Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Delete without discussion

User:MatthewFenton deleted the entire "Themes" section, which another editor had been contributing to recently. While I have no strong opinion either way about the edit itself, I find the method used to be uncollegial. If I were going to delete an entire section like that, I would, first, announce that I was going to do so, and if I thought an active editor would object I would wait at least a day; second, I would paste the deleted section into the Talk page (or if it's big enough, onto a Talk subpage). Consensus is a critical component of neutrality. I would be in favor of restoring the section, at least for the duration of a "section for deletion" discussion here. Avt tor 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - sorry Matt. Morphh ^(talk) 19:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

as the one responsible for the recent edits allow me to explain my intentions. first, the information listed in the 'themes' section was already present under 'show summary'. now, much of that information is not a show summary and thus i created the 'themes' section with the hope that the section would become a location for info from interviews, dvd commentaries, and analysis. that the info was already on the page is verifible by simply looking at the history page. second, i do not disagree that sources are needed. I also agree with Avt tor that large deletions should be first presented as a discussion. a significant amount of time is necessary to do the research to find articles and listen to commentaries. collaboration would allow for expedient and verifible edits Mwhope 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

at the very least it needs some cleaning up--88wolfmaster 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section

Under the Cast section there are references to MacGuyver and Wizard of Oz shouldnt this be under its own section (notable references/allusion in the show or something). In addition, the cast section explains how two Chiefs of Staff have appeared in the show shouldn't this paragraph go below the other characters? --88wolfmaster 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorder Sections

I think if the sections were order as follows they would flow better: 1 Show summary , 2 Plot Summary, 3 Themes, 4 Cast, 5 Show history, 6 Cancellation, 7 Differences between the film and series, 8 Broadcasters, 9 Spin-offs, 10 Fictional universe, 11 DVD releases, 12 References, 13 External links --88wolfmaster 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold! :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Actors

I would really like to address several more actors in some way, shape, or form. They are: Dr. Fraiser (Teryl Rothery) Dr. Carolyn Lam (Lexa Doig) Master Bra'tac (Tony Amendola) Selmak / Jacob Carter (Carmen Argenziano) Dr. Bill Lee (Bill Dow) Major Paul Davis (Colin Cunningham) Apophis (Peter Williams) Ba'al (Cliff Simon) Anubis (David Palffy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88wolfmaster (talk • contribs) 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Not necessary - that's what the sub-articles are for. Otherwise, this article becomes unfocused. (Extensive character lists in main articles have a tendency to become magnets for every character that ever appears.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not even under a common reoccuring guests (sub)section?; if not thats ok it seems we have more pressing issues to attend to.--88wolfmaster 20:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That kind of thing should go in Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1, etc. There is no need for more than the current list of major characters in the main series article. --Tango 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see i'm outnumbered on this issue.--88wolfmaster 05:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cancellation

Is it accurate to say SG-1 was cancelled? Technically, it just wasn't renewed. There never was an 11th season to cancel. --Tango 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, it certainly wasn't cancelled (in the sense of the original BSG, Star Trek: Enterprise, etc). Matthew 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased the cancellation section. Some parts might not read very well, though, so some copyediting would be good. --Tango 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what should be done is to adjust the "developing story" perspective and just describe the current state of affairs. I'll take a stab at it in a bit if someone doesn't beat me to it.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  13:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion note + prod notice + suggestion

Just minor things where I see need to comment.

1. I deleted the following paragraph from Stargate SG-1#Movies (direct to video) because it was without sources (and if it is in fact true, it should rather be included in Stargate: Continuum):
While SG-1 attends the execution of Ba'al, the last of the Goa'uld System Lords, Teal'c and Vala inexplicably disappear into thin air. Carter, Daniel and Mitchell race back to a world where history has been changed: the Stargate program has been erased from the timeline. As they try to convince the authorities of what's happened, a fleet of Goa'uld motherships arrives in orbit, led by Ba'al, his queen, Katesh (Vala) and his first prime, Teal'c. SG-1 must find the Stargate and set things right before the world is enslaved by the Goa'uld.

2. Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 (which had just been split off from the main Stargate page) had a prod notice stay for over five days. If it gets deleted, you can still access its former version here (and see if we really need to have such a list anywhere on wikipedia).

3. I also noticed that the Stargate SG-1#Broadcasters list is getting rather long and unencyclopedic. Neither the main articles for Lost (TV series) nor Buffy the Vampire Slayer have such a list, so I suggest deleting it. (I'm just waiting for consensus.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Some just removed the prod, so I imagine it'll go to AFD next, where it'll probably get deleted. It couldn't hurt to have a few examples in a section about the origins of the show. Koweja 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: prod. I didn't know that removing the prod tag was allowed after five days have passed, or I would have done so myself. I also added some new info/behind-the-scenes comments to the once-prodded page to get away from the pure listcruft style (it's all from memory though since the info probably comes from DVD commentaries - so that means a {{fact}} tag for now). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have organized the broadcasters section into a table (in case we dont delete it).--88wolfmaster 20:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

gif help

Does anyone know why the animation of the opening credits dosent work???? it would be really cool if we could use it media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Nathan NFM 03:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

{{prod}} List of Stargate SG-1 seasons

I'm just letting you know that I've prodded List of Stargate SG-1 seasons. If someone feels the deletion would be controversial and removes the prod template, I'd consider AfD. See the reasons/discussion at Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 seasons. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilertags

Someone has to put in spoiler tags on this page. I think i just ruined 21% of the storyline for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.155.120 (talk • contribs)

Which section? Sections like "Plot" and "Story arcs" are going to contain spoilers - spoiler tags there are redundant. If there are spoilers in other sections, please let me know and I'll take a look. --Tango 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the story arcs section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.44.145 (talk • contribs)

I think it's fair to say spoilers are to be expected in a section on story arcs. It's impossible to discuss the story arcs without saying what they are. --Tango 22:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate SG-1 Season 9 Short Title.jpg

Image:Stargate SG-1 Season 9 Short Title.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to address this by adding a couple Fair Use rationale points. Morphh ^(talk) 14:30, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

Sci Fi Channel

It strikes me as odd that Sci Fi Channel would be listed as an original channel, probably because they're not really an original channel. I've been bold and removed it from the infobox in a cleanup. Can point out some points that would make Sci Fi Channel an original channel? It's much like the airdate debae, I'd say, as there can only be one "original". Matthew 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seasons 6–10 were originally shown on SciFi, so it's an original channel, if not the original channel.

—wwoods 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But by that definition Sky One would be an original channel (for originally showing episodes first — season ten wasn't the first time), which it certainly isn't. Not that I'd complain if we listed Sky One within the article, though. Matthew 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that the infobox doesn't use a plural, either. So I believe that it literally means: the original channel. Matthew 14:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the "original channel" field refers to the network producing the show. For seasons 1-5, it was Showtime, while seasons 6-10 were produced by SCI FI. (It is akin to a show jumping from, say, ABC to NBC - in this case, Showtime was involved in the first half of the run, but played no part in the second half.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid observation about the singular "original channel", but the template instructions address that: "The original network(s) or channel(s) on which the show appears." (Good of you to bring it up, though.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Australian première

The first episode was broadcast on July 27, 1997 on Showtime in the US and December 3, 1997 on the Seven Network in Australia.

I'm considering removing the part in italics, the Australian air date doesn't seem very relevant to me. Perhaps a note could be made on the episode page, personally I don't like the thought of a "International broadcasts" section on every episode page, as Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. Any opinions? Matthew 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated episode notability

An editor has requested deletion review on this template after a decision was made to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate in the discussion at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Ursasapien (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Children of the Gods

Has been tagged as lacking secondary sources to establish notability... though it's clear to me the episode (and other episodes of television series ) are notable for being episodes of their shows (a reason why I nominated that template for deletion). Anybody interested in working with me to add some sources? Matthew 15:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see our episode articles improved and am happy to devote a little time to doing that, but I'm not really sure what we can do. The only relevant secondary sources we're going to be able to find are reviews. I don't think an episode being reviewed establishes notability. The episodes are notable, as you say, because of their association with the parent program (for which I can find numerous sources to establish notability in a few minutes). I don't think there is anything we can do on the level of individual episodes - we have to work to establish an appropriate general policy. --Tango 18:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A review from a notable third-party source would qualify. For example, a newspaper, TV Guide, etc. Personal blogs, fan sites (except for the larger, well-established ones) and user forums wouldn't. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers review hundreds of things, I wouldn't say they were all notable. They don't generally review TV episodes, anyway. --Tango 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver edit war

Okay, the edit war over Vancouver, B.C. vs. Vancouver, Canada needs to stop. Please discuss it here before making any changes. We need to establish a consensus and then abide by it. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reported User:Robinepowell for a 3RR violation. Hopefully that will be the end of it. --Tango 01:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that her violation of 3RR is grounds for admin action, I've been searching through the Category "Vancouver television series" to see how the editors of other similar shows do it...and it seems that most of them include the entire name, ("Vancouver, British Columbia"), or eliminate the city altogether, reporting filming in "the British Columbia region of Canada." I think that we should discuss this further, preferably with a Canadian Stargate fan included. I think that someone from Canada would be better able to enlighten us on the common usage. (Of course, if someone can find a mention in the manual of style that refers to something like this, we'll follow that.) Let's establish consensus and go from there. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to ask a Canadian. In Canada, I'm sure the common usage is to give the province, not the country, since it should be obvious what country they are talking about. What we need to consider is what helps non-Canadian readers most. How sure are we that our readers know that British Columbia is in Canada, for example? --Tango 02:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then we should take a look at some of the other shows in the Category "Vancouver television series." =David^(talk)_(contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for some input over at the Canadian TV shows wikiproject talk page. Hopefully they can help. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 02:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm always interested to know how American proponents of "Vancouver, Canada" would feel if a Canadian editor insisted on "Denver, United States" instead of "Denver, Colorado". I'm pretty sure major hackles would go up. Bottom line: if it's "City, State" rather than "City, United States", then it has to be "City, Province" rather than "City, Canada". You can't have one and not the other. Bearcat 03:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You've raised a good point. I don't know how well the analogy carries to the international community, but it makes perfect sense to me - and it seems to be borne out by many of the other shows in the Canadian TV shows category. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, why can't you just add both?--_ZXCVBNM 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't always map neatly to all countries. Generally, my policy is to check what the local preference is first before making an edit that involves a foreign city, because it generally comes across as either imperialist or ignorant to disregard that. I know, for example, that almost nobody would ever insist on "Paris, Île-de-France" in lieu of Paris, France, but conversely Sydney, New South Wales is considered more correct than "Sydney, Australia". Bearcat 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking personally (as a Vancouverite), I prefer "Vancouver, Canada" for Wikipedia articles - given that the project is international. (If it was only Canada, or North America, I might be inclined to use "Vancouver, British Columbia" or just "Vancouver".) As much as I love my province, I think that "Canada" is more helpful to foreigners who aren't necessarily familiar with where or what "British Columbia" is. Some have even thought it was a country in South America... ---Ckatz^chat_spy 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "Vancouver, Canada" would be appropriate since WikiPedia is a international project. British Columbia just isn't known to everyone in the world, so it might cause confusion.-sAnJi1119 04:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Denver, United States". Not everybody knows where Colorado is, right? Bearcat 06:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that we're just conditioned to feel that form (D,US) is "odd". Most of the English-language world is inundated with American television and films, and those would by default use the "city, state" format (or even just "city"). By comparison, the Brits are less likely to see Canadian or Australian shows with provincial/state references (and likewise in return) - and as such are more likely to expect the "city, country" style. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not everyone is American or Canadian. I, for one, know what British Columbia is but I tend to think the majority of people don't know that. If you do want to know what province Vancouver is in, why don't you click on the link? Are the 2010 Winter Olympics going to have place in Vancouver, British Columbia? Most people would answer Vancouver, Canada to that. If WP were strictly for Americans or Canadians, maybe Vancouver would suffice. But since it is an international project, states/provinces/districts/counties/etc are completely irrelevant. » byeee 10:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents, I, as an American, would say it as "Vancouver, Canada;" when referring to all cities outside the US, I use the (city, country) format, and when referring to cities inside the US I use the (city, state) format. I suppose it would be different internationally, but Vancouver, Canada is fine without saying "British Columbia." Anyone outside Canada would be unfamiliar with that region.

That said, I'm going to add this to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.--_ZXCVBNM 15:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is such a lame edit war, why did you get involved? Calling an edit war lame in the edit summary of a revert is just hypocritical. --Tango 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it from the "lame list" - hardly seems appropriate in comparison to the other entries there. (That is to say, putting this minor dispute on the list is lamer than the dispute itself...) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with US cities is that a lot of names (including Denver) are used by multiple cities in the US. "Denver, US" is ambiguous (see Denver (disambiguation)), so we have no choice but to give the state. The question is whether US states should be given as "Colorado" or "Colorado, US" (IMO, the latter). There is only one Vancouver is Canada, so "Vancouver, Canada" is fine. --Tango 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no other Denver in the United States that's notable enough to challenge the one in Colorado as the primary meaning of "Denver, United States". Bearcat 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

There seems to be a consensus of sorts emerging in weak support of including Canada in the phrase. To that end, and in consideration of the other articles in the Canadian TV Shows category, I propose the following.

The current phrase is as follows:

It begins one year after the events of the 1994 science fiction film Stargate. It was produced in and around Vancouver, Canada.

I propose that it be changed to say:

It begins one year after the events of the 1994 science fiction film Stargate and was produced in the Vancouver area of British Columbia, Canada.

Could I request an informal straw poll to establish an actual consensus that we could cite? =David^(talk)_(contribs) 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "Vancouver area", since as far as I know, only the city is called Vancouver, not the area around it (which is the "Greater Vancouver Regional District" according to Vancouver). How about "produced in Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada."? I would prefer just "Vancouver, Canada", though. --Tango 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Vancouver, Canada" as "city, province, country" is too wordy. (Unless there are plans to start using "Los Angeles, California, United States" and so on. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, three words is "too wordy?" Since when? It it'll resolve this dispute, so be it, otherwise "Vancouver, Canada" is the generally accepted spelling.--_ZXCVBNM 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the second "in" to make it a bit less clunky. Ckatz: I don't think your comparison to Los Angeles applies here. Los Angeles is more populated and likely far more widely known internationally than Vancouver. I could be wrong, though... =David^(talk)_(contribs) 00:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

L.A. is more widely known than Vancouver, of course. In the same fashion, Vancouver is probably more widely known than British Columbia - and so adding B.C. lengthens the description without helping to help identify the city. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like we're arriving at a consensus to leave as-is. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I live in Canada, which why I'm changing it. We here in Canada don't refer to citites by name of the city followed by the country in Canada or the U.S. Province or State after the city. Why anyone would do otherwise is beyond me. Not to mention the fact that if you click on the links, it will tell you that Vancouver is in Canada, especially for "international" fans who apparenly everyone here feels are too "clueless" to figure it out on their own. I'd like to know why it can't be either just Vancouver in links or Vancouver B.C. in links. It works for Smallville, so do the same for Stargate. Robinepowell

Your opinion does not reflect consensus. I'm reverting it. (Never mind, it's already been done...) We value your opinion, but until a consensus arises, reverting it is violating policy. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 17:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, what Canadians do is irrelevant. I doubt there are many Canadians that don't know where Vancouver is. Any extra information we give is for the benefit of people that don't already know where Vancouver is. Now, we could assume they are small enough in number that we can just leave them to click the link and not give any extra information, but what harm does adding one or two extra words do? None. So, we might as well give more information. Just putting "British Columbia" is completely pointless. If someone doesn't already know were Vancouver is, then saying it is in British Columbia isn't likely to help them much. So, "Vancouver, British Columbia" is no better than just "Vancouver". So, it's a decision between "Vancouver", "Vancouver, Canada" or "Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada". I would say the last one is too long, but I don't see any reason to choose the first over the second. That is why I'm saying we should stick with "Vancouver, Canada". Once we've reached a consensus here, I will go to the Smallville article and change it there too. --Tango 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then presumably you won't mind if I edit Mork & Mindy to say that the show was set in "Boulder, United States". If what Canadians say for Canadian cities is irrelevant, then what Americans say for American cities is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways — it's either "City, State" for the US and "City, Province" for Canada, or "City, Canada" and "City, United States". It cannot be "City, State" but "City, Canada". Same format for both countries, period. Bearcat 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You wanted a Canuck to weigh in and that I'm doing so, you reject it? Tell me something, why not change ALL shows to reflect the country where they were taped, including the U.S.?

That's what I don't understand, why does it have to say "Canada" if you have Vancouver in links? What's the point? I thought the whole point of links what so users could find out more about part in links. Linking Vancouver B.C. and clicking on it tells you it's a Province on the West Coast of Canada. Last time I checked the majority of people in North America do not say the city followed by the country, so why is it like that for this show? Robinepowell

I'm not rejecting anything. I don't have an opinion in this, I'm just trying to facilitate a discussion so we don't have an edit war. I asked for a Canadian to add their opinion so we'd have an idea of how things are typically done. I didn't say that we'd go with what they said with no more discussion. Your opinion does not reflect consensus; until it does, the discussion needs to continue. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There is more to the world than North America... --Tango 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Robin, North Americans don't refer to the country because we're already here - if you're in the U.S., you presumably know that Seattle or Dallas or Omaha (etc.) is too. Likewise for Canadians - we don't need to remind ourselves what country Montreal, Calgary or Whitehorse is in. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again let me point out that's what the links around Vancouver B.C. are for. It tells what country its in, what in the country you can find Vancouver, the flag, the population for the matter. I always refer to a city followed by the State or Province in U.S. or Canada. To me it always has made sense to use the Province of B.C. after Canada. I've noticed that when talking about a show and where it's set, that it is also city followed by the State (or in some cases Province). Take Gilmore Girls for example, it is set in a fictional town of Stars Hollow. Murder She Wrote is another good example, of a fictional town follwed by the state of Maine. Nowhere does it say U.S.A, it is a given that they are set in the U.S. Robinepowell 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia has a global audience. You have to stop looking at this from a local perspective, and structure the information to reflect international readers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Then American articles have to be structured the same way. But you'd have a pitchfork-wielding mob after you if you insisted on changing American city references to "City, United States" on the grounds that international users might get confused by the state name. Bearcat 10:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to drop this in here because of recent activity on the Smallville page, whatever the decision eventually is, please don't link Vancouver, British Columbia. That is not the title of the page. It's simply Vancouver. If you must, link each name separately. This unnecessary redirection just to make a point that Vancouver is in BC is not helpful. There's no need to pipe it either, since Vancouver's page clearly mentions both BC and Canada.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The choices are as follows:

1. City, Province for Canada and City, State for the United States,
2. City, Canada and City, United States.

Using "City, Canada" for Canadian cities but "City, State" for American ones is simply not acceptable. Either both countries get "City, Subnational Division" or both countries get "City, Country". There's simply no defensible argument to be had that Canadian cities should be referred to differently than American ones are. Bearcat 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that in spite of your comment above, I am not American, I am British. Secondly, as I believe I've already said above, "City, US" doesn't work very well, since city names in the US are far from unique. In many cases you have to specify the state to make it clear which city you mean. So, the options for US cities are "City, State" or "City, State, US", just "City, US" is not an option (in many cases - for the few cities that have a unique name, it's fine). My "vote" would be for "City, Canada" and "City, State, US". Countries can be dropped when obvious from context. --Tango 10:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[quote]The choices are as follows:

1. City, Province for Canada and City, State for the United States,
2. City, Canada and City, United States.

Using "City, Canada" for Canadian cities but "City, State" for American ones is simply not acceptable. Either both countries get "City, Subnational Division" or both countries get "City, Country". There's simply no defensible argument to be had that Canadian cities should be referred to differently than American ones are. Bearcat 10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[/quote]

Exactly! I agree with you 100% on that! I may sound like a broken record but what's the point of the links around Vancouver B.C. if its going to be Vancouver Canada? I've noticed that only in the States that the city is followed by the State yet everywhere else the city followed by the country. Here in Canada we have can say what Province our city is in, just like the U.S. can say what State their city is in. I'd like to also point out this is Wikipedia, an Encyclopedia, where you can find out information, including where Vancouver B.C. is. I just don't know why everyone feels the need to "dumb it down" where Vancouver is concerned. I mean if you don't know where Vancouver B.C. is located, you can look it up on this very same site.Robinepowell 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this "problem" only applies to Canada but not the States. As if everyone "international" automatically knows all 50+ States and their cities whether they're major or not. Canada is bigger landwise but with less cities to worry about since they are only 10 Provinces and 3 Territories. Again I'll ask, what's the point of the links around Vancouver B.C. if we're taking the assumption that non can figure out how to click on the links if they don't know where Vancouver or B.C. is located? Isn't that the whole point of links here? Not to mention Vancouver is a pretty major city in B.C. and also has an island with the same name. Around here when I watch the world weather I see major cities for other countries listed, what's to the same they don't the same and point out where Vancouver is located on the map, while they're doing the weather? In this day in age, it isn't hard to find out where a city is, even if it's not a major one. I'd like to also point out that is is an Enclyopedia website where most information is available. I don't think a book version of an Encyclopedia would listed Vancouver as "Vancouver, Canada" more likely list it as "Vacouver, B.C." and give some information on where Vancouver is located, which, I'll repeat, is what the links are for here.