Jump to content

Talk:Stargate Universe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kallath (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 11 October 2009 (→Reception?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reception?

Any info on the show's reception yet? That is all. --Kallath (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ

Yesterday 5/6 2009 Malozzi posted a picture of Alaina Huffman in character costume and on the costume you could clearly see the rank bar of a Lieutenant on her colar... So shoulden't we change the part that she is a master sergeant?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.196.27 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the actress in her character's uniform; mightn't she have grabbed the wrong blouse for the impromptu photo-op? Was it a costuming gaffe? Maybe you're seeing a version of the character from an alternate quantum reality? Our interpretations of such material is original research until we have a reliable source explicitly stating anything. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On MGM's newly update Stargate site its lists her as 1st Lt now. Link is http://stargate.mgm.com/view/character/168/index.html Kosridge (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency of "and" and "&"

Episode 1, 2 and 3 have as writers "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" while 11 and 12 have "Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie". It was twice reversed by Sgeureka claiming: it's a writer team who always use an "&". While for Stargate Atlantis both are used, SG-1 uses almost exclusively "&".

To clear things up, which is used (for everything) "and" or "&"? It's quite banal but I like consistency, especially in the same table. Xeworlebi (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What they're "credited" as, or what they prefer to use, has no relevance here, article should be consistent. Rehevkor ✉ 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JM said on GateWorld forums a few years ago that it's a legal thing that they get credited with an "&". Anyhow, if I recall correctly, JM and PM stopped writing episodes together around season 9 of SG-1 anyway, i.e. most (maybe all) episodes since then have been written by one of them exclusively (for example SGU eps 119 and 120). If the trend of the past continues, those episodes will nevertheless be credited as "Written by Joseph Mallozzi & Paul Mullie", but it's too early to tell. I don't mind if this article lists the one writer or the writer duo, but the word and is technically wrong either way. – sgeureka t•c 16:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So change "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" to "Robert C. Cooper & Brad Wright" for the first three episodes? Since there is no real difference between the two. Xeworlebi (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no standard way for how to combine individual writers. You can use and, a comma, a semicolon, an &, .... The show credits have used the word and in such cases, so that's what I've always used so far (here and elsewhere). But instead of discussing the pros and cons of this, we could also use that time to actually improve the article with stuff that matters (and earn some brownie points with folks who are critical of changes). The MGM website is a good place to start. – sgeureka t•c 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a big difference between using "&" and "and" when crediting writers. "&" is used for a team that wrote a script together. "And" is used when one writer rewrites the work of the previous writer. "Consistency" does not trump screenwriting credit standards. "Robert C. Cooper & Brad Wright" means that they worked together, at the same time, to write a script. "Robert C. Cooper and Brad Wright" means that Robert wrote a script and then Brad took it and rewrote it. DragonsDream (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Airing Dates

I don't know how to change TBA to the dates that I found at [1] and I was hoping that somebody else would be able to change them.--Kluckie (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look and learn, this is how adding airdates is done, hope you know how to do it in the future. Thanks. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title card

Anubis 10545 (talk · contribs) uploaded a new version of File:SGUTVlogo.jpg recently, screencaptured from the new trailer. I think the previous version is more representative of the show's actual logo as demonstrated elsewhere on the official site, whereas the lens flare that was added in this iteration seems to be more an artifact of the trailer than an aspect of the logo itself. Does anybody have any input on the matter? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think that the previous version of the title card should be used until we see what the title on the opening sequence looks like. However, I'd be fine with this version or the previous one, as there is not much difference in either version of the title card. Black Sabre (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Lens flare is just decoration for the trailer, not actually part of the logo. Rehevkor ✉ 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serialisation

"SGU will be more serialized" "There is a conscious effort to avoid making SGU too serialized"

I realise both quotes are cited, but surely we should have one or the other? Perhaps stick with the later statement?

213.120.222.100 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or a line to recognise the contradiction. Tom walker (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a contradiction. It's going to be more serialized than SG-1 or Atlantis, but they don't want it too serialized like in Lost. Ophois (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasters

an IP address keeps adding a table that is unsourced, redundant and unnecassary, yet is insistant that the table stay, despite going against at least three other editors. What do you think should be the best plan of action? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could request semi-protection. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasters. Do we really need it?

Some users keeps adding International broadcaster tabel in article! Is this information really necessery! If you think that it is, then explain why!Vilnisr (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it saves time (easier) to find the date ya looking for when ya in a hurry. Plus if there is more that just 1 season like Eureka, those date will be added on too Shanedehe (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009
Admin comment Shanedhe, please do not edit war. You have reverted the text multiple times, under your account and as an IP, contrary to the revert guidelines. Please reach consensus here first. --Ckatzchatspy 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have anything against the idea of having something there, but the most recent version of said data was wholly unreferenced and, ergo, unacceptable in the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is a on-line encyclopedia, not tv guide, and it doesn't need all dates from all broadcasters, only the firts air date of season and episode, there are too many countries and broadcasters on planet, but it's possible to make a separated page and add a link in broadcast section! Consider it!Vilnisr (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It breaches WP:RS... which means remove.... okay?. --TIAYN (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The info and sources are in the article intro. Powergate92Talk 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be close to impossible to find references SGU broadcasting in non-English countries. --TIAYN (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What doe's that have to do with this? Powergate92Talk 05:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the other SG articles and the whole lot of popular-around-the-world-TV articles, broadcaster tables get so long that they are usually left out of the article. (If someone comes to en-wiki to learn where a popular TV show airs in his country, he can usually find the information easily through the interwiki links.) Since SGU will very likely be shown all over the world too, I think it's best to not start a broadcaster table at all. This article version had a nice paragraph on all (or most) of the broadcasters in the English-speaking part of the world. Just bring back that paragraph (i.e. prose) under a new section called "Broadcast". Prose is better than a table to prevent the information from becoming a deletion-worthy pile-on mess, and can be kept short and usable for just English-speaking countries by adding "In the English-speaking world, SGU airs ...". – sgeureka t•c 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we are to add a big tabel of all the countries were the show is broadcasted, we needs references. Which will be close to impossible to find!. --TIAYN (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again the references are in the article intro. Powergate92Talk 20:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but most broadcasting tabels includes other countries, seen Eureka for example. The user wants is like this, he has even given various examples of it. --TIAYN (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What for? Why this table is so important and necessary in article? If someone just want to show where Universe was (will be) shown, then he can simply make a 'Stargate Universe international broadcast' article page and just add a link in main article, so he can put there all countries and dates all over the world! just leave alone main article!Vilnisr (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward language in "Premise and Themes" section

There is an awkward-sounding sentence in the section of the article entitled "Premise and Themes":

"The differences between good and evil will be less apparent, as the ship will be populated with flawed and unprepared characters who were not supposed to go here."

The last phrase is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. First, use of the word "here" is unencyclopedic; I believe the appropriate word is "there". Second, I get the feeling that it was copied verbatim from the source; if it is, it belongs in quotes.

Pottersson (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title card redux

Since Anubis 10545 (talk · contribs) seems to average 1-3 edits per month, I don't know if he'll get the message I left for him at his talk page (User talk:Anubis 10545#SGU title card) in due time. I'll C&P it here for us to discuss please.

With regards to this image, the most recent version you uploaded cannot be claimed to under the licensing that's already there, and needs to get new sourcing, licensing, a detailed fair-use rationale, etc. Considering this, and considering WP:NFCC#1, I wonder if you would consider the previous version that can stay libre-licensed and more widely-used than the new one. I would also point out the precedent at House, where contributors there extracted the libre elements and have a representative image that can be widely used across the project without running afoul of the non-free content policy. What do you think?

— pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the image Anubis 10545 uploaded as it was not PD and doe's not meet WP:NFCC#1. Powergate92Talk 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_Universe&oldid=319311399"