Entertainment
 

Talk:Stargate Wiki

From SGCommand

NB: You can also find useful discussions in the archive!

Contents

[edit] Merry Christmas everyone

Just seemed worth writing...delete it at the end of the day if you want :D

[edit] Official Stargate Website Out Of Date

Is there any easy way to change all the links for the Official Stargate Website en masse? If not, I suggest people change the website as they edit... the new address is: http://stargate.mgm.com/ Please, respond however is appropriate —Digital Ronin (talk) (Contribs) 04:24, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Writing in English

I've been quite amazed lately about how a large minority or even a small majority of newly created articles (mostly on SGU) have been written in a way that just doesn't make sense. There are words missed out, especially words such as "the" and "to", which suggests that the writer(s) just don't have a proper understanding of English. This is fine, of course, but I think that people who are not entirely sure of their ability to speak a language properly should not start editing wikis and websites, because it just creates extra work for all the other editors who then have to spend timme correcting it. Just as a few examples, look at the first revisions (creations) of these three articles, it's just a small selection that I remember but it shows the problem, and there were many more:

It's just basic courtesy really, if you're not entirely confident that you can write in good English on an English wiki, then don't write anything at all, or post your points on the talk page for other editors to add to the main article. Cheers Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 12:10, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Arrgh, it's still happening, primarily by user DannyJackson. Can someone please stop people posting articles with English words but gobbledygook grammar! Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 00:08, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I understand your complaints, it can be annoying sometimes, namely when there's a lot of edits happening at once and we're not able to catch and correct their grammar. BUT, for the most part, they're still making valuable contributions to the site, especially Глючарина. I'm not a big fan of writing episode summaries, but Глючарина has written some very good articles. Yes, his grammar is bad, he knows this, but it is legible and I'd rather go into the article and rearrange some words and correct some grammar/spelling than write the whole article myself.
DannyJackson, however, is a unique situation. He is Sam. I had suspected it for a long time, but he only recently revealed himself. His choice in edits (and grammar) had slightly, FINALLY, improved...a little bit. I don't like Sam, but it's not because his grammar is terrible (unless he's occasionally incoherent), it's because he creates inappropriate, unneeded articles on useless subjects and has, in the past, refused to learn from his mistakes. It bordered on vandalism. He also has no respect for this wiki's rules regarding sock-puppeting and every time he's banned, he just comes back under another name, which brings us to DannyJackson. In short, if Sam wrote like a literary genius, I still wouldn't respect him, based on his past edits and attitude toward this wiki. Глючарина, on the other-hand, is a welcome addition. Kal'el T | C - 04:06, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough then. I just looked at Глючарина's edit list and it doesn't seem to be that bad anyway. Of course I can only dream of the day where there is a similar (or no) story for DannyJackson's edit list :D Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 11:45, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Some tags

Several tags, such as the "This article about a planet or location is a stub. You can help Stargate Command by expanding it," one, still refer to the Wiki as Stargate Command, which allthough I am not sure because I am fairly new here, I believe was a previous name for the Wiki. Also, a lot of tags like that one and the spoiler and ambiguously cannon ones are unreadable if using alternate themes/skins because of the colours. I dont know how to fix either one of these, and Im not sure if the latter even is fixable, but hopefully it can be done. Sman789 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The name can be easily fixed by editing those templates. However, Stargate Command (SGCommand) is the official name for this site... Stargate wiki was just sort of pasted over that. We could change those templates, but we don't really need to. About the stub/ambiguity templates... we could change the colors because of alternate themes, but then that would make it look different for everyone else...—Anubis 10545 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spirits

SG-1 Episode 2.13 Spirits is missing from the drop-down list to the left. I have no idea how to fix this, so can someone who is more familiar with the site take care of it

[edit] Results!

A bit disappointing that only two people voted, but that is life and the winner of the vote is Main Page/GingerM. I'll change the page now. Any objections/comments can be raised below.BTW: Is there a way to stop the 2 boxes overlapping?--GingerM 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it better now? Peter R 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

As I understood our vote above, this was about what structure we should have in the future on the Main Page. It should therefore be able to improve on the structure even after this vote. I've updated the Main Page on Main Page/GingerM where the structure is the same, besides for the Latest episodes part. The current version is a bit dis-structural between the upper and the lower part of the table, and this newer possible update is correcting this, without making it too much of a strict structure. Comments? Peter R 14:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I say: Comments? Peter R 19:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the restructured main page, however, I personally think a grid system to separate the topics and news bits would benefit the organization of the page. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean to separate the two parts? I tried that, but then the lower part didn't have the same size at the right/left, for some reason. I couldn't fix it. Maybe we should have one or two empty rows between the two parts? Peter R 05:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Since everyone seems OK with the change, so I change the front side now. Peter R 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] de.Stargate.Wikia (German version) online now

Hi @ll, to keep you informed: Since today we got another language version of this wiki: de.Stargate :-) Enjoy! --rieke 09:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Atlantis latest" out of date

I don't know how it's possible, but it seems that the "latest" on SG:Atlantis seems to ignore the last 6 episodes of the series released between 22th September 2006 and 11th January 2007. So to keep it straight the last episode released was released on 9th January and it was 3x16(or 3x17) "The Ark" (3x15 "Sunday" was not released, so I also don't know what's with that one). Anyways it seems that the next episode will be out on 16th January, so if you confirm my info please do something about that "latest" section". May the Force be with you... --Ascended Daniel 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia Blogs

This wiki is included in our new Wikia Blogs feature. To get involved, just add snippets of this wiki's best articles to MediaWiki:Blog snippet each day and that content will appear on both the Wikia Science Fiction Blog and the TV Blog. Please see Wiki to blog for an introduction and Wikia Blogs for a list of wikis involved in this. Angela talk 00:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stargate Universe

Is Stargate Universe relevant enough to warrant being in the Episodes and Movies list? It might increase the likelihood of any new information being added if it's more visible to passersby. Yor 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I guess so. I thought it already was. -- SFH 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should wait until it gets a go ahead - it doesn't sound like it will happen until Atlantis ends, and it is only an idea at the moment. We should wait until a channel picks it up first.

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:07, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Don't suppose we could change the article? it's been on Hathor for a few months now. —Unsigned comment by Drek258 (talk • contribs).

  • If you want to suggest another article, then feel free to do so...the only reason we haven't changed it is because there's not really been enough editors to suggest a new one. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How about the original Stargate film, might as well advertise where it all started.
    • The original Stargate film has been a featured article in the past as seen in the featured article category. As such, another would have to be chosen. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
      • What about Ba'al, he's always fun to read about.

The Ancients have been the article for 3 weeks now, don't you think it's time to change it. Maybe someone is on holiday and can't change it or something.-Ascended 999 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Because voting has been down lately I now update the featured templates every two weeks (giving we have enough votes). Last week we had an insufficient number of votes so I left the Ancient article up (along with the other featured items). However, because the number of votes has climbed this week, I will update all featured templates this coming Saturday evening (when I normally do it) as this week is practically half over already.—Anubis 10545 06:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page structure causes error!!

On Internet Explorer 7, on my very large screen, the rightmost image of the wireframe gate sticks out the right edge of the screen, causing a horizontal scrollbar. Can this be fixed please? It appears to be to do with the way it is floating. --Aquillyne 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The trees

Cant sum1 change the trees at the top of the page to sumthing more stargatey...i just dont think it works —Kwoosh..x 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • They were changed to trees largely because almost every planet visited in the shows is a forest world. We did it largely as an in-joke, but if you can make any other suggestions then they'll be considered. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well the BSG wikia puts their main characters at the top (they change between each page you visit) maybe you can do sumthing like that?—Kwoosh..x 20:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ive got it....the layout of the page could be the layout of asgard/Goa'uld/Tau'ri/ancient or any other races' computer screen layout...what do you think?—Kwoosh..x 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some ideas

well i got some ideas that i just wanted to share and see what you think.

1. the site could have a video player or links to videos...like trailers, interviews, and stuff like that.

2. expand the forum...the only topic that's there is help desk...its not realy a forum then is it lol

3. improved layout...see my previous post on "the trees".

4. some form of organisation because there are tonnes of articles that are not finished and left abandoned and others that have not even been started.

5. a counter that shows how many people are on the site at any given time and how many users are online. =]

i am wondering what people thought of my ideas and if any can or can't be done.—Kwoosh..x 17:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:18, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

To any administrator out there, this isn't a major problem, but in the Monaco-sidebar in the SGA Season 5 drop down menu, the episodes Tracker and The Queen need to be switched around so it says The Queen first and then Tracker as the episodes will air in that order.—Anubis 10545 06:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I discovered another order error on the sidebar, Atlantis episodes Irresistible and Sateda are in the wrong order. -- Matthew R Dunn 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add "Fire" on the Universe part of the sidebar as well please? -- Matthew R Dunn 01:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sure. Must have slipped my mind.—Anubis 10545 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Universe

Did anyone see that Sci Fi has greenlighted Stargate Universe to come out next year?--Long Live the United Earth 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facebook Fan Page

I have recently made a Facebook page for the Stargate Wiki: Facebook | Stargate Wiki. Feel more than free to add, and I will add admin as soon as I know who the admin are (there's a list, right?).--DrWho42 20:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there is, the admin list can be found on this page, though some of them are inactive. -- Matthew R Dunn 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is with assigning admin to a Facebook fan page is (1) they have to be your Friend so thus I (or another admin) would have to add everyone on their friend list if they want to be an admin, or (2) you have to invite them by e-mail.--DrWho42 22:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, well sorry if I'm not much help. But you did wonder if there was an admin list, and I provided it to you. Concerning the two problems you must face however, I'm afraid I haven't much to say but to think about contacting the admins for more information (those who are around anyway). -- Matthew R Dunn 01:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, it was helpful! :) It definitely answered my question. I'll go through the process of either e-mailing/contacting the active admin sometime soon to see if they want to participate in the Facebook Fan Page.--DrWho42 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Images

Just putting an idea out there, but how about (like we have a featured article each week) we have a featured image each week. There are so many good Stargate related images out there, it would be crazy not to...right?—Anubis 10545 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • No. (*cough* copyright issues *cough*) - 84.237.120.90 05:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • And what copyright issues would that be? -- Matthew R Dunn 11:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • There would be no copyright issues. Please, lets get some input on this. I don't want want this idea to just wither away and die. If enough people are for this idea, I'd gladly set it up myself.—Anubis 10545 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I for one think it is a great idea.--DrWho42 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed—Swedish Guy 19:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that being said, I will now (as in right now) set up a page for featured images.—Anubis 10545 05:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it, everything is set up. Once we have a sufficient amount of votes, I will paste in the section for the front page that is for featured images, which I have saved to a word document.—Anubis 10545 06:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special pages

Has anyone noticed recently that (only on this wiki I've noticed) that when you click on Spacial Pages in the sidebar, you get some weird error message?—Anubis 10545 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fan-fic site

is there or is anyone considering making a Stargate Fan Fiction wikia, similar to the memory gamma for Star Trek? just curious

There already is one, Stargate Fan Productions. -- Matthew R Dunn 13:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
its barely a site really lol

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:21, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Quotes

I'm proposing a Featured Quotes section to go along with the featured articles and images on the main page. Nearly every episode has an amusing and memorable line, and some are meaningful or down-right poetic. It would also help balance the page if it's placed below the Featured Articles section, as the column on the right runs long (though it may not appear so to some people). Also a good way to lead people to our episode pages. Cheers.—Ka'lel 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds lika good idea —Swedish guy 10:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This idea was proposed in January of 2007 by Ascended Daniel but was turned down by the lack of editors here. It would seem that that is no longer the case, so I'll set something up as soon as possible as it sounds like a promising idea. That's funny you should bring this up as just the other day, I was rummaging through the old community portal and that's where I found the previous request.—Anubis 10545 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have everything set up. I've saved the template for the main page to a word document so on Saturday/Sunday when I update the templates, I'll include that as well. It looks nice under the featured article template as you suggested.—Anubis 10545 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! —Ka'lel

[edit] Ambig

The ambiguously cannon banner says "an" where it should just be "a" but I'm not sure how to fix it so can someone do it for me please.

Done —Swedish guy 16:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quote Sub-pages

What does anyone here think about creating sub pages from quotes like in this article on Halopedia. It just seems like it would be a good idea, especially with our new featured quote thing. I don't know...—Anubis 10545 07:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the same thing on the Firefly wiki a while back and I thought it was a good idea. I'm all for it but we'd need to hash out the organization of it all. We can't very well go by episode... —Ka'lel 08:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I know... I'm think of something....or someone will.... maybe. I'll look into it tomorrow as it's 1:00 am now. Although, going by episode might work.—Anubis 10545 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, just came to me. We could organize them by the kind of quote maybe. IE: Funny, Meaningful... I don't know...—Anubis 10545 09:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, we could organize them like: "Goa'uld related" "Ori related" "Wraith related" "Weapon related"...—Anubis 10545 09:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "funny/meaningful" is too many quotes per heading. The problem with episodes is, too many headings (not to mention we already employ a quotes section on each episode page). The problem with by character is there will be an abundant number of quotes involving more than one person, so everything will end up under the "group" or "multiple persons" heading. I like the idea of categorizing by subject. That could work. Edit: Though there could be a lot of quotes under the "Character" heading, so that'd probably have to be subcategorized by character. —Ka'lel 09:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Each character would have their own page like this: Daniel Jackson/Quotes. By episode would be kind of redundant, so let's do it by subject: "Wraith related" "Ori Related"... "Food related"... I'll create a page now... or soon (albeit a major stub) so we'll have a guide thing.—Anubis 10545 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
There, I created the page Meredith Rodney McKay/Quotes and added a template to go on the article of the person those quotes belong to: Quote Links. Now lets see if people actually find and add quotes.—Anubis 10545 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to categorize it by character, then we'll have a lot of issues with where quotes should go, so I suggest we stick with the subject of the quote as the categorization. ie. Not quotes said by Rodney McKay, but quotes about Rodney McKay. Alternatively, we could combine both to the one page. For instance, "This is a list of quotes from, or about, Rodney McKay." And the quotes in the "from Rodney McKay" section should be limited to one liners from him, or short dialogue that leads to a quote from him. I'll update the page and let me know what you think. The issue still remains, if Rodney says something about Wraith, does that quote go in the "About Wraith" section of the Wraith page, or in the "by Rodney" section of the Rodney page. It all gets very redundant and confusing, and I guarantee someone will put it on the Rodney page, and someone else will think it belongs on the Wraith page. —Ka'lel 23:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Very confusing. It looks good how you formatted it now though. About the Wraith example, We wouldn't put something Rodney said about the Wraith on the Rodney page because it doesn't actually mean anything to him... it doesn't show his personality... unless he's whining about them killing him and that's the quote, that would be fine. We would put it on the Wraith page because it's more relevant to them. There's a fine line there that distinguishes them... and we probably will end up with the same quote in more than one place.—Anubis 10545 01:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Our Name

I just found This thread on GateWorld about the name of this wiki just being Stargate Wiki. I personally am fine with this name... but what do you think about the name "SGPedia"...Just putting it out there..................—Anubis 10545 19:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

--Stargate Wiki > SGPedia in my opinion :/ —84.249.102.151 19:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Would be nice... but it would be really annoying (and unnecessary) to change :) —Anubis 10545 19:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RPG status as canon.

The RPG isn't canon. It directly contradicts the series numerous times. The main defence for it being canon is that "but it's officially licensed by MGM". So are the fandemonium books , yet these get a "this may not be canon" warning, while the RPG is regarded as completely canon and have no warning. It should have a non canon warning like the rest of them, or at least a banner saying "information from RPG", you can't rely on crappy citations as many won't think to click on them. By all means have the RPG information, but have a non canon warning too/RPG warning too. Jedi Master Bra'tac 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

http://forum.gateworld.net/showthread.php?t=63449 I suggest you read every post in this thread as it elaborates on points I've already made. I also suggest you seriously consider my suggestions, because I know many SG fans who do not see this wiki as a reliable source of SG information because of all the RPG stuff that is stated as canon. Jedi Master Bra'tac 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have stated on that thread (several times), we will continue to see RPGs as cannon until told otherwise. There are a handful of articles, out of the 3,995 here, which contain information from RPGs, and you can choose not to read those sections as they are usually contained under their own heading (as is the case with Heliopolis). Look, the RPG info hardly makes SG Wiki an un-reliable source of Stargate information. The argument of what's cannon and what's not frequently changes, but as of now, RPGs are considered cannon. —Anubis 10545 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"Look, the RPG info hardly makes SG Wiki an un-reliable source of Stargate information" You'd be surprised how many feel this way.

At least in the Heliopolis article it's alot clearer where the info comes from. As I said I don't mind it being there as long as it's clear where info comes from. Citations at the bottom of the page are not what I call clear.Jedi Master Bra'tac 16:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Extract from Living Gods: Stargate System Lords.
First of all, I agree with you that the RPG information should be properly sourced. Some of it currently isn't because it was written several months or years ago when we didn't have proper sourcing rules and I didn't have time to mark it all as I was writing. That having been said, we don't say information from the RPG is canon just because it's licensed; we say it because it's clearly labelled as canon both in the books themselves (see the extract I've provided to the right) as well as by the Stargate brand manager of the time as seen here. While he later goes on to expand upon his initial statement of "it's canon" by saying "it's canon, but not if the show contradicts it" it is still an official response. I find it funny that people consider properly sourced information unreliable, however, when they think the "reliable" versions of articles would be filled with personal prejudice and opinion. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I hope the new/improved citations (Goa'uld on Heliopolis) I made are acceptable to all now? (Mongoletsi) 81.102.65.219 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the Wiki

I've been noticing some changes to the wiki. For instance, the summary, save page, and preview buttons are in a grey bar at the bottom of the text window. I've also noticed that bullets (used by starting a line of text with *) now center themselves within the content of the text rather than line up with the first line. Anyone know why these changes are occuring? The bullets actually look pretty bad now. —Ka'lel 20:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to give you an example of how the bullets are messed up now, take a look at this image taken from the Battle of the ZPM powered Hive Ship article. Does anyone else have this problem? —Ka'lel 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

From my view, everything looks fine. Although there is a gray bar where the save page button is. I received a message from the wikia community team saying "On Wednesday, January 21st we plan to release some enhancements to the edit window." This link was provided for more info.—Anubis 10545 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not having the problem with the bullets either at home or at work. Have you tried refreshing your cache to see if that possibly solves the problem? 194.75.128.200 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I cleared the cache and the problem remained. Something about the coding must have been changed, but it only seems to affect IE. Same with the new "Save page" button, in IE the text is not centered. No matter though, I've been meaning to switch over to Firefox as my default for a long, long time and this was a good excuse to do so. Everything works fine in Firefox. Cheers. —Ka'lel 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Episode spelling

I have noticed that there is a difference in how we spell the episodes on this wiki and how they are spelled on the official Stargate website.[1]. Episodes with words like of, the and from are spelled with a lower case letter here but with a capital on the website. For example Window of Opportunity and Window Of Opportunity. So I was wondering if we should rename those episodes since this seems to be the official spelling or if it doesn't matter. Enemy at the Gate seems to be the only exception.--Wikjöx 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, they're adverbs like "the", "a", "from", "to", "at", "in" and so on. I don't think we should capitalise the adverbs though. -- Matthew R Dunn 22:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:11, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

Has anyone else been having trouble getting topics in the sidebar to expand... meaning when I move my mouse over "Movies" (for instance), it doesn't branch out.—Anubis 10545 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I do, so it must have been affecting everyone else as well. -- Matthew R Dunn 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
DAMN, I just came here to ask the same question. I wish I had checked here beforehand. I just finished clearing all caches and cookies and it was only until I tried a different browser that I realized it wasn't me. —Ka'lel 06:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Really small suggestion for characters...

Slot with one of follows:

Natural ATA gene carrier Succesful at ATA gene therapy Unsuccesful at ATA gene therapy Possible ATA gene carrier

etc.

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:12, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stargate Fan on wiki

Does anyone want to come to this wiki and show your own Stargate stories? Bioleader

--Samcarter (talk) (Contribs) 02:13, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stub tags

Anyone else notice the stub tags no longer sit themselves on the bottom of the page, clear of any images? They now hug the bottom of the text and the tiny thumbnails that accompany them are pushed out of alignment. See example:

This article about a planet or location is a stub. You can help Stargate Command by expanding it.


I put a "{{-}}" on the mess hall page as it's the only way I know how to combat this. Cheers -Ka'lel (talk) (Contribs) 05:45, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though they have always done that. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 06:24, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
They definitely cleared the images (for me) before wikia added all the new updates, ie. the WYSIWYG interface. But I don't know if that's the cause of it. From now on I'll be adding the {{-}} coding to stub pages where this occurs until a better solution is found. Cheers. —Ka'lel (talk) (Contribs) 06:36, September 3, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interwikia Linking

How exactly does inter-wikia linking work? For instance, I can link to Picard or Chewie just fine, but for some reason I can't link to Philip Fry. Why is that? Cheers. Kal'el T | C - 04:39, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jeopardy

Maybe not the best place to put this, but I was watching Jeopardy today. Anyway, one of the answers (or "questions"... if your familiar with the show) was "Stargate". The clue mentioned something about a film in 1994 with a character named Jack O'Neill, which was later made into a show with SG-1 in the title that starred Richard Dean Anderson. It also said something about being "good as goa'uld". It was... well, I always hoped I would just once encounter a Stargate question on a game show. I was pretty great. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:29, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About Stargate Page

I was thinking about doing a page titled "The Stargate Universe" (or something like that... as we already have SGU) as just a way to explain the history of the Stargate series... and stuff like that. Essentially, it would be like an extended and detailed version of the "About Stargate" section we have on the main page. Thoughts? I'll be doing some work on that at: User:Anubis 10545/About Stargate... just to see if it would actually work. Feel free to make suggestions. I was inspired, in part, by this article on Halopedia... although being Halopedia. Well, it's frankly a mess over there. But, that's why it's a prototype page for now. Although I don't plan it to look that much like Halopedia's equivalent. We'll see. Although I also don't want it to look too much like wikipedia's Stargate article... although it might be very similar...

Although a while back, I contemplated writing such an article on our "Stargate (disambiguation)" page... but disambigs and info really shouldn't mix... eh—Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 06:21, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Kindly Direct yourself to User talk:Anubis 10545/About Stargate for further discussion... if anyone cares.—Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 07:00, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea and I'm glad to see your doing it for the wiki. I'd help though I'm not good at writing out descriptions unless I really know what I'm talking about. Just to help you out I believe you should add Ori to after Goa'uld to Stargate and SG-1 while also putting Universe above Infinity as Infinity it's really canon. This is all I can think of right now at a first glance. ¥ Super Novice ↔ Talk 2 Me ¥ 16:17, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. So far it's pretty much just a basic outline. The Order I have for the series is based on the order in which they premiered, placing Infinity ahead of SGU.
No problem glad to help. I thought though that since Infinity Premiered before Atlantis and with the side bar being SG1 then SGA then SGU followed by SGI it would be listed that that.... *shrugs* ¥ Super Novice ↔ Talk 2 Me ¥ 20:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mainpage links

Why links in top bar goes to categories not to articles —Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 12:36, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the little pictures of the Stargates that go to Category:Media, Category:TV-Series and Category:In-universe-articles ? Jenkins08 Chat | Contribs - - 12:41, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
no, under little pictures of the Stargates are links to: technology, planets ...., and why there is link to category Episodes—Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 13:55, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Because i guess it's easier to link to a parent category than to link to individual shows/planets/people/technology. The Front page is the very first thing you see when visiting this site, so it has to be as user friendly as possible. Linking to certain episode on the front page would be very messy and very long. Plus there is the side nav bar on the left to do that job anyway :) Jenkins08 Chat | Contribs - - 14:00, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
but there are page: Technology [[2]], and it is easier to use then category page [[3]], and for planets is stargate network page too—Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 14:07, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but if your just talking about Episodes... here are 2 reasons why it's not a good idea... (from page Episode); 
This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

    * 14:04, December 3, 2009 Anubis 10545 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Episode" ‎ (Well, you would need to have memorized the episode order to use this effectively. Also.... there's an episode category...)
    * 01:57, April 6, 2008 Sikon (Talk | contribs) deleted "Episode" ‎ (content was: 'Based on the discussion the information about the various episodes is being sub-divided. (There was too much for this one page.) Ev...')

Jenkins08 Chat | Contribs - - 14:13, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

about "Episodes" link, i mean who need this link in main page if its lead to category page, if everyone can get easely through sg-1, atlantis ot universe main page. In few words, why do we go through category page if there is navigation page for a long time, category pages exist mostly for editors.—Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 14:21, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Trying to weed through the poor grammar of this conversation, I'll just reiterate the fact that categories provide for a better layout of articles in their respective topics. Obviously, It's better to link to the "planet category" than the article "planet", as the category lists ALL of them. It's this reasoning, albeit a little tweaked, that led me to make the majority of the links under the portals go to categories.—Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:13, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

In defense of categories: They are not just mainly for editors. If you want to know what other planets are in the Pegasus galaxy, just click the category at the bottom of any page about a Pegasus planet. If you want to see other images from a certain episode, there are links to the category on every episode page. It is a very useful way to navigate, I suggest you give it a try. Cheers. Kal'el T | C - 03:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Stargate_Wiki"