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

message: is nominated at AfD by Shakla. Matthew Fenton (talk contribs &site=en.wikipedia.org count email) 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (spoiler free)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  compulsive archiving 

message: There is currently a renaming request for many WikiProject "participant" categories at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Participants in WPs. 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)
thread_title:  Category for WikiProject Stargate participants 

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

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

message: 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#GateWorld — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eh?! (GateWorld)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It works with the normal spoiler tag?  Strange.  I'll have to look at the SGspoiler code again.  — BrotherFlounder (aka DiegoTehMexican) 19:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  template sgspoiler|3 

message: So ... Stargate series 3?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: After checking the episode, I'm not certain, but I think it's from Prisoners. --Tango 12:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather looks like a CG-ed Stargate from a convention, rather than being from an episode.--Alfakim-- talk 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article?  Information? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  For uploading Stargate images 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: 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?  — BrotherFlounder 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article on Third Stargate Series 

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

message: * Massacre trivia sections.
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#Stargate_SG-1_Episode_Style_Sheet, Talk:The_Road_Not_Taken_%28Stargate_SG-1%29) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  WikiQuote Links? 

message: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1#Template:Sgspoiler. -- Ned Scott 19:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , which is basically what  uses, is also up for deletion, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 4#Template:Spoiler-season. 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)

text: 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)

text: Why did you do that when the TfD decided to keep the template? --Tango 12:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Sgspoiler up for deleteion / redirect 

message: These duplicate an episode, verbatim, all these links to "Stargate SG-1 Solutions" need to be removed. WP:EL#Restrictions on linking: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transcripts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Matthew.. just stop man.. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler tags on episode pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Road Not Taken 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Walter Harriman 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stargate Templates & Project Member Tags 

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: Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Welcome message 

message: 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'texist 18:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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'texist 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'the Alliance of Four Great Races' or 'the Alliance of Five Great Races' ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: An additional note - it is a working title, and as such may well change before the series goes to air. --Ckatzchatspy 22:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I sure hope they do change it as well.. :-\. Matthew 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Ckatzchatspy 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it may turn in to Stargate: Sliders... --Tango 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stargate Universe]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  U.S. broadcast 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spoiler warnings up for deletion 

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Sgspoiler}}]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: TFD'd here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Excessive Stargate templates. Please add in any that I may have missed. Staecker 02:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a whole bunch to the list. --Ckatzchatspy 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character-specific templates 

message: 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, Wikipedia:Television episodes, it was known as Wikipedia: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#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes 

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Sokar Stories}}]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  System lords 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Flagisalis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question re. O'Neill and Landry 

message: 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: Wikipedia: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: Wikipedia: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)
thread_title: Episode coverage

message: Template: 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)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:SG-1}}]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New guideline on fiction: Delete Stargate-related articles? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opinions needed on [[Talk:Stargate Atlantis]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Policies section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Some things 

message: 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.
* 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
– sgeureka t•c 23:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: SG-1 episode articles possibly worth saving

message: 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)
thread_title:  Images 

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

message: 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 . 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
#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.)
#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.
#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:
#Copy the  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=".
#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.
#Copy the notes from the wikipedia article (if there are any) to the Notes section in the wikia article.
#Add all (relevant)  templates from the External Links section on wikipedia to the Sources section on wikia.
#Delete  from wikia because the article likely is not longer a stub.
#Important Add  (e.g. ) to the bottom of the wikia article. This will leave the GFDL license intact.
#Preview. Check if some of the redlinks in the plot summary can be removed.
#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.)
#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)
replies: text: All of SG-1 Season 1 is transwikied to wikia now. – sgeureka t•c 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I've started a minor transwiki test plus more 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  the real problem?