Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 3

message: Just an FYI that someone has nominated Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) for deletion, and is apparently fighting tooth and nail in regards to it, attempting to swing things in terms of policy which appear inaccurate.
The full AfD is here. rootology (T) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SG character articles up for deletion 

message: In the last paragraph of the intro, it says that the 8th season, particualrly "The Reckoning" broke nielsen ratings for Sci-fi.  I find this sentence vague and inplausible.  Despite being one the best SG-1s of all time, (In both my opnion and fan polls) I don't think the ratings could have been that high.  Could someone find a source for this statment.  I thought that ref 2 sourced it but it didn't.  Even if the fact is true we need to reword that sentence.  Tobyk777 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says it broke records for the Sci-Fi channel. SG-1 is widely regarded as one of the best shows on the Sci-Fi channel, so it's not that suprising that is gets the best ratings... --12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The reckoning breaking neilson ratings

message: Someone put an online petition in the Planets in Stargate article. As I also put up save Stargate petitions at one time and the fact that I support these SaveStargate sites, I want someone else to get rid of it.Skynet1216 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Morphh 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More online petitions that need to go

message: which moron moved this to the trivia section, and could somebody move it back --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnp001 (talk • contribs) 
Please read: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Be bold. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. --Tango 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD Releases

message: I've been having a length discussion on my talk page with InShaneee about the matter, and we're getting nowhere. Can the rest of the people watching this page give their opinions, please. I think most of the points have been discussed somewhere already, so lets give it a straw poll feel. --Tango 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable? It is the one singular fan campaign, supported by Gateworld and Stargate SG-1 Solutions, the former you will note is notable enough to have its own article. They have already made over $9000 in fan contributions and are aiming for $15000 by the end of the campaign. It doesn't get much more notable than that. Besides, I find your arrogance a bit off-putting. This straw poll is perfectly useful in determining whether or not it is notable enough to be included, so far the vote says that it is. Just because you disagree does not make us all wrong. If the poll stays the way it is then a concesus has been reached saying the campaign is notable enough for a mentioning so that is what we will do, whether or not you agree. Konman72 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and something is not notable just because you say it is. --InShaneee 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but given the fact that there is no other way to determine notability other than to discuss, present evidence and then find concesus I guess we are stuck with this. I, and all the other yes votes here, feel that it being the one singular fan campaign, having the support of the 2 biggest fan sites for the show (one of which is notable enough to have its own article here) and the amount of support it has proves its notability. You may disagree, but there is no way to determine who is right, so a concensus must be reached. Konman72 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several other ways of determining notability, such as the consistent application of guidelines. --InShaneee 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know a relevant guideline, please give us a link to it. --Tango 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, for one thing. --InShaneee 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, that's an essay, not a guideline. Secondly, it's about things being notable enough for their own article, it's nothing to do with what should be included in existing articles. --Tango 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an essay that mentions/describes several guidelines, and it has often been used to decide what is notable within an article. --InShaneee 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, quote the bit that you interpret as saying we shouldn't include this petition. --Tango 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the savestargatesg1.com campaign be mentioned? 

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict that at some point someone's going to set up a classification called "halfway decent articles" with looser criteria, to pick up the articles that would have once been called "good articles" (and perhaps even once long before that called "featured articles"). Not that I don't approve of increased standards over time, I just find it amusing how these classifications all seem to slowly creep upward like this. :) Bryan 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: There is a bit of controvery going on as to whether Doctor Who is the longest running or whether Stargate SG-1. This is all well and good, however, there is no note of a dispute in either the BBC article being provided or with the GBOWR.
And I quote from the BBC article itself "Doctor Who has been named TV's longest-running sci-fi show, after 43 years and 723 episodes, according to the Guinness Book of Records...US series Stargate SG-1, now in its 10th series, holds the world record for "longest-running science fiction show (consecutive)"."
Therefore, neither the GBOWR or the BBC article can be used as a source for a dispute.
Mucus 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the fans who comment on that page say things like "To be fair due to the hiatus in 1985 Doctor Who's longest continuous run was actually 63 - 84. But either way it was longer than Stargate. " This does show that fans are in fact disputing this. Ergo the sentence "Doctor Who fans dispute this claim" is accurate, and referenced. Just because the production team aren't arguing the point doesn't mean the fans are. J•A•K 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I just read the article itself, in which the response by the editor is followed by what seemed to be acceptance. Anyways, it is my impression that sources such as blogs and bulletin board posts cannot be accepted as a source anyways, ala Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet Mucus 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, surely the posting "I dispute this claim" indicates that this claim is disputed? To be honest, I read the response by the editor as being something which the main part of the article disagreed with anyway, but members of the production crew didn't want to upset the nice GBOWR people who were giving them awards. Regardless ... the fact that there's a decent argument there does seem to indicate that there is dispute to the claim. Why isn't that acceptable? It's not opinion, it's numbers.J•A•K 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But the reference was edited at the same time as the claim of the dispute... anyway, no problems, I do stuff like that all the time IRL. J•A•K 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time the dispute was added there was only one reference, and that was to the BBC article about the record, not the one about the dispute. --Tango 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just specify US scifi show. I thought that was the record in Guinness, perhaps I was wrong, but either way that would take the dispute away. Konman72 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need something to that effect that is citable. The Guinness reference, while problematic, is citable. (Actually, in some ways the Doctor Who reference helps, as it does establish that SG-1 isn't the overall longest-running series. Without a mention to that effect, it is easy for a reader to presume that SG-1 is the longest-running sci-fi series overall.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctor Who lack of dispute 

message: The article says 42 minutes, but imdb says 46 minutes.  Does anyone know the right number?  --Arctic Gnome 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 42, but I don't have any proof of that... --Tango 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It just IS 42 - the IMDb may be referring to the absolute maximum limit of an episode set by networks? No SG-1 episode ever has been longer than 43. --Alfakim-- talk 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Threads was 90 minutes (with commercials), so actually it was 60 minutes. Other than that, as long as you don't count the two parters that aired together, the episodes are 42 minutes (I believe, but I have no proof). -- Johnny06man 14:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's not hard to prove it's not 46 - just find a TV guide for a channel that shows it without adverts. It will be in a 45 minute slot, so it can't be a 46 minute program. To know that it is actually 42 requires actually looking at the length of an episode, which isn't something easy to cite... --Tango 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I admit I haven't bothered to look at the rules for citations here with regards to TV shows, but it's actually pretty easy to find the total running time of a Stargate episode - if you have the DVDs of course.  Since those are presented in their entirety without commercials, the final counter indicates the running time.  And with a scattered few exceptions, every episode from seasons 1 through 9 runs 43 minutes or less.  There is a very slight reduction in running time during the course of the series, with the earlier seasons tending to have slightly longer average running times than the later seasons. Presumably this is accounted for by increased commercial time when aired on TV.  Toroca 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Length 

message: Emhilradim's deletion of various talk page comments has been reverted. While I appreciate the desire to clean up the page, that was NOT the way to go about it. Deleting some comments, merging others, and posing the same "warning" note repeatedly does not help. If so desired, the page should be properly archived, and a notice can be posted ONCE. --Ckatzchatspy 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of talk page comments 

message: Stargate has spawned a number of virtual series, one of which is actually able to confidently boast around a thousand downloads per episode; this is readily possible considering that it is available in three languages. While an article on SG-1's virtual spin-offs would not be necessary, it is most certainly necessary to mention them under the 'spin-offs' section. 
Espescially consider that the Buffyverse has its own page, and mentions a number of virtual series and continuations. Why does Stargate not deserve that honor?
:You would need to cite an independant reference - show they've got press coverage. 1000 downloads isn't that impressive, anyway. --Tango 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Horizon is officially a part of the Gateworld network. Does that count for anything?68.56.245.245 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short Answer: No.  Gateworld is a fan site, just like anyother.  Being part of their network doesn't mean it's any more official to MGM.EnsRedShirt 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it counts for something, but it isn't enough on its own. You need an independent source, Gateworld doesn't really count. --Tango 11:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, they don't. They're fanfiction, they're not official. Therefore, they're not really spin-offs and don't belong to that section. If you mention them, you need to mention all the other Stargate fanfiction out there or it wouldn't be fair. If you want to make a Stargate Fanfiction article, that's fine, but make it comprehensive. Do not add them to the spin-off section. They don't belong there. --Andromeda 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Virtual Series 

message: Just discovered that the Earth glyph is in Unicode: Canadian Syllabics Paai (U+1430). Just wondering how many others know this and whether it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I myself was thrilled at finding it in the Unicode chart!
 Wikilackey 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see a question mark.. haha.. :) Matthew Fenton (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I only see a question mark too. It's even just a question mark in the edit box, so I'm guessing Wikipedia doesn't support unicode...--Tango 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia does support unicode, it must not support that particular part of unicode. --Tango 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I just see a rectangle, but I don't think that it makes much of a difference.--Dani 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it on the web 'CANADIAN SYLLABICS PAAI' (U+1430) Morphh (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found it, the number is right, but Mediawiki converts it to a question mark, it seems. --Tango 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia indeed supports all Unicode characters, as long as you have appropriate fonts installed. You'll need a unicode font that supports UCAS (Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics). Code2000, Aboriginal Sans, and Aboriginal Serif all support it; there might be others. And I just saw that I put the glyph on the wrong A. I fixed it. Go me. Wikilackey 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "STARGᐰTE SG-1" (Yes, that's the Earth glyph!)