Talk:Stargate (device)/Archive 2

message: The article says that the Ancient name for the stargate was astriaporta (or astria porta, if you prefer). But the dialog in "Avalon, Part 2" indicates that this is plural:
DANIEL </br>
It says that the Altairans named their new home "Avalon," and that they built many astriaporta.
MITCHELL </br>
Stargates?
DANIEL </br>
Yes.
The singular of astriaporta in Latin would be *astriaportum (asterisked because it's not been directly attested). Should this be put in the article? WayneC 23:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astriaporta

message: Now that Stargate actually has a group of people called Priors, the headline "Prior use of Stargate concept" could also be interpreted as "Ori-minion use of Stargate concept".  Not sure if anything can or should be done about it, but it is kinda amusing. TerraFrost 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can get the Stargate people to rename the Priors, since we were using the term here first. We've got dibs. :) Bryan 07:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior use of Stargate concept 

message: I slightly rearranged these sections so that they are in chronological order.  Suggest that anything before the movie be placed in the "earlier use" section and everything after the movie be placed in the "other use" section.  --Evmore 07:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier & Other use of Stargate 

message: This is the first time I've edited a talk page, so bear with me. In the Operation of Stargates section it says that an address is at least 7 symbols - that is wrong, an address is 6 symbols (except for cross-galaxy travel it seems, although I'm just commenting on gating to Atlantis, I havn't seen season 9 of sg-1) and the 7th symbol is the point of origin which is the same no matter where you're going to (obviously its different if your gating from a different gate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.163 (talk • contribs) 
:Good catch, I've edited the section to correct this oversight. Thanks! If you see other glitches in the future, feel free to be bold and edit the article itself to fix them. You don't have to get things pre-approvied on talk:, it's only really needed when something's uncertain or controversial. :) Bryan 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation of Stargates

message: There was a color variant of the 'Gate at Image:Stargate-color.png but it has since disappeared. Does anyone know the new link to it?  I need it for one I'm sandboxing. Chris 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Color line drawing

message: there's been dsicussion to try to make this article a featured one. the italian version is already a featured article, so i figured it might be an idea to look at it. here is a loosly translated version - i looked at it breifly and see plenty of stuff we could incorporate into this article.
italian stargate (device) article
if the link doesnt work, just use the link at the top of this page to go to the italian version, copy the url, and then paste it into an online free website translator (find one at google search "free website translation")
-- Alfakim --  talk  02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article version 

message: Thank you very much for that, now we've lost some of the earlier stuff, AND some perfectly valid information has been removed. I mean, come on: a wormhole is still established after you put an iris on it, and I think that my rewording is more effective. I'll hold off on the unreverting the rewording, but I will repair the damage to the factual thing, for the sake of clarity. Yes, I'm 69.14.46.163, I'm too lazy to log in, so what? Lockesdonkey 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you deleted a large chunk of the "Earlier uses of the Stargate concept" section without giving any reason. A large unexplained deletion, especially by an anonymous user, tends to trigger anti-vandalism reflexes. Here's the diff of 69.14.46.163's edits showing the deletion:  Bryan 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be anal or anything, (I've cooled off), but it wasn't a deletion; I edited the complexities section, then saved that, and then was in the middle of editing the earlier uses when Tawker reverted my earlier edit. So when I attempted to save my edit, it got screwed up. Lockesdonkey 03:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That diff covers only pre-Tawker versions. Regardless, though, the effect was the same. I'm just explaining what seems likely to be the reason for the reversion, I would probably have done the same under the circumstances. Bryan 06:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why have my edits been reverted? 

message: I think that the complexities of Stargate Function shoould be merged back into stargate deivce.  We are trying to have stargate device become featured.  If this article remains seprate, this will never happen.  Most of the key details about the stargate are in the side article.  Almost nothing links to the side article and it's in no templates.  Also, in stargate device, the sections look messy in the table of contents.  Merging them would solve this problem.  Tobyk777 02:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The peer review turned out quite well. We should merge that article back and use the new template for citing episodes and then I will nominate the article for a FA. I think it's time. --Tone 21:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making some final tune-ups, and merging now. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'm going to submit this article to be Featured now. I think it's very complete and informative and we've got a good chance! -- Alfakim --  talk  02:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! -    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though the nomination is not successful at the moment the comments for improvement are good. I am sure it will go through in the next selection. --Tone 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article Submission 

message: I added this section but it's a bit thin. Could you guys help fill it out, and, apparantly, cite? -- Alfakim --  talk  04:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  making of 

message: I am working with the creator of some really good glyph images to get him to let us use them so hopefully we wont have anymore of my nasty looking ones ;).  American Patriot 1776 22:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason I never created a Pegasus glyph table is because there's no way to associate the constellations with any names - they're in a completely different galaxy. The constellation columns in the new chart are going to remain permanently empty, which IMO is pretty unaesthetic. I'll try removing them and see what happens. Bryan 17:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they don't have any names.  Their kind of just...there.  Still waiting for a response from that person I was talking about.  American Patriot 1776 17:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pegasus Glyphs 

message: I think that since some of this article is about the fictional univese, and some is about productions and comparisons, the section headers should make that clear.  I think it should look like this.
*In the stargate fictional universe
**...
**...
**...
*Real life makeing off
**...
**...
**...
*Other uses
**...
Who agrees?  Tobyk777 05:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restucturing the layout