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

An idea to prevent and encourage speculation at the same time[]

I'll just go ahead and say it... I only thought about this about 40 seconds ago, so forgive me if it's not too well thought out - but here's me idea...

I think we should have a seperate section on pages - especially those about technology - which specifically states what we Don't know and offers a brief expenation of various possibilites. Only important things would be included, things which are key to understanding an episode or event which includes it. An example would be on the Drone weapon article, where there is a section arguing the possible reasons why the drone weapon fell out of the sky in The Tower. It could be either because power was being wirelessly channeled to it, it was low on battery, or it was being activly and continuously controlled by the chair (and once the connection was cut, it had no orders). My reason for suggesting this is that there are DOZENS of articles in which speculation exists, but which can't be removed without leaving an unencyclopedic hole of information. If we had a section on pages for important speculation, we'd be able to totally clean out the main text and remove all speculation, and at the same time provide people with a broader undertanding of the SG Universe if they're willing to read a slightly less-than-canon section of information underneath it. As I said though - only important speculation which directly relates to something that happened in the series would be included, not just random speculation which is not really implied by the show but would just be cool in someone's opinion. Perhaps it's worthy of a trial run, at least, just to see how far people take it. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 17:31, May 27, 2011 (UTC)


It has just been officially announced by Syfy that Stargate Universe is CANCELLED!! This is not only the end to the series but also the end of the stargate franchise.To any and all Stargate fans, please help keep this show and franchise alive. Create a website, write letters, write emails, just do something to save this beloved franchise!

A petition has been started to convince MGM to give the Stargate Franchise a proper closure and not let it die this way. The petition can be found here. Maybe the users of this wiki want to sign it as well and support the wish for an ending a franchise like this deserves. 16:35, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to post the link of the petition on the main page? That more people will see it and maybe sign it. Maybe there will be proper endings for all Stargate series.PAdIwAnI (talk) (Contribs) 22:18, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Article detailing the best order to watch the Stargate franchise[]

I was wondering if somebody could make an article detailing the best order to watch the Stargate franchise. Usually with franchises with multiple television shows, there is a best order to watch the multiple properties, whether it is by in-universe chronilogical order or by air date. Yeah, I just finished SG-1. :) 4339shw (talk) (Contribs) 23:00, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I created This article a while back... if that's what you're looking for. Though the best order to watch them is SG-1, Atlantis, and then SGU (as that is the order in which they aired). Although Season 1 of Atlantis corresponds with Season 8 of SG-1, and so on in that order. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 23:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


A lot of tag-style templates, mainly ones for stubs and the like, refer to the wiki as SGCommand. Seeing as this is sort of an old name, and everything is now referenced as SGWiki or Stargate Wiki, would you guys mind if I changed such templates accordingly? Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 15:56, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


Can I just ask one of the older members:

How do we date events on the wiki when it's not stated in the episodes. Is it by the production date or air date? Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 19:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Air date... unless one of the writers or such states otherwise. Avoid citing specific days that way though... just go by year. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 22:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
I was just wondering because on Stargate Universe articles, it mentions many 2010 aired events as happening in 2009. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 13:33, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but you can fix those events if you want. Generally, television shows assume time passage is in tandem with real life. And it's usually made very clear when this is not the case, as in Lost or 24 (I don't watch 24). Kal'el T | C - 16:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'll do it now. Maybe one of the admins aught to make a conventions page than mentions all these sorts of things, along with in-universeness and all the other stuff. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 17:03, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
You mean like This... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 17:35, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly like that, Anubis... Gosh you guys write quickly :P :D Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 18:52, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Just as an F.Y.I., At least the Season 1 of SGU takes place in 2009, and most likely at least part of Season 2 takes place in 2009. -Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 19:43, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Although that's largely speculation. "Justice" aired in December... and if Space took place a week or so after that, I would venture to say that we would have arrived in 2010 by "Faith". —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 19:55, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Do check the 2009 talk page, I've given a link where Joseph states that the Premiere of SGU takes place just days after EatG, and T.J.'s circa fifteen weeks pregnant, and the child was conceived (sp) before they evac'd to Destiny. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 09:29, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Don't care what Joe says, we need a consistant dating system unless he tells us the date for every single episode. And I think, judging by the other articles from SG1 and SGA, it is the air date that we use. So anything before space is 2009 and anything including or after is 2010. Problem is that not everyone reads Joe's blog every day and so we'll just get edit wars and general cofusion if we do things any differently. I think it should be Air date unless the episode itself mentions otherwise. That fine with y'all? Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 16:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. T.J.s baby was conceived before they departed to Destiny, which happened days after EatG, which took place when it aired. I say we should go with that until the baby's born and see what we'll do after that. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 20:46, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
But how do we know Air is set just days after EaTG? If it's from a comment in Malozzi's blog or some other non-canon source then we just go back to the same original problem. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 01:22, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Except what Mallozzi says is canon. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 04:37, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Well that's like saying that if they gave us a name for the blueberry aliens on the show then we should retain the name that Malozzi gave them. I've never seen Mallozzi used as a canon source on the wiki, what he says is almost always always put in the background notes or behind the scenes sections. Using Malozzi as a date source just wouldn't work because even if you know that one episode is in 2009, you can't know which others are and therefore you'd just get general confusion and edit wars as I said before. The only way is to use a consistant date system throughout the wiki. Perhaps in the Background notes section for episodes you could add the dates Mallozzi gave but not in the main articles. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 11:10, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
By dates I mean years, of course. We couldn't use individual air days because some episodes can take place over a month when the next one aired is a week later. We have to assume that it balences itself out over a year, which it seems to do quite well. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 12:45, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
[sigh] No matter how much the two of us argue, we (the two of us) can't decide canon. Only thing nearest to the canon we have are the air dates and Joseph's word. We need more opinions of (different) people here. Oh, and another reason that supports the "days after" thing, is that they didn't send McKay to Destiny, and the reasons are given in SG:E, if it ever gets a green light, as it takes place in the "days" between EatG and Air (Part 1). —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 09:10, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas everyone[]

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

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: Please, respond however is appropriate —Digital Ronin (talk) (Contribs) 04:24, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)


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


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)


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)

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)

"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)

  • The particular dates on Atlantis and SG1 are refering to their US premier dates. However, if you want to update it yourself, go forth. The template for SG1 is Template:latestepisodes SG1, while Atlantis is Template:latestepisodes ATL. -- SFH 17:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)


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)

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)

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)

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*) - 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)

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)

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)

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


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)

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)

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 :/ — 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)

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) 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)

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) 13:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Super-hive 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? 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)

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)

English grammar has it that interior words of three letters or less are never capitalized except when performing a necessary funtion. For instance, "Into the Fire" is not capitalized, since 'the' is a place word, whereas "Between Two Fires" must be capitalized because "Two" is telling the reader how many fires are present. Also, Stargate has the whole title in CAPS LOCK and is hence a source of confusion. 19:34, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


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)

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


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

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)

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:

Ancient espresso machine

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)

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)


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)

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: Stargate franchise... 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)

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 (Talk) - - 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 (Talk) - - 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 (Talk) - - 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)

Stargate SG1 Episode Numbering[]

The first Stargate SG1 episode, Children of the Gods, is twice as long as a normal episode and was broadcast over two nights. This wiki numbers the first part as episode 1, the second part as episode 2, then the second episode is numbered as episode 3 and so forth. However, the episodes on Hulu and apparently the DVD episodes both number Children of the Gods as episode 1 and The Enemy Within (the next episode) as episode 2. I recommend that we renumber the episodes here. Banaticus (talk) (Contribs) 22:32, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

I brought this issue up at Talk:Stargate SG-1. Although I'm still not entirely sure. Wikipedia lists it as 22 episodes for season 1 and 214 total though too. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 01:44, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar>Stargate Universe[]

Move webisodes to the end of list

I've heard that comment before, but the reason I didn't is because the webisodes follow season 1 and so I wanted to keep them close together. I didn't put the webisodes in with the season one episode list as to keep them distinct entities and for easier access. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:00, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
but webisodes do not follow season 1, it is season 1, webisodes are not even episodes, just an extra scene from Season 1 published on web, i dont see a reason to have them in sidebar at all Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 13:54, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
p.s. it looks weird Vilnisr (talk) (Contribs) 13:57, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
It's mainly for the sake of easy navigation. Plus, someone who is unaware of the webisode's existence would find the link helpful. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:58, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

sp mistake[]

The Tau'ri-Wraith war is an oingoingAsdf1239 (talk) (Contribs) 02:55, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


i think its about time other featured articles and images are displayed ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 03:01, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, then people should start voting from them :). I mean, it seems kind of weird to display and article/image with only 2 votes... although once SGU comes back, we'll probably get more editors and more voters. Although I could just pick an artilce I think is good and "throw it up" there... but that seems kind of... eh. I mean, it doesn't really matter... let's give it a week... maybe. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:04, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Metric or US measurements[]

How should the editors record measurements, for example 1kg, 2.2lb, 1kg(2.2lb), or 2.2lb(1kg). I am pointing this out because not everyone who reads and edits this wiki in from America, and the characters on the shows use both US and metric measurments. Lordqaz (talk) (Contribs) 00:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Probably would be best to do it like 1kg(2.2lb)... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

new Stargate movies[]

dose anyone know when the new SGA:Extinction and SG1: Revolution are even going to come because I have not herd anything about them lately if you know I would love to know the stats of the two films thanks

most likely dead. ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 01:33, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Joseph Mallozzi has stated numerous times on his blog that progress is being made on Revolution where possible, at least as far as they can until MGM gives the green light. Unfortunately Extinction hasn't been getting the same attention. Supertrinko (talk) (Contribs) 14:49, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Recent Issues[]

Just want to see if any other users are experiencing the same issues... The theme sometimes "fails" to load and the default (light blue and white) theme loads. The infobox also appears on the left. And on a few occasions, recent edits flat-out disappear. The last time that happened, 5 days of edits failed to appear, both on the "recent changes" page and the widget on the left. A simple refresh has fixed it every time, it's just weird. Kal'el T | C - 22:47, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

That hasn't happened to me in a longgggggg time.... might just be a computer/internet problem on your end. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
i have experienced them too i think its wikia screwing around ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 06:54, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
No problems here :colbert: —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 11:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wow... it just did it to me for the first time in a longggg time. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 21:10, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


American or Non-American spelling. How should we spelling things, for example: color or colour, center or centre, aluminum or aluminium, defense or defence, gray or grey, etc.. Many people on this wiki are not from America and some of the characters are not american. Lordqaz (talk) (Contribs) 22:58, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I know I've said this before somewhere.... but use whatever spelling you're comfortable with. I mean, try to use American spelling given it being an American show (largely)... but don't go out of your way to correct it. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 00:07, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The 'u' in various British English words is an expression of accent. Americans say -cul`oar-, they say -cul`uur-. QED, the 'u'. Generally, the American-pronounced spelling is to be preferred, and grey to be written as such because that's the way they spell it in Stargate (SG1 0318 Shades of Grey). That's the general rule of English written grammar in America. The 'u' is just a phonetic marker and has nothing to do with the etymology, and in grey vs. gray, grey usually is preferred worldwide. 20:38, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

wiki formating irk[]

I hate how wiki keeps making changes to make the interface more "User friendly". It largely only serves to screw up those who actually know what they're doing. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

yes definitely. and apparently watchlists are visible to everyone now...and "follow list" sounds worse. i wonder if this is a conspiracy involving the new youtube interface as well. ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 09:51, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
However, you can ensure that you won't see any of this. I did it, by changing to the Wikipedia MonoBook skin on My Preferences. Now from my perspective this Wiki looks like Wikipedia, but Stargated. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) (Contribs) 15:55, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
i am using monobook, i have been for a while now; it still shows the followed watched pages. ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 05:14, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd, does this watched page thing just follow you around anywhere you go? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) (Contribs) 11:40, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
yea, it's on all user pages ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 08:39, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
I really don't the changes wikia makes. They did improve the search function to better display what you're looking for and recently added the "Did you mean..." feature which is awesome when searching sci-fi terms like Tachlu...takel...tac... But MAN most of these updates suck. I never use my homepage, it's useless. Adding the followed list to the user pages is another stupid move as now there's a massive blank column on everyone's page. I clicked "hide" on my page, so let me know if you can still see it. I can't see Anubis's, but I can still see Matthew's and ASDF's. It takes up a lot of room. But the biggest problem has been their wysiwyg editor. It was so clunky that I set it to automatically go into code view (all my edits are done in code view). And it was so buggy it actually caused tons of problems for us where images would pull paragraphs out of alignment and there'd suddenly be hundreds of spaces added when all you did was spell correct one word. Now even categories have a terrible wysiwyg mode where you can only create or delete. If I want to edit a category, I have to click "code view". This is especially annoying when trying to alphabetize pages within the category. I also don't like how gallery images now pop up instead of leading you to the image page. Kal'el T | C - 16:22, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Today in the Stargate History[]

What do you think of creating a new section in the main page called "Today in the Stargate History"? it could have Events dates from stargate, cast and crew birth dates and episodes airdates. --Achraf94 17:07, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Episode Categorization[]

I have mentioned this several times before, but it seems like we should finally straighten this out. Every episode of SG-1 and every episode of Atlantis are categorized both in the following fashions: (For Instance the "The Storm" is in both the categories "Atlantis episodes" and "Atlantis Season One episodes"). However, all SGU episodes are only categorized by Season (For Instance Air, Part 1 is in the category "Universe Season 1 episodes").

As (For instance) the Category "Atlantis Season One episodes" is a subcategory of "Atlantis episodes", it is redundant for an episode to be categorized in both categories. As per the categorization method of every other article on this wiki, episodes should only be categorized by season, and those season categories be categorized by series. (All episodes of SGU are categorized in this fashion as demonstrated here.)

However, each episode is automatically categorized by season through this style of template. As that is the case, it is impossible to categorize each episode in order of airdate in the category... episodes will be categorized alphabetically. However, this really shouldn't be a problem given this style of Season articles we have that clearly lists episode order... although it might hinder navigational efficiency to a small, small degree.

Therefore, I will be going on a "campaign" to place every SG1 and Atlantis episode only in categories of their season. My only real hesitation in doing so is that all episodes will be alphabetically categorized instead of numerically and I will have to edit 314 articles. So, before I do this, I would like some feedback on this... just in case there's a reason I shouldn't... whatever it may be. If you'd like to help me in doing this task, that would be much appreciated... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 01:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

i wish you the best of luck on your endeavor ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 01:54, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
... also gonna remove the wikipedia template —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
the {{WP}} or the "uses content from" one? ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 03:51, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yes... wikipedia no longer has SG episode descriptions... they're essentially useless... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 04:00, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if they're no longer on there as long as it has content from wikipedia the template needs to stay, and while on the topic of templates surely we should make most of the boring maintenance templates nice and stargate themed like on other entertainment wikis ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 04:18, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia still has eppy summaries. In the list of series seasons, click on a certain season, and it will direct you to a new page with all the episodes, awards, and other miscellaneous information about that season, as well as a list of episodes with air date and summary. It's just that the summaries are now on the season page rather than the series page. 20:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'll start at the end of Atlantis and we'll the middle. Kal'el T | C - 05:08, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the episode articles aren't actually showing up in Atlantis season 5 episodes category until I delete the Atlantis episodes category. Similarly, there are no pages in Category:Atlantis Season 3 episodes and in Category:Atlantis Season 4 episodes, there is only Midway. So I think we're actually fixing it. And about your alphabetical issue, I have a work around for that too, see here. Cheers. Kal'el T | C - 05:16, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well that's Atl season 4 and 5 done. It's 1:30am and I have to get up early for work tomorrow. I'll continue later tomorrow (if someone else hasn't already done it). Cheers. Kal'el T | C - 05:40, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with this. Yea, episodes don't seem to want to show up in the SGA season 3-5 categories until an edit to them is made. As for wikipedia content... those templates were placed on those pages several years ago. Our content has been edited like crazy since then, and so those templates are therefore irrelevant on that level as well. lol, nice! I like the bolded alphabetical list message. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 05:46, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
I finished up Atlantis... on to SG-1... tomorrow! —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 06:07, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
i believe the plot summaries are still largely in their wikipedia transwikied state. ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 08:48, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Easiest way to find out is to go through the article's history. Look at when the WP template was added and compare that to the current revision to see how differently the plot is worded. If it's more or less identical, the template should probably stay. Kal'el T | C - 14:57, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
Yay... finished. I left the wikipedia template up on the SG-1 articles... most of them appeared to have originated there opposed to the majority of Atlantis and Universe episodes... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 21:39, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, which has something to do with the aformentioned alphebetization issue. I have all of Atlantis and half of SG-1, all on the same hard drive, so to differentiate, I label them like this. <Series abbr.> <season num eppy num> <name> eg. SG1 0101 0102 Children of the Gods, SG1 0406 Window of Opportunity, SG1 0721 0722 Lost City, SGA 0102 Rising, SGA 0411 Be All My Sins Remember'd, SGU 0101 0102 Air, SGU 0110 Justice, etc. Coincidentally, the 1 comes ahead of the A, which is ahead of the U, keeping my entire collection in order, and then the numbers keep the seasons and episodes in order, and then the names are there because that's what everyone calls them. The epic Atlantis episode is Be All My Sins Remember'd, not SGA 0411. Just a thought. I personally quite like it and find the system very handy. Also, side question. SG-1 episodes are tagged as SG1, Universe as SGU, but Atlantis as ATL. Can we make that SGA for coherency, and maybe include the season/eppy numbers as well, since I will often see a cited episode but cannot for the life of me remember its position in the franchise. Thanks. 20:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC)


Nice logo! maybe its possible to change stargates on main page too: for "Series and movies" - Milky Way, "Media" - Pegasus and for "Around the universe" - Destiny's stargate Vilnisr T | C - 13:19, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the new logo is cool. I updated the portal images. Comments/suggestions please. Kal'el T | C - 06:29, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty cool. The shadow/lighting on the milky-way gate is kinda weird though... and the Atlantis gate has kinda rough edges. But, all in all, pretty good. Where is the image inside the Destiny gate from? —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 06:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I pulled back the shadow on that milky way gate a ton. It was near black. The rough edges on Pegasus are due to the chevron "borders", but I can get rid of them. The image in Destiny is galaxy #2 as seen in Sabotage. I can swap out any of the inner images if anyone has suggestions. Kal'el T | C - 06:41, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of switching to a new Milky Way gate. One sec. Kal'el T | C - 06:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

New gate doesn't have a sharp shadow. Kal'el T | C - 07:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Just try another version. About logo - Destiny's gate looks smaller then Milky Way and Pegasus stargates, maybe it's possible to make it a little bit bigger.

so: 20100517121950%21Mainpageportal1.png or Mainpageportal1.png Vilnisr T | C - 12:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

the one on the right of course ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 12:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Your gate is much better. Where did you get it? I also couldn't find the SGA cast image Anubis had used before. I noticed the Destiny gate is a bit smaller, but it still looks good. I'm not the creator of the logo, so I can't fix that though. Kal'el T | C - 16:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
I had that image for a long time and now just correct it a little in photoshop. What images did you use for Pegasus gate, maybe you can send them to me, and maybe you can remove a white spot on the bottom of Destiny's stargate, 'cuz chevron looks weird. About logo- I don't know who made it, but I hope it's possible to make Destiny's gate little bit bigger Vilnisr T | C - 16:44, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the Destiny gate is smaller than the others —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 17:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I just googled it and found this. Couldn't find a really good SG-1 gate. For the Destiny gate, there isn't a single image that shows the entire thing, so I literally created the bottom section using another section of the gate. I will fix the white spot I think you're talking about. If you want, I can send you the PSD. Kal'el T | C - 17:56, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Without white spot it's much better :)
About Destiny gate size- I know that Destiny's Stargate (prop) was made smaller than other stargates, but I never heard, in the show, that Destiny's Stargate is smaller Vilnisr T | C - 18:57, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

No advertisements[]

Anyone want to waste some money and stick their neck our for this wiki by paying for no advertisements? link. Just thought I'd mention it... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 20:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

What ads, I barely ever see any! Not a problem as far as I'm concerned, just a few odd boxes in like one in every 50 articles. Unless it's just that Firefox is blocking them for me, in which case, get Firefox :D Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 21:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

i use add blocker on firefox.... i have'nt seen an add on da internet in a long time :) :) :) :) but if ye mean so visitors to the wiki dont see ungly advertisement, i dont mind chippin in a few quid if other members are willing too... although 20,000 is not da many clicks on here i wouldnt think? dat would be used up in a few days/weeks i think? Stargate TL1 (talk) (Contribs) 21:23, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
i don't mind the ads that much and i certainly don't think that it's worth paying anything to get rid of them. ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 02:00, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Plus, the main page would get screwed up... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:18, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Get an ad blocker. I have no ads. Ever. Including on the main page and it looks great. Kal'el T | C - 03:48, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy?[]

I've been running into several pages that have untagged spoilers for unaired SGU episodes. There were Incursion spoilers on the Lucian Alliance article before Space had even aired. Every webpage dedicated to a site accepts a certain risk, but most TV-based wikis usually have a strict policy on posting spoilers from unaired episodes. Should this site implement a similar system? Kanten (talk) (Contribs) 23:24, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this very strongly, I have been avoiding this Wikia for the past couple of weeks, simply because it is so lax on spoilers, it would be nice if there was at least a tag about spoilers from an unaired episode.joecool280 (talk) (Contribs) 11:33, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't support anything that meant we couldn't add content from unaired episodes, but more strict rules about spoiler tags and perhaps a system like on bulletin board systems where spoiler tags auto hide their content until you press the show button would be cool. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 13:28, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

About Sidebar[]

Am I the only one who's sidebar has removed the Wikia Q&A links from itself? As in there's no Stargate Wikia Q&A part in the sidebar... —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 08:31, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Mine's not there either... must be something the central wiki people did. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 08:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
That's not nice, I want to answer/look at (mostly) very, very silly (understatement) questions... 'ere's a link if someone can't bother to use Google. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 10:03, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

ad thing[]

Geez, when you're not logged in the front page is like a war zone... That Heroes advertisement thingy in the background. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 02:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Leaked episodes[]

If, or possible When SGU Season 2 and any other future episodes are possibly leaked, I suggest/propose that adding content from the said episodes to the wiki would not be permitted until the episode is aired in US, simply to prevent the spoiling/ruining the story for the dedicated/random editors/visitors. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 18:31, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Then again, this is an informational wiki, we add other spoilers when they're given away, It's what spoiler tags are for. Supertrinko (talk) (Contribs) 02:33, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
There are spoiler tags for leaked episodes? I haven't seen any used, and none were used when SGU S1 episodes were leaked, at least I didn't see any. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 02:43, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

All the leaked episodes had a spoiler tag added for the main plot. There's not a specific type of tag, but the general one was there. AS for season 2 episodes getting leaked, that won't happen until the second half rolls around. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:28, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Fanon[]

Who wants to start a Stargate fanon wiki it would get people more interested in stargate if so can you make me an administrator as i am active on many fanons but i just dont know how to make templates and other stuff i am only good at story telling. Kaeleth (talk) (Contribs) 09:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

there is here Escyos (talk) (Contribs) 09:32, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thats not what im talking about that is split between simulators and people made screen play i mean like these

stuff like this Kaeleth (talk) (Contribs) 10:26, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

P.S and having all the fan made content in one website without confusing searchers with going to different web sites Kaeleth (talk) (Contribs) 10:31, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

now that i think about it...yes there is one here (i just created it) Escyos (talk) (Contribs) 10:59, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


OK i have no idea what i'm doing with this but i have just discovered from gate world the name for the episode 218 of universe is Radio i have made a page and linked it through the seires page but i don't know how to put it

on the navigation bar (that bar on the left of the page) under seires 2 episode 18 can someone do this and help me do the page (

Allegiances slot[]

Personally, in my opinion, the following would look nice. (example made using Sam's allegiances. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 20:52, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

New formatting[]

Hopefully, I'm not the only one who thinks the new formatting is HORRIBLE. It looked nice before, but now everything is squeezed into a column 1000 pixels wide. With the "recent activity" column and infoboxes, actual article text is now less than 500 pixels. There was nothing wrong with the previous formatting. Why change it? YardsGreens (talk) (Contribs) 10:04, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Just learned I can change the "skin" in my preferences. I bet the formatting isn't new at all, it's just the change I saw when I signed up for an account, isn't it? Oh well, now that I feel like an idiot, I'm still happy that I can change the formatting back to the better format for myself. YardsGreens (talk) (Contribs) 12:45, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
The new skin has a lot of people pissed off and on November 3rd, you will have no choice but to use it. For the Stargate wiki, we have an ongoing discussion here: Forum:Wikia's new skin. Cheers. Kal'el T | C - 15:15, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! YardsGreens (talk) (Contribs) 16:17, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
why did they change the side that the recent activity and images was on. it was better on the right not the left Lordqaz (talk) (Contribs) 05:24, December 7, 2010 (UTC)


Really, I do say that there must be a reformat of what is/will be considered canon, and what isn't/won't. Clearly, the show should superseed everything else, next should be the other stuff. But stuff that go against the canon, for example Destiny's and Ori Warship's sizes, should not be considered canon. The problem would be where the line between canon and non-canon would lie. And please, don't turn this conversation into a battlefest. —Supakillaii (talk) (Contribs) 22:08, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Here's how it is, Jaymach is the bureaucrat, he can remove adminship, he believes everything should be included, almost everyone else does not, but does not cross him for fear of removal of adminship. Simple as that.
I agree with Jaymach on this one - at least on the principle. I don't know exactly how the rules work, it tends to be applied on a case-by-case basis, but controversial edits that I've been involved in have usually been won by the order of canon argument. So everything in the official MGM stuff (tech manual and other things) is canon and is included here, unless it is directly contradicted by on screen evidence (such as the number of drones in a puddle jumper being set at six in the tech manual and been seen to be much greater on screen) or a source which is higher up in the order of canon, in which case the information from the highest source is put in the article and the other is perhaps mentioned in the "Notes" or "Behind the scenes" sections. Books and other stuff are ambiguously cannon, so any info from those has to go in ambig tags which make it clear what their position is. This system means that the wiki is both comprehensive and also accurate by tagging info which people may not want to treat as cannon. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 14:39, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, now that I think about it, we should have another tag which is for canon info which has not been directly contradicted by the show, but which is still improbable (like the sizes of the ships you just mentioned) based on what we have seen and logical reasoning etc. It's better than just deleting it outright but also would satisfy the people who want figures that actually make sense. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 14:48, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the system is, it has to be clear and not so that the article says one thing but those who watch the franchise know it's wrong, because this wiki is also for those who don't know those things but are looking for a reliable source of information. I don't care if a planet has some strange history like Heliopolis, but I support the "contradicts on screen" rule, but as of now, that's not in use. Take in example the Ori ship-Supergate width comparison, or wraith cruisers size. People who change these get banned, but I think a compromise to this would be to not include contradictory or unreasonable info in the infobox, instead put in the notes section and explain why it's contradictory. Something like: "(something) gives the cruisers size as 2500/1500, but this contradicts the ships size on-screen compared to a 304." Otherwise I see a future of venomous comments, barrages of personal insults and edit wars. Jauh0 (talk) (Contribs) 20:06, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, currently next to each measurement there is a link that directs the reader to the source of the information. In the behind the scenes section (which generally appears right before the sources section in proper-page format) it explains any irregularities and contradictions in measurements that appear. This seems sufficient, given that said measurements are from "official" sources, even if somewhat inaccurate. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 22:17, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
The dilemma there, however, is that in such a small box, you can't really put "This information, when accepted with other pieces of information from similar sources, contradicts on-screen evidence: use with caution". Perhaps a template which just has a superscript "Disputable" next to the information could be used - and maybe, if mediawiki can do that sort of thing, link to the article's talk page or the Notes section where further details would be placed. We can't just not include it at one extreme, but neither can we expect people to scroll all the way down to the "Behind the Scenes" or "Notes" section to find out whether the information in the main article is sound or not. Sman789 (talk) (Contribs) 00:58, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
When you click on the [1] thing in the infobox next to each measurement, it TAKES YOU to the source. The sources are generally half an inch away from the paragraph explaining any contradictions. It seems fairly easy for someone to click on the link and scroll up a bit. I suppose we could start integrating the paragraphs themselves in with the source so that when you click on the [1] it takes you directly to the paragraph explaining any contradiction. But this info isn't really that hard to find in our current manner of formatting it... although I do suppose new users to wiki may have some problem, but there's really only so much we can do. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 03:14, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just thinking about those who don't know the issue with these second hand sources and propably don't scroll down all the way to the end of the article. I'm a student, so I use wikipedia a lot, and I almost never check every little [1] next to the info. That's why I think that any notes about contradiction should be next to the information and not the source. Jauh0 (talk) (Contribs) 09:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions dispute[]

i would like to know where the dimensions for the al'kesh came from. its states the ship is 35 meters long by 15 meters in height. ive watched all the episodes numerous times and i believe the length to greater than stated. by my own estimations, i figure it to be approximately 20-25 meters in height and around 100-125 meters in length and 30-35 meters in width. i say this because it appears to be longer than a 747 (70.6 meters x 59.6 meters LxW). to further demonstrate my point i bring forth that the death glider's dimensions are listed as 27.99x45.9x14.75 meters (LxWxH), which are also incorrect, as the al'kesh is significantly bigger in all appearances. in some situations the death glider appears to be only the width of the twin engine thruster ports on one side of the ship(episode exodus).

my question is does anyone know the actual size of the ships?

btw the great pyramid of giza is 440 royal cubits in length on all sides thats 230.4 metres or 755.9 ft in length with a current height of 138.8 metres (455.4 ft).

Don't trust the dimensions on this site, they are usually complete bullscheiße, but some other, perhaps more diplomatic, user can explain to you why it is so. Jauh0 (talk) (Contribs) 12:44, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

"Walter, shut'er down"[]

I would just like to thank everyone who has loyaly watched any and all of the Stargate series and contributed to this wiki. We had a good run, almost 17 years, but alas the gate is being sealed. Maybe someday there will be a continuation to this epic franchise. But for now all we can do is enjoy what was and think back to a time when for a brief second the Stargate franchise was on par with Star Trek and Star Wars. Thank you and see you on the other side.

May this great and majestic series rest in peace. Amen. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| No more siggy... (talk) (Contribs)
04:23, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

I hope they come out with a new stargate but not universe Atlantis and sg1 were cool but universe was stupid and a disgrace to the franchise. 

now heres what i said in ancient 

I hope they come out with a new stargate but not universe Atlantis and sg1 were cool but universe was stupid and a disgrace to the franchise.

Removal of extensive titles and names on Episode Articles[]

On many of the episode articles, I have noted in some sections such as "Trivia" or "Notes" or what have you, that the names of chracters can be a bit unessecarilly long, whereas "Major General George S. Hammond" would simply be "General Hammond", or maybe even in some cases the characters first or last name (depending on which is generally used) only. We all know the characters and their names, we don't have to be reminded of their full titles every time. And if someone wants to come with a comment about how it's "easy for some readers who are not fammiliar" or so like that, well gee, then why would they be reading the Wiki page for an episode in the middle of season five? Also, one could simply use the full title on the very first mention, and ignore it on all the subsequent such.

A small and rather idiotic thing to complain about, I know, but it just really bugs me for some reason. I only mention this because I'm not sure how much it's allowed or I'd already change it on my own, just want some outside clarification.

I think they're the full names as to decrease the number of redirects. We might as well just leave them the way they are as, well, it technically is more accurate... —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 07:40, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
what's wrong with redirects ASDF1239 DISCUSSION 23:56, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
Because if you link to just Hammond it leads to a Disambiguation page or just O'Neill leads to the ship not the character. Always link to the characters full name. Also "General Hammond" is wrong because General is not his rank. He should be listed as a Major or Lt. General depending on the season. Lowriders95s10 (talk) (Contribs) 03:58, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, how often do they actually USE the full rank in the show itself? Also, it is perfectly possible to link to something else than what is esplicitly said in the text, as you should be well aware.

Current Events Box[]

After removing the "Latest episodes" section from the current events template/section, I felt as tho the remaining text looked "trashy"... as though the text gets lost/jumbled amongst the rest of the page. Anyway, I placed the text in a box hoping it wouldn't look as bland and boring and be more organized and contained.... Comments on this? I could change the color.... or remove it altogether. —Anubis 10545 (talk) (Contribs) 07:59, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

News/info box[]

In the box on the main page that contains updates on things like SGU being out in Region 2, SGA being out on Blu-ray, etc. several frames say that the new product is "aviable" instead of "available." I have no idea how to fix that, but would love to see it corrected. This wiki is pretty polished, and that makes everything look slipshod. -Randy (talk) (Contribs) 18:28, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Vilnisr T | C - 19:34, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

my new book[]

hi to everyone i'm curently writing my first novel based on sga hope to be finished by new year.The story continues from where sg1 and its movies and sga ended taking all storylines in acount. i got inspired when i read the novels from the legacy series frankly in a negative term becouse i think they are a great level down from the quality of the series. I took some hints from several sg episodes mainly from the return and i'm asking you all for your thoughts on the matter of TRIA. If that ship was capable of leaving the Pegasus why not other ships as well. And since it was abandoned in the void why not to be salvaged from the sgc.Also i think that Atlantis should and will be back in Pegasus but not totaly unprepared like in legacy but much better organized mission this time knowing of the dangers that they'll face.

write back and give mi your thoughts

ps tha name of the novel is SGA:The return of hope.Legolasbt (talk) (Contribs) 15:04, December 15, 2011 (UTC)legolasbt

I think it would be a great idea to salvage Tria, infact I have included it in the script I have wrote, although it seames to be taking a while to here back from the agency. Oberoth20 (talk) (Contribs) 04:39, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

RSS Feed for Recent Changes[]

Stargate Wiki RSS Feed for recent changes.

Does anyone here know how to make RSS feeds, and would be willing to make one, so that I can see the latest updates on my desktop Feeds list?

RDAisGod (talk) (Contribs) 03:47, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

an idea[]

I found most wikia's on tv-series, franchises have franchise specific names. Are we really the boring one that just uses the title? while this could have been "The Repository of Knowledge" or somesuch place? 22:10, January 26, 2014 (UTC)