Talk:Stargate literature

Abydan/Abydonian

I know that in SG1 they refer to the inhabitants of Abydos as Abydonians. However, I don't remember how they were referenced in the movie - and have never read the novels. Is the "Abydan" term correct in the novels? Or just a misspelling of Abydonian? --Tim4christ17 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I'm sure you're aware, SG-1 does not follow the film very closely. "Abydan" is what they're called in the film's books, and because those are so throughly researched (something SG-1 is NOT), I have no doubt that "Abydan" is the name originally created by Devlin and Emmerich. "Abydonian" is just something stupid that the equally stupid creators of SG-1 came up with. --Promus Kaa 20:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So you don't know which one was actually the intended name, but you are sure it isn't the SG-1 one because "those SG-1 guys are dummies!!!!!!1!!1!one!", your bias is showing again Promus ;). Look, if Abydan is used in the books then that is the name used to describe the books, anywhere else it is Abydonian. Both are correct in their intended usage. And again Promus, it wasn't poor research by the makers of SG-1. They intentionally decided to do things differently. Those changes resulted in the longest running SciFi show in US history, so I guess they were pretty good changes. Konman72 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And thus, SG-1 and the StarGate film take place in totally different universes and continuums. :P --Promus Kaa 20:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it only shows that the books do since the word Abydan was not used int he film (unless my copy of the script messed up somewhere). Even if it was said in the film it only shows that changes were made. Big whoop. Konman72 21:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the film, at least in the form of what actually made it to the screen, is canon. However it seems that the TV shows can override it. The SG canon policy has not been elaborated on to the degree that those of Star Trek and Star Wars have been, though, and thus a lot of dispute is possible. There is no evidence for a "two universe" system in Stargate like there is with George Lucas et. al and Star Wars, nor for an "all-is-canon" system like the Lucas Licensing, etc. policy (also for Star Wars).

Anyway, more to this topic, there was never any specific term used to refer to the people of Abydos, heck, the planet was never even named, in the film. Whether or not the novel tie-ins are as canon as the film, or even canon at all, is debatable due to the paucity of quotes from MGM. AFAIK only what actually makes it to screen is undisputably canon, and equating the tie-in novels with the film can be disputed. 70.101.144.160 08:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Film Book Page

I was working on expanding the page for the film's books (such as adding character lists and detailed synopsis for each book), and since the page is going to be vastly improved, I think it needed its own page. We can save this page for whatever else, but the film books need their own page, like they originally had, and like I was doing. --Promus Kaa 23:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your improvements and additions and then we can discuss it. As of now they do not need or deserve their own page so no change is necessary. If your additions warrant the seperation then it will be made then, not before. Konman72 23:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh...it seems your additions have already been made. Then ok, the page is definitely fine the way it is. They do not need their own page since the page is neither bulky nor overlong. Konman72 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's...because...I'm not DONE yet?!?!? Gods...I think I DID put an "incomplete" header at the top. Of COURSE it's not bulky yet. The film books should go back on the page made for them, like they ORIGINALLY were. --Promus Kaa 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Make your changes and then we can decide if they warrant their own page. Their notability is not sufficient to give them their own page so we must base it on other factors. If the additions you make warrant the seperation then it will be made then, not before. Konman72 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and just so you know the merger of the film books with the rest was made for this very reason. There have been a large number of notability related deletions lately, even in the Stargate realm, so we went ahead and merged articles where it was deemed necessary. This change was made through community concensus and any alteration will be done similarly. Konman72 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Fandemonium Novels

I am, over time, creating individual pages for the Fandemonium novels. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 22:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

I would suggest you expand their individual entries on this article first, then if they become too large you can consider creating individual articles for each. This prevents fancruft and preempts any attempt at deletion. Konman72 23:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This article hasn't really got individual entries for any of the books, it's more just a list...what the heck is fancruft :p (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, should have linked it, WP:FAN. Basically, if an entry is deemed non-notable then it is likely to get deleted. Feel free to add in individual entries in this article, or continue making singular ones, but I strongly suggest modifying this article until it is determined whether or not these books deserve individual articles (perhaps a compromise could be to have one seperate article for the fandomonium books and have all info on them there, but this too should come after they have been added here and found to have too much information). Konman72 14:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, each of the Doctor Who books has their own page...(a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 12:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Million Moments (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Non-Fiction Books

There are several non-fiction books for Stargate, bioth official and unauthorized, where should details of these go? (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 21:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate A Matter of Honor.jpg

Image:Stargate A Matter of Honor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate The First Amendment.jpg

Image:Stargate The First Amendment.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate rebellion.jpg

Image:Stargate rebellion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate The First Amendment.jpg

Image:Stargate The First Amendment.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate A Matter of Honor.jpg

Image:Stargate A Matter of Honor.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SGA Reliquary.jpg

The image Image:SGA Reliquary.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

The "Development" subsection begins with this nonsensical sentence: If anyone are going to write a Stargate book, you need to send a manuscript to their E-mail, while known writers need to send their publishing history and a short synopsis of their planned plot behind the book. It doesn't appear to be vandalism, but I have no idea what is being said here. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have copyedited it but it still seems out of place, an odd way to being the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.107.184 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stargate literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319020050/http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=37194 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=37194
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61G1zz8Gs?url=http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/06/fandemonium_novels_coming_to_u.s.shtml to http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/06/fandemonium_novels_coming_to_u.s.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713232122/http://titanmagazines.com/app?service=external%2FProduct&sp=l12 to http://titanmagazines.com/app?service=external%2FProduct&sp=l12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)