Welcome to Stargate Wiki! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database -- thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community.

If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of this wiki, I have a few links that you might want to check out:

  • How to edit a page includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Stargate Wiki.
  • Manual of Style includes some basic Stargate Wiki formatting do's and don't's.
  • Projects is a place to start if you want to focus on a specific theme, for example season 9 episodes of Stargate SG-1, or something else.
  • Article templates for some pages that might help you in producing a great looking article.

One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Community Portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Stargate Wiki!

Unnamed sectionEdit

The planet can't have a Stargate so that info is wrong and I fixed the note to state that. Lowriders95s10 (talk) (Contribs) 23:05, June 13, 2015 (UTC)


Hey there. I was wondering what the source is for this article. You originally put it as being from Stargate Atlantis: Legacy (which was later removed by an IP address user). But if it is from legacy, which book in particular from that series is it from?

Also, I reverted your edits to the Earth's Moon article, in which you included Earth's Stargate address. Technically, it is possible for that to be the moon's address if the Stargate were actually placed on the moon. However, because that scenario was never actually shown, it's inappropriate to include that information. While The Trust did briefly have a ship that orbited the moon with a Stargate onboard, the moon itself didn't have a Stargate. I mean, I understand your way of thinking, but doing this establishes a really messy precedent and is relatively speculative.

I mean, it's known that a Stargate encmpasses a certain region of space. You can take a stargate a certain distance away from a planet and still use that planet's Stargate address to establish a wormhole. Going back to your Light Bugs' Planet discussion (which I glanced over), that planet was technically incapable of having it's own independent stargate because it was so close to the stargate used on Lantea (and one Stargate would presumably override the other as both would have the same address, like we've seen on Solitudes and Touchstone). However, because the scenario was never seen where the Light Bugs' planet had a Stargate, what I just said is relatively speculative as well. Basically, we just try to limit speculation here as best we can.

Anyway, thanks for your time! Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 01:50, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

As for the ship: I don't remember the exact book. I read the all the books in the Legacy series at the same time. Multiple Legacy books confirm the existence of the ship tough. I think the IP removed the source because the source template created a link to SG1's Legacy instead of Atlantis's Legacy.
As for the moon: while it is true that the gate was orbiting the moon (or rather, on a ship that was orbiting the moon), and not actually on its surface, we include addresses for planets with orbital gates all the time. The Wraith homeworld for example, also has an orbital stargate, yet we include its address. By your standard, we'd remove half the addresses in the Pegasus galaxy.
As for the Light Bugs' Planet, I'd really like to keep discussion of that on Talk:Light Bugs' Planet. It looks like there has been disagreement over its address in the past (across two articles, Light Bugs' Planet and Stargate Network), but (Pellor's post aside) if there was any discussion, it wasn't on either talk page, and the two people who removed the address from the articles didn't leave an edit summery. That made it pretty difficult for me to tell what the objection to the address actually was. I'd like to keep the discussion on that talk page, so that the next person who comes along isn't confused like I was. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) (Contribs) 03:28, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
You bring up a good point about spacegates. My view on the spacegates in the Pegasus galaxy is that, while they are indeed in space orbiting a planet, they are in a fixed location. Spacegates themselves could be moved to the planet below (if there is indeed a planet below), and given what we know about how stargates work, the address for the gate would remain the same. But for spacegates, it's obviously easier to put the address for the gate on the article for the planet it most-closely orbits as there's really no way to designate a patch of space. Like, most of the stargates in the Mckay-Carter gate bridge are in empty space, and so even if we knew the gate address for all those gates, we wouldn't exactly be able to make individual articles for each gate because they're just randomly 'in space'.
Anyway though, in typing my response, I've come to agree with you. I'll leave out all the grizzly details of my thought process. Anyway, sorry for ultimately wasting your time. I just wanted to make sure this was a practical idea. As such, I've restored your edits to the moon article. Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 06:32, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Battlecruiser TemplateEdit

Hey. I just wanted to voice some concerns I have over the changes you made to the Battlecruisers template.

The original purpose of the template was to enable easier navigation among all our articles detailing Earth-built Battlecruisers specifically. (Keep in mind, we also have Template:Tau'ri fleet). This is similarly the intention behind Template:Goa'uld fleet, Template:Ancient fleet, Template:Replicator fleet, and so on. While the Replicators, for example, took over Odyssey in "The Ark of Truth", it would be a stretch to include Odyssey in the Replicator fleet template.

Obviously, we can't include every ship in the Tau'ri fleet (as the template would be huge). We also can't just 'pick and choose' certain ships, because it starts to 'dilute' the impact of the template, and that's sort of what I'm worried about.

Maybe we could create a new template to deal with all the ancillary ships the Tau'ri acquired from other races? Or at least place such ships in a [[Category:Ships acquired by the Tau'ri]]. Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 19:01, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I made a bold edit, another editor had concerns, and those concerns sparked a discussion. That comes with the territory of making bold edits (see Wikipedia:WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle)
Those other naveboxes (the ones with "fleet" in the title) list ship-classes, not individual ships (except for unique ships that aren't part of any known class, such as Destiny), so I don't see their relevance here.
I made that edit because I had the same worry. I thought that only listing Earth-built battlecruisers was too picky and choosy, and diluted the impact of the template. Yes, it's a clear and easy to follow system, but it's too arbitrary and not very significant/meaningful, in my opinion. Who cares if the the Daedalus is a battlecruiser or a battleship? As for Earth built vs not-Earth built, the difference there is that Earth-built ships look like gray brick, and non-Earth built ships don't. Like I said, the difference doesn't seam very meaningful.
What I had in mind was, as a rule of thumb, listing the ships that wouldn't fall under Category:Small Spacecraft. It might require a few judgment calls, unlike the previous system (or it might not, if we iron out my idea some), but I think it's a lot less arbitrary. Basically, list Earth's capital ships, and not it's fighters. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) (Contribs) 00:19, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
The template we originally used before the Template:Battlecruisers was the (now deleted) Template:304 class ships, which only included 304s. The name "Battlecruiser" only came about as a way we could justify including the Prometheus in the same template.
The difference between Earth-built and non Earth-built isn't just the color of their hull, naturally. Each ship currently in Template: Battlecruisers was purposely built by the Tau'ri using their own designs and materials with their own interests in mind. To me, it seems inappropriate to take a ship SG-1 merely briefly commandeered and include it as a full-fledged member of the Tau'ri fleet
It's like how SG teams have acquired tons of alien technology on off-world missions, but just because the SGC is in possession of a Staff weapon they captured (for example), that doesn't mean the staff weapon is suddenly Tau'ri Technology. Yes they're using it and yes it's in their arsenal, but it's still not 'theirs' exactly.
However, I could make an exception for ships like Atlantis or Orion or Destiny. Despite still basically being plundered, in both cases, the Tau'ri fully-staffed the vessels, repaired them, utilized them for several missions, and incorporated them into their fleet in an official capacity, even involving the IOA and Homeworld command in their use.
I suppose I wouldn't be altogether against including some of these acquired ships, but I'd suggest having clear separation between them - Potentially something along the lines of:
Tau'ri capital ships
Tau'ri-Built Battlecruisers
BC-303 Prometheus
BC-304 Apollo · Daedalus · George Hammond · Korolev · Odyssey · Sun Tzu
Tau'ri-Acquired alien vessels
Anubis' Ha'tak  · Atlantis  · Cronus' Ha'tak  · Destiny  · Hive ships  · Orion
Also, to refer to an earlier point, we have the Template:O'Neill class ships and Template:Aurora class ships, which currently serve the same purpose as Template: Battlecruisers.

-Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:32, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.