advanced than the Asgard, and that the asgard can't even comprehend their database.  So, logicaly on the tech page it says that the ancient ships were faster than the asgard ships, although this was never stated.  And the stuff before episodes are aired is not speculation either.  Most of the time that info is taken from a reputable source, like gateworld.net They have a huge season 10 spoiler section.  It's not like nothing about upcoming episodes is known.  alot is.  Tobyk777 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What we know...and what not... 

message: As i commented on the page's talk page, the order of the ancient page is terrible.  It follows no chronology and has section titles which dont make sense.  It has pics for language but no language section.  It lists ancients but doesn't say what their role is.  Nothing about it layout makes sense.  What do you guys think? Tobyk777 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad organization on our main [[Ancient (Stargate)]] page

message: I feel that our article, Complexities of Stargate Function should be merged back into stargate device.  See my argument on stargate device's talk page.  Tobyk777 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge back into [[Stargate (device)]]

message: Hi, I think that there are sevral Stargate lists which could easliy be given FL status.  They are easily the quality of the ones currently being nominated.  The main ones I am thinking of nominating are:
*List of Stargate SG-1 episodes
*List of Stargate Atlantis episodes
*List of technology in the Stargate universe
*List of Stargate planets
If more people agree that they should be nominated and will support on the nomination page, I will nominate them.  What do you guys think?  Tobyk777 02:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're gonna nominate all of them? How about we just stick to one. I foresee opposition anyway. On the Tech and Planets pages people will get pissy about "too much fiction", "not enough citation beyond the episodes" and "treating it like its true". And then the SG-1 eps page is better than the Atlantis page, but people will get pissy about "image copyright vios", "images used as decoration", "slow loading time" and "too long". Then again, I think all of those above lists DO still need work, mainly the SG-1 eps synopses which are very hairy.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential Stargate Featured Lists

message: I think that we need to make a new article: Control Chair and seperate the info between the two.  The chair is basicaly part of the drone article.  there needs to be a clear distinction.  The chair can do other things besides just fire drones.  Who agrees.
:I'm more for doing it the other way around. One article: Control Chair, in which the drones are also talked about. Then Drone Weapon redirects to that section of Control Chair.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Drone Weapon]]

message: It says on the project page to apply for 'work' here... so here I am.
I am devout Stargate nut, as I am sure you all are. What's next? David P. a. Hunter 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that on the project page? Never heard of that. Add yourself to the list of participants, look at the "Things to do" on the project page, and just generally improve the articles. Start at Stargate and see where links lead; then improve those pages.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK cool thanks... David P. a. Hunter 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "ZPMMaker" reporting for duty

message: A lot of SG episodes follow directly on from each other (see the end of season 1 of atlantis, for eg), but aren't officially two or three parters. What is it that actually classifies this? for instance, SG-1 season 1's "Politics", "Within the Serpent's Grasp" and "The Serpent's Lair" look very much like a three parter to me, but as far as i know, "Politics" is usually not included and its called a 2 parter.
I suggest that the "official" way to tell what is a two-or-more-parter is whether or not the episodes end with "To be Continued...". This then becomes verifiable and concrete. Agreement? -- Alfakim --  talk  14:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what constitutes multiple episodes? 

message: It renominated and deserves our support.  Tobyk777 06:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Come vote on the Resubmission of [[Stargate (device)]] on [[WP:FAC]]'''