Jump to content

Talk:Stargate Atlantis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

For the record, the copyright violation actually came from: http://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/index.shtml

→Raul654 06:44, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)


Starbase-Atlantis :-)
—wwoods 02:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


In the episode The Gift, the Atlantis command team find out or suggested that as the Ancients seeded humans throughout the Pegasus Galaxy, on one of these planets, they had their lifeforce sucked out by bugs who in turn evolved into the Wraith which were discovered years later. - John-1107

Recurring characters

I'm very slightly concerned about the growth of the Recurring characters section. I think that after a few more episodes (perhaps after the airing of "The Storm" / "The Eye") we should go through the list and eliminate those characters who don't really have recurring roles.

Of course, we'd have to establish some criteria regarding what constitutes a recurring role. I think members of the current list fall into three categories:

1) Obviously recurring. The best example of this is Dr. Carson Beckett. He's not only been in in every episode but has also had a significant role in every episode. I can't really figure out why he's not listed as a regular on the show, though I have a eerie suspicion that he will be killed off (I hope not!).

2) Borderline recurring. A good example of this is Dr. Zelenka. He's appeared in two episodes and has done fairly significant things in both of them. Still, he lacks a first name and didn't get much screen time during his two appearances.

3) Not (?) recurring. I think that the various Sergeants and Doctors who have appeared in one or two episodes without significant roles fall into this category. Bates and Cavanaugh have had significant roles, but only in one episode each.

I guess my point is that we need to draw the line between "Guest Star" and "Recurring Character". I think it's possible for a character to appear in multiple episodes without being a recurring character (for example, if the character never says more than ten words). I believe that once a few more episodes are aired, we cut the list down to size so that only easily recognizable characters occupy it.

Acegikmo1 06:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. - UtherSRG 12:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That does sound like the best way to do things. KorbenDirewolf 05:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What if a recurring character is no longer recurring and is either dead or not currently associated with the show? Case in point Rainbow Francks was a main character in Season 1, then became something of a recurring character throughout Season 2 - a couple of episodes at the beginning as well as the season finale - and is now no longer a part of the show. His character, however, may or may not return at a future time.

I believe a rucurring character should appear in about five episodes to qualify. The number can be debated. Any character that was recurring during the first few seasons should be listed along any character that is recurring in the current season. BuffaloChip97 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Replicators, Asurans

": if the Ancients faced something like this before, then they most likely figured out a way to defeat them."

Later on, Dr. Zelenka did get a first name, namely Radek, and his role became quite prominent. Also, don't forget Dr. Peter Grodin, who had a significant role in several episodes, but later had an untimely demise when the Wraith destroyed the Ancients' satellite defence station in "The Siege, Part 1"
Aron G 04:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I say we organize two separate lists. One will be for previously major recurring characters, and would be exhaustive. The second would be for current recurring characters

Personal shields

As I understood it, the personal shields don't deactivate by themselves, but when the person wearing them wants them to (or the battery runs out...) - it's just that the first person to try one (Rodney McKay) had an interesting psycological problem which meant he didn't really want to remove it. Of course, I could be wrong. -- makomk 15:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Atlantis (Stargate)

Looks like this page I found should really be incorporated here. Can someone help out?

Actually, given the discussion above on how this page is getting too big, I would have thought that you should be moving the information the other way. --Phil | Talk 14:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've done some work on that article and I think it looks better now. With some more information it might be okay to leave it where it is for now. KorbenDirewolf 22:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the content from the city section of this article to Atlantis (Stargate) to remove the duplication, and shorten this article. I also performed quite a lot of copy-editing and reformatting. Probably someone should check to make sure I haven't introduced any factual errors in the process. J Bytheway 02:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think Atlantis (Stargate) look much better now.. Maybe this should go to that discussion page after this? KorbenDirewolf 23:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek references

You know, I've been noticing numerous Star Trek references... Like, just recently in the past episode, Flanigan's character quotes exactly word for word from Kirk from Star Trek IV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So make a section named "References to other shows" or something, and put them there in a list format if there are a lot of them --Zxcvbnm 16:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

naming of ships by the names used by star trek is only a tie between the two shows in that both continue maerican military tradition of named ships. -orathaic

COPYEDIT

Could someone PLEASE copyedit and write summaries for the newer episodes? PLEASE????? Most of the episode guides are copyvios!!!--Zxcvbnm 04:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dead characters

I just had to remove two characters from the dead section who are not seen obviously killed on screen, and are not reported dead in dialogue. Just because it looks like someone was killed, or is about to be, does not mean they actually are killed. Please make sure they are actually dead before you list them. G Worroll 18:54, 23 Mar 2005

Episodes Format

Should we have multiple part episodes as single or multiple articles? (Currently we have both) Personally, I prefer to have multiple articles. This is how SG-1 does it (with the possible expection of the pilot), even though most of the SG-1 episodes don't have any content, yet. What do you guys think? --Mattwj2002 15:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea if I changed the episdoe list to being in a seperate page similiar to the SG1 and Infinity Lists? Any comments please

Regarding italics for proper names

Any particular reason for the italics on names such as John Sheppard and Elizabeth Weir? To my knowledge, there should be no reason for this, unless someone can correct me on this. Thanks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lieutenant Ford

Are we sure he's not still a main character? If you look at the credits for season 2, he's still listed with the other mains. It's possible the story arc will not last very long. --Khaim 16:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow Francks is no longer a main and is not currently, arecurring character Holled 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject

I was thinking about starting a WikiProject for Stargate, to better coordinate the writting efforts, organize and create standards (the templates for example). What do you think? -- Andromeda 20:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a project would definitely help. What about the idea of a Wikiportal? --Mattwj2002
Not a bad idea, I think. For what I read, both are related in fact. For what I'm reading, a WikiProject is more editors-oriented, while a WikiPortal is more user-oriented. -- Andromeda 23:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Good idea!!!--Zxcvbnm 23:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Wikiproject Stargate

I have started a wikiproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate.--Zxcvbnm 00:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've started the Wikiportal: Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Stargate and I was going to start the project, but you beat me to it! See you there ;) -- Andromeda 00:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming- Colon

Shouldn't the proper title of this article be Stargate: Atlantis? I'm just guessing here, but I thought that the colon was (a)shown (and/or b)implied. Autopilots 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • On the DVD for Season 1 it's listed as Stargate Atlantis (look on the back of an individual disc case, so let's assume that's the proper way. Koweja 16:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of those links seem a little excessive. http://stargate.feartheblue.com/  ?

Many of them were silly, to simple fan sites, or sites with "wallpapers" which you can easily find using Google or Yahoo. --Ardenn 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think justification should be provided when links are added. WP:NOT Ardenn 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A Warning

Someone included sg1archive.com Don't waste your time going to that site. The members there don't accept differences of opinions on the series. They will insult and debase you. It is a hate site.--Tjkphilosofe 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Luttrell and martial arts.

Does anyone have an idea about what school of martial arts that Rachel Luttrell employs in Stargate: Atlantis? It looks to me like a Filipino style, but I thought to come here and ask if anyone knows for certain.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New Images

Kudos to Tertiary7 for the awesome images. -therearenospoons 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The New Brotherhood

The New Brotherhood are currently listed as a civilization under races, I wouldn't describe them as either as those. Maybe a new section for Factions is needed? Shogun 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

improve this page

I'd really like to see this page at the standard of its sister, Stargate SG-1. I think we should work towards this, and then the two main Stargate shows can both fit their articles snugly into Good Articles and Wikipedia 1.0. -- Alfakim --  talk  21:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is incorrect and points to http://www.imdb.com/title/nm0374455/ instead of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374455/ Someone please correct this.

nations

maybe we should reference them or get a collection of screen shots showing the patches... anyone could just come in and add a country... -Xornok 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient race name?

Ok, why do the Ancients go by so many different names? Originally they were "The Ancients" as was stated on the show. It was even stated on their inscription on P3R-272 (The Fifth Race) "We are the Ancient Ones". Secondly, they are suddenly the "Lanteans". What is all this about? Is it like a different faction of them or something? Why did they change their names? Then suddenly, they were always originally the "Altairans" which was supposedly their original names.
Why the identity chrisis? As I said above, is it basically like how different countries have different names but they have the same type of people or what exactly?
Also, I noticed in "Rising, pt. 1" the Anceint hologram called Earth "Earth" instead of "Terra Atlantos" as Jack called it in "Lost City". What is that about?


One more thing. Why is it called "Atlantis" if the race that inhabited it originally was the "Lanteans"? Why did they omit/add the A on there? The Genii call them the "Atlanteans" (more specifically, the Atlantis expendition is called that) and the Wraith call them the Lanteans.
Faris b 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Alterans and the Ori are two different factions within the Ancients. Usually we refer to the Alterans just as "the ancients" - both out of habit, and because they are the Ancients we've had the most contact with - but when there is a need for clarification, they are referred to as the Alterans. "Lanteans" only refers to those Ancients who lived in Atlantis, or possibly those who lived in the Pegasus Galaxy, and is not directly related to the Alteran/Ori conflict (though it seems that the Ancients of Pegasus and the Ancients of the Milky Way are the same (Alteran) faction.) It is possible, that "Lantean" was short for "Atlantean," but I don't believe the "official" etymology of the word has been revealed. --Tim4christ17 22:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ayiana appeared in SG-1 and Atlantis?

According to the article, Ayiana appeared in both SG-1 and Atlantis. In which episode of Atlantis did she appear? The only episode I can think of that she might have appeared in is Before I Sleep, but looking at the transcript that's linked to in that article, I don't see her name mentioned anywhere. TerraFrost 05:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

She appeared in the opening scene of rising. It shows her being left behind. Tobyk777 05:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Replicators, Asuran

the phrase ": if the Ancients faced something like this before, then they most likely figured out a way to defeat them." is not supported by any facts in the show to clearly indicate this connection between Asurans and Replicators. This surely does seem to be a personal opinion. What's more, the whole idea of this relation relies on no solid basis in the show and the future episodes from this series are unlikely to prove it. Thus i consider this should be removed.15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed as it can not be sourced. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

while you're at it, i must emphasize that this whole relation idea should be removed until there be some show information to back it up:

"It is possible that one of the surviving Ancients that fled Atlantis back to Earth fled to another planet in the Milky Way Galaxy where he continued his experiments, accidentally creating the android Reese who created the Replicators ("Menace"). If true, this may be the reason why Jack, while having the Ancient knowledge downloaded into his brain for a second time ("New Order"), was able to build a weapon that could defeat the Replicators. " The content itself reveal consistent doubts: "it is possible", "if true", "may"Ex Pluribus Unum 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it and added some emphasis on text. I did however leave the Jack part as that is cited and may have some relation in future episodes. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

although it is cited, it has no relation with the asurans. the paragraphs is about the asurans and the insertion of Jack and Replicators reference is quite meaningless and lacks reason of being there as the show has not made any connections. it may have some relation in future episodes yet at the moment it has not. The best it would be to remove this reference until the show could provide further information to prove the connection.Ex Pluribus Unum 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

i think it does as it makes a connection. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 15:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

it makes a connection indeed but this connection is not supported in any way by the show till now. there are also no reliable sources to sustain it thus not being quite different from the already removed content. lacking trustworthy sources, it still sounds like a personal opinion. if you want to keep it please bring strong arguments that should match the show's current storyline (writers' or producers' statements would be most indicated). otherwise, if its only reason for being there is to make a so-called future connection, that is not enough. The cites are also irrelevant and officially unconnected with the asurans till now. This being said, i will soon remove this and if anyone wishes object i strongly recommend bringing arguments, arguments that should not result from an original research.Ex Pluribus Unum 15:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Season 4

Could who ever it is please stop deleting the section on Season this is the third time i have had to put it in and am getting sick of people deleating my perfectly valid post. If you have a problem with me telling people that atlantis has been renewed for another season can you please tell me by editing this page at the bottom and not just delete it.

umm, if you go to the history, the person/people who keep deleting it gives you a reason.... it shouldnt go up until there is more information... it being renewed is already written in the first paragraph or so... having an entire section is not needed right now... -Xornok 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a footnote with a link. Avt tor 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Under regular Characters it says samantha Carter will be a regular in season 4. Im just checking if you are the one that put that in and if so, can I see a link. L.to.the.P 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think season 4 changes should be listed under the Regular Characters section, as season 4 hasn't happened yet. In fact, it's technically a spoiler. Avt tor 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It matters not if it's a spoiler, we don't censor because it could spoil. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=787) Please go here and amend the Regular Character list and add the link once you see the proof of Carter's promotion and new post. Thank you (Obriensg1 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

The Words "promote", "promotion" and "full colonel" do not appear in the article at all. In fact, nothing is said about Colonel Carter's rank except that when referring to the character, which, like every episode of SG-1 and Atlantis that features a Lieutenant Colonel, uses merely "Colonel" as an acceptable abbreviation of the rank. I'm sorry, but you're going to need better evidence then that. - Count23 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
umm... "According to the article, Tapping’s Carter will be a full-bird Colonel and become the Atlantis base commander in civilian Dr. Elizabeth Weir’s stead." thats the beginning of the second paragraph in the stargate-sg1-solutions link... -Xornok 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Open mouth.. insert foot i guess. Missed that sentence altogether, go figure. - Count23 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

That is total BS. I thought one of the things that made Atlantis different than SG-1 was that it was civilian oriented! Unless she retires and becomes a civilian, I won't be happy! That and she has WEAK leadership skills, remember season 8? A lot of Atlantis (people who only like Atlantis) fans will be really upset about this. They'll see it as SG-1 taking over their show, I know I would.

Vala M 14:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think about it though, one of the things hanging over Weirs head was the millitarization of the city, now that she's been injured, the attack on Asuras failed and the near-loss of the city in their little space jaunt, it would be a logical progression of the storyline to have her removed. - Count23 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so can we amend the link to show Carter as a full colonel and not Lt. Colonel and that she is base leader? (Obriensg1 14:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Spoilers shouldn't be stated as fact. I would suggest adding a comment along the lines of "It has been announced that Carter will be promoted to Colonel and will become base leader in Season 4". --Tango 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

SG character articles up for deletion

Just an FYI that someone has nominated Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) for deletion, and is apparently fighting tooth and nail in regards to it, attempting to swing things in terms of policy which appear inaccurate.

The full AfD is here. rootology (T) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Tired of the moral high route

I am so tired of these shows taking the moral high route. Who do they want to appeal to? Just about every person who watches the show wants it the other way around. Notice they always have to sacrifice something good to save someone they know next to nothing about? Who cares if alternate "cool" McKay made it or not? I hated him, I like our McKay, if they didn't save him, they would have had at least 23% power left in the ZPM instead of 0% (watch the monitor in the background).

More examples, the Aurora, they sacrificed it instead of having the Daedalus fight off those other scout ships, it obviously could with another missile or 2 and actually took the time to save the ship but no, they couldn't do that. Another issue is with the enemies, if it's a Wraith or a Goa'uld or another non-human, they kill him immediately but if it's a human enemy (Genii/Rand Protacterate/others) they actually let him walk off like they did with Kolya, Sheppard should have shot him in "The Brotherhood", I'll bet if he was a Wraith, he wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Also, take the Asurans, sure, it's ok to blow up a city of millions of sentient androids but I'll bet you if it was a city full of HUMANS they would have NOT done it.

Who cares if stupid opposite universe Atlantis survived or not? I would have just said proceed with the plan and use the other Project Acrturus thing anyway, now because they felt like saving Mr. Opposite McKay, they have no ZPM. And please don't tell me that no one else would do it because I know that just about everyone else would do I what I would have done.

Does anyone else get what I'm going at here?

There are very few exceptions made on the show, the only ones I can think of was killing the Wraith to human "humans" but they were essentially Wraith and not genuine humans though.

Faris b 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

While I happen to agree with the sentiment, this is not the right place to be posting essays on the subject. Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Minor digressions and side-threads don't cause much fuss but let's not start a whole section solely dedicated to it. Bryan 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HD

Ok - I know this is not a discussion board but I had to post. In Europe, Canada and Australia, the series is broadcast in HD. WTF - Why doesn't the U.S. have this available in HD? Do I need to make some phone calls to my cable provider or something? Sorry - went on a rant.... To make this relavent to the article ;-) Do we have a date for HD avialability that we can include for the U.S.? Morphh (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Lead says that Atlantis is broadcast in HD in the U.S. I don't know of any provider that does so... Direct TV is planning on having it once they get their new satellites up. Is there something I'm missing? Morphh (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind - Universal HD has it, though they are repeats. SciFi itself is not broadcast in HD yet. Morphh (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blue Ray

There is a Blue Ray version release announced by Sony, see their official website.

Format

Airing in Canada and US is mentioned - when is it aired in UK 

and does it play in the fall in the UK before the US on Sky One - I think it does!

Stargate Atlantis is shown in two halves in the US, as is well documented. In the UK,SkyOne shows Atlantis during the US's mid-season hiatus, in the Autumn. The following part of the season is shown AFTER it is shown in the US because Sci-Fi kept moaning that shows were being shown in the UK before they aired in the US. IMO that is a load of rubbish, and they shouldn't deny the British fans because an American network doesn't like it (what is the point in a mid-season break?)! The same now goes for LOST because SkyOne snatched the rights from Channel 4 who showed the whole season in full. The same has happened with Battlestar Galactica, but this is completely irrelevant!

Technical inaccuracies

...like the fact that the german flag (and other countries, too, like belarus) is always sewn on upside down on extra's uniforms... MikeTango 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

amanda and jewel

1st, why was AT added to the list? shouldnt we wait till the season starts airing. 2nd, why is she under regular cast members... we just know she's joining the show, like jewel is, but that doesnt mean she's going to be a regular... and if we keep AT on the list, shouldnt we add JS to the list as well? -Xornok 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, y'all gotta read the footnotes. According to the footnote, it says that Amanda Tapping is supposed to become a regular character in the next season, and that Torri Higginson will fade back to only being a recurring episode in some episodes. The footnote doesn't mention Jewel Staite. I have found other links online that say that she will become a recurring character on the show in season four, but the "Casting" section of the Wikipedia article refers only to regular characters. Wikipedia doesn't normally talk about future events unless they are certain to happen; the footnote that talks about Amanda Tapping joining the show links to a fan site which in turn links to the official Stargate Atlantis web site, which has a quote from the producers. Note that the "doctor" character is almost never a regular on Stargate; Dr. Frasier and Dr. Lam weren't regulars, and Dr. Beckett was not a regular in season one of Stargate Atlantis. Avt tor 14:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My recent edit

Hi, on one of my recent edits to Stargate Atlantis (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_Atlantis&oldid=100985689), I changed it to say 58 episodes by mistake.. It has since been reverted, but I just wanted to say that it was a mistake and I am sorry about that.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

site

some interesting stuff: http://www.visimag.com/tvzone/ts74_feat01.htm

O'Neil Does Not Equal O'Neill

Stargate, O'Neil, SG-1, O'Neill. Two different characters - MSTCrow 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis: Season 3

Hi, I was reading through the SGA wiki after seeing the final episode of this season. I edited the Season 3 portion to remove grammatical errors. However, I am very new to wiki editing so a lot of the wiki-links (not sure what to call them) are missing. Also, I'm not sure if it is best to include all of that information, or if all of the necessary information is there. A lot happened this season, so when someone gets the chance to edit wiki, please look at that section to fully edit it.

Thanks. --71.135.46.126 02:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.46.126 (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Cadman

Xornok removed Laura Cadman as a recurring character for the series. She appeared in two episodes in season 2 and was mentioned numerous times in seasons 2 and 3, why does this not warrant the role of recurring character? When Dr Heightmeyer is who has had the same number of appearances? - Count23 10:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The character also has their own private page on Wikipedia dedicated straight to her role in Atlantis, moreso then characters like Bates, and yet she's not worthy of being mentioned? - Count23 10:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thats not recurring, thats guest starring... and dr. heightmeyer has been in more episodes then cadman... -Xornok 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That is the definition of recurring (recurion means more then once). Heightmeyer has been in a whole single episode more then Cadman, that makes no differences. She was an important character in TWO episodes and has been mentioned in several more, i believe this warrants her to be recurring as much as heightmeyer who has only made brief appearances in two and been essential to one. - Count23 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
By Wiki's own definition of recurring character and the lack of evidence you've provided for her removal Xornok, she's been readded. If there is a good reason to remove her, you'll have to explain why because there is no logical or sane reason for her not to be there. She appears more then once in the role, mentioned numerous times, which defines "recurring".

The list is not "recurring guest stars" or "recurring guests" it's "recurring characters" which means it doesn't make a difference if she guest stars more then once, her CHARACTER has appeared more then once and is a recurring role. If there a rule, policy, guide or definition provided by Wiki that gives a reason to have her removed, then provide it please. - Count23 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

then we should add the chick that rodney is going out with.. she's been in 2 episodes... or the Asian female doctor, she's been in 3 episodes (iirc) and had a semi-major part in letters from Pegasus... or how bout everyone's favorite, lucius, he was in 2 episodes and has been talked about in other ones... your definition of recurring is too lenient and should be more strict... -Xornok 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
oh, from recurring character: "A recurring character is a fictional character, usually in a prime time TV series, who is not a main character but who appears from time to time during the series' run... Recurring characters usually start out as guest stars in one episode but continue to show up in future EPISODES because of their popularity" EpisodeS being the main word... she was brought back once... hardly recurring... -Xornok 02:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
per your definition, we should add the following to the recurring list: Dr. Biro (3 episodes), Dillon Everett (3 episodes), Peter Grodin (multiple episodes), Dave Kleinman (multiple episodes), Markham & Stackhouse (mention a shit load of times in season 1), Dr. Katie Brown, Jeannie Miller (mentioned since season 1)... etc... -Xornok 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should, if they had an important role in 1 or more episodes. Especially Colonel Everett and Grodin, Grodin for sure, he was the Walter harriman of Atlantis.- Count23 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
then by all means, add them... gotta be consistent... -Xornok 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I am as i can. Unlike SG-1, Atlantis has a lot more recurring characters, so it shouldn't be surprising if the list grows by 3 or 4 entries. - Count23 06:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sect.

WP:AVTRIV. Matthew 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

  • The on-set Stargate is made out of rubber.
  • The production crew actually have two Puddle jumpers. The first is closed, and is used on location, and the second is an open Jumper that stays on set. The open jumper is used to film interior shots.
  • While Atlantis wasn't destroyed and sunk into the ocean as the myth suggested the theme of natural disasters has appeared once per season on the show, with the exception of the first season, which had two.

Season one "The Storm" and "The Eye" Season two "Inferno" Season three "Echoes"

The first two should be integrated into the article or their respective pages somehow. The third one is OR and should be gotten rid of. — BrotherFlounder 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Peter DeLuise

I was reading about Peter DeLuise (21 Jump Street; Stargate SG-1, etc), and the article about him says he is involved with this series (but not as an actor). I don't see anything about him in this article. I wondered why... Hurrmic 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Evan Lorne and Jennifer Keller

Are there ANY canon sources for SG that list these as their first names. Kavan Smith's comments are not sufficient to give Lorne a first name and i've only ever heard "Jennifer Keller" as being Staite's characters first name when it was posted here. - Count23 07:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joe Mallozzi's Blog on March 28, 2007[[1]]

I dont believe a blog is considered an acceptable source according to Wikipedia:Attribution. - Count23 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the blog of the executive producer is a primary source. If an interview can be considered one, why not a producer's blog? — BrotherFlounder 03:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. But let's put it this way, the producer reports to the executive producer, so the producer could say one thing and the exec could say get stuffed. - Count23 07:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just say "According to Joe Mallozi's Blog, blah blah blah." That way it isn't being stated as fact, so it doesn't matter if someone else comes along an contradicts it, what we've said is still true. --Tango 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Joe's blog is a reliable source as per WP:RS#Exceptions. Matthew 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Mallozzi *is* one of the executive producers. And we don't need to say "According to Joe Mallozzi's blog"; we just need to provide an inline citation on both Lorne's and Keller's names. — BrotherFlounder 14:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


K'Dargo/Farscape

What the hell is the point of constantly adding this? The same anon user adds this at least once a day and i have no idea where it comes from, why is he so insistant? Is it an old april fools prank by scifi or what? - Count23 03:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He did it again, can't we block 80.213.90.42 from editing this article? - MrEvers 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A good starting point would be to leave warnings on his talk page when you revert the vandalism; I noticed that nobody had bothered to put any warnings on his talk page prior to today. The admins like a nice paper-trail when considering blocks. See the dealing with vandalism section, and act accordingly. -- GJD 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian or American?

I'm just wondering why the very first sentence of the article states that this is an American television programme, and the second sentence states that it is produced/shot in Canada (and there are references on the talk page to it being part of a project on Canadian television). What's the criterion used to determine the nationality of a TV programme? Is there any consistent standard being applied? I'm curious to know what others think. Accounting4Taste 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

its an American show, funded by an American company, but it is filmed in Canada... wow, i didnt think that was too hard to understand... -Xornok 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This point has come up quite often. There is a certain amount of disagreement over how you define the country of origin of a TV show - I think the best bet is to say "American/Canadian". --Tango 15:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tango. I was sufficiently curious to try to find the actual ownership of the production companies concerned, since I suspected that Canadian companies may have to be in charge for tax purposes. No luck on Acme Shark, and MGM Television works through a set of nested and interlocking companies, some of which may be Canadian. I'm wondering if there is much point in defining the country of origin of a TV programme at the end of the day. I'll investigate this further through the Canadian television project for my own curiosity's sake and will leave this article as it stands. Accounting4Taste 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Tango's suggestion, it's most appropriately described and categorized as being both Canadian and American. For one thing, the Stargates all count as Canadian for the purposes of both the Gemini Awards and the Canadian content obligations of the Canadian broadcasters. So if the CRTC and the Gemini Awards both consider SGA to be Canadian, it would actually violate WP:NOR for Wikipedia to say it isn't. It can be both; it doesn't have to be just one or the other. Bearcat 08:08, 20 July 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)

-- 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)

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) 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Structure Changes

Okay, I want to make some structure changes to the article. You can view what the following changes would look like here (Note: i've commented out the images for the time being).

Overview:

  • Combined the Regular and Recurring character tables
  • Integrated the setting section into the article / integrated plot 2nd paragraph into the lead
  • made the race section a subsection of cast and characters - because it describes types of characters
  • added alternative naming for the main/see also links

--88wolfmaster 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I was concerned at first that you were proposing to put the main and recurring characters together (i.e. all combined), but I like the neat way you've married the two tables while keeping those groupings. The other changes seem OK, with the exception of the renamed "main article" titles. I strongly feel that "main article" should list the proper name of the linked article. ("See also" links, however, might allow a bit more latitude.) Good work. --Ckatzchatspy 06:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem i had with those was that they linked to subsections and if you didn't know that the code is artilce#subsection then one might get confused (i know i had to take a second look at some of them). What i like about the renaming is they have a more clean-cut, polished appearance.--88wolfmaster 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to show the subsection; it is better to have "Main article: Characters in Stargate" (which uses the proper title) instead of using "Main article: Characters in Stargate Atlantis". The former takes you to the relevant information, while also revealing the proper name of the article. The latter, on the other hand, can create confusion as the article title in the title bar doesn't match with what the reader thought they were clicking on. --Ckatzchatspy 07:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
i didn't think of converting it from the main template. i've fix it though. anything else?--88wolfmaster 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Combining tables is confusing. Separate tables with proper headers make everything easier to follow. It's done that way elsewhere on Wikipedia too.
  • Setting and plot are not the same. Do not combine them.
  • Race is NOT a subsection of cast and characters. It's a part of the setting, of the world. Merging it with characters is confusing.

Andromeda 16:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think i've been pretty resonable with my edits. I've given up on some of my original edit ideas in the spirit of compromise, but what these last version I feel with improve the flow of the article. Since your issues directly contradict my edits, I can not adjust the my proposal to account for your issues. All I can do is try and make you see reason. You are the only one who seems to not agree with my version.

  1. I combined the tables because really and truely I don't think we should even have recurring characters on the main page. Or most of the information in the tables. I don't see how the combined table is confusing becuase they are clearing seperated by headers. And as for done elsewhere on Wiki Stargate SG-1, Stargate: The Ark of Truth, and Stargate: Continuum only lists the names of major characters and who played them - and thats just the stargate articles.
  2. Well duh setting and plot are different. But what is the point of the setting section, I see none. So I integrated the pertinent informtion where it would belong - and by that i mean i kept anything that was background, introductory, or related to the plot. the stuff i cut was about technology (which doesn't relate to setting).
  3. and Races are TYPES of CHARACTERS how could it be confusing to describe types of characters under cast and characters. I could understand if the setting was more of an about the universe section but its not - it describes the setting of the show not the stargate universe as it pertains to Atlantis.

--88wolfmaster 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • They are NOT "clearing seperated by headers". The headers are small and easily overlooked.
  • The setting section describes the background so people can get an idea of the universe of the story. It is not the same as the plot, which is the storyline itself.
  • Merging races with cast is misleading. Most of these races don't even have characters listed. That information is part of the setting.

--Andromeda 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. They are in their own row and are setup using standard header/title format. Ckatz doesn't seem to have a problem with this.
  2. all the background information in the setting section was kept. The section is in the middle of the article and does not serve the purpose you say it does. So I made it more of a Plot Summary to serve as a setup/introduction to each season's plot overview. Setting is not a standard section so live without it.
  3. Fine. It gets to be its own section now so don't complain about it.

Have you honestly even read through my version --88wolfmaster 23:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and I still think the Setting section should stay. --Andromeda 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a question: why is there a table in the first place? which is full of in-universe information (which *drum roll* is better suited to the character articles); a list would be fine. On the subject of the setting section, I tend to agree with Andromeda, primarily because I've not seen a compelling reason to remove it. Matthew 09:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the setting information its kinda redundant and/or doesn't really need to be in the article for you to actually understand the show. NONE of the other Stargate articles contain a setting section. That is why it should be integrated into the article. As for the List instead of a table Andromeda reverted that edit too.--88wolfmaster 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
to explain a little better, the information that is cut out from the article that came from said section was a mini history of atlantis (thw war b/w the wraith and the ancients) and some information on the technology nothing really to do with the setting of the story (or at least nothing that could not be moved elsewhere).--88wolfmaster 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the setting section. --Andromeda 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Asking nicely isn't going to help anything. Try giving a reason. --Tango 01:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've protected this page for 48 hours to force some discussion. Please reach a consensus before editing the page again. --Tango 15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andromeda I have been trying to compromise: if you just look at what i originally intended an what I prose now I've definately conseated points as per other wiki user's suggestions. I am not acting on my own. Ckatz doesn't seem to have a problem with my version (correct me if i'm wrong here Ckatz). In addition, I've gotten some of my friends (non-wiki users) to take a quick look at what I'm saying - and they believe i have a valid point about the content of said section. But I'm not going to get into an arguement over this - can we jsut please figure something out?

That being said, the only thing left to sort out is the settings section. This section is NOT important or relavant to the main article, in my opinion. Can you honestly tell me what Technology has to do with setting? And do you really think that a brief history of Atalantis belongs under setting as well? In addition, the second paragraph (the one I pretty much kept) is more of a plot overview than anything else. I'm not deleting information for the sake of page size, or being too in-verse, etc. I TURELY belive that this information is better suited ELSEWHERE and doing so would raise the standard of the article. Stargate SG-1 doesn't have a setting section, why do we need one? Even if you where to somehow rework the section I doubt it would warrent its own section. --88wolfmaster 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's important. It gives people context to understand the plot. --Andromeda 23:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The information may give context to understand the plot BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SETTING. Is their any sort of compromise you'd be willing to accept, or are we just going to argue over this until the end of time?--88wolfmaster 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've compromised on several things. Yet I think the setting section is important to give context and should stay. --Andromeda 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The information does not properly pertain to the setting. The information is better suited elsewhere. Again I ask: IS their any sort of compromise we can make?--88wolfmaster 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How about this?--88wolfmaster 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Different races are part of the setting. That this universe has different races is part of the setting of this universe.--Andromeda 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda and 88wolfmaster, stop edit warring on this page. I'm glad to see you have started a slightly more constructive discussion - let that discussion reach a conclusion *before* making any further edits to the article. Any further reverts by either of you before a consensus is reached will result in a 1 week block. You have been warned. --Tango 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Andromeda did you even look at my new proposition? Its the only fair compromise I can come up with: it keeps the information from the section section while not actually being called setting, placing it in the article where people might actually read it before plot, and i get to have races as an expansion on characters (as a type of character type) - what could you possible have against it.--88wolfmaster 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The same thing I've already said and it seems you are unwilling to hear. --Andromeda 20:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
and i think that where the race section is isn't as big a deal as the removal of the setting section so you should give up that point. COMPROMISE doesn't mean you get everything you want but this way we both get a version of one thing that we want - i've long ago stop trying to place Races under Cast and characters.--88wolfmaster 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And I think the setting section is important and, therefore, it should not be removed. I gave up on the formatting of the Cast and Other media sections and several of your rewrites, but I think this one is important. --Andromeda 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not deleting the information any more. If you read through my latest version, you would have seen it there (maybe rewriten a little and in a different location, but it was still there).--88wolfmaster 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

From the top

Ok, let's start again. Could the two of you each please state, in one (or possibly two) paragraphs, what you think should be done and why? Then we can work out precisely which points are in dispute, and can then go and get some more opinions. Thanks! --Tango 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything should be done. I like the article as it is. --Andromeda 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what do you think *shouldn't* be done, and why? I'm trying to get both sides of the argument in one place. --Tango 13:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the setting section should be removed. I think it gives valuable context information. Also, I don't like 88wolfmaster proposal. It's just a name change, and I think "setting" is more informational than "background", since this info is not background information, but information on the setting. --Andromeda 14:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
And thats where I would say that it doesn't explain the setting as much as it describes the background/universe and plot(History of Atlantis, Overview of story setup, and starts to go into technology ).--88wolfmaster 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My lastest compromise/proposal is this. Race as its own stand alone section right after cast & the setting section revamped by editing it into a background section and the plot section. The bulk of the information is merely moved.--88wolfmaster 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lame edit war

Really, who cares if it's Canadian-American or American-Canadian? You both say you don't want to edit war, yet you're doing it anyway, and over something extremely trivial. Just leave it alone... --Tango 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this article is still battered from the last content disagreement. Apologies for my part. --Ckatzchatspy 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - there are more important things you can fight over.--88wolfmaster 04:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Really there isn't. It's wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.51.128.21 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Command Structure

I have always been unclear on the command structure of the show. So, Weir is at the top, then Sheppard and I guest Mckay. So, after him who is it. Apparently Teyla and Ronan can lead teams and give out command. When they are in a 4 man group the pecking order is Shepard. The problem is he is incapactated than who is in charge. Would it be Mckay because no one respects hi authority. It wouldn't be fair for Ronan or teyla to take over because they are aliens and not part of the military or civilian government structure of Atlantis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum17x (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Broadcasters

Removed this section entirely. This section changes constantly, and can never be encyclopedic. Relevant policies:

Similar sections certainly can be found in other articles. Without addressing any specific article, these should probably all be removed as well. -- Wikipedical 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you.--88wolfmaster 04:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Someone should edit the cast, Rainbow sun, Paul McGillion and Torri Higginson are no longer regular cast and yet they are listed as such in two sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.76.13 (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect the entire history of a show. To help achieve this, the cast list reflects main characters both past and present. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 08:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Moreover, the title for the lists are regular and recurring CHARACTERS respectfully, so even if the actor/actress is no longer a cast member the character was still a regular (or recurring) character during his or her time with the show. The only debateable character is Ford (Rainbow Sun Francks) since he was only there for the first season.--88wolfmaster 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's no cause for debate - RSF was a main character. It doesn't matter for how long, just what sort of contract he had. -Ckatzchatspy 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that jewel statie appears in the starring section, but she has always been a regular. Guess it must be changed--Mr.Amonra 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 5

Scifi announced today that they have renewed Atlantis for season 5.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=38658

Vala M 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

added reference--Mr.Amonra 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Is Atlantis cut off from Earth, or isn't it?

I've seen a couple of episodes (and many more of SG-1), and I've enjoyed them all. I came to these Wiki pages tonight to learn something about the basic premise of the show and what the writers used to spawn the new show.

One thing that confuses me mightily upon reading this page in particular (and some of the other pages in the tree) is this: The article says that Atlantis is cut off from Earth, and yet there are references to SGC (Star Gate Command) and people from Earth in contact with Atlantis. I realise that things can change over the course of a show's timeline, and certainly that there is the possibility of temporary re-establishment of contact, and that "contact" could be used in various contexts to mean "communication" as well as "people meeting". I also read that the two Galaxies' SG networks are basically not connected (with the possibility of making one specific connection by putting a particular crystal into an SG's cntrols).

So ... can anyone answer my basic curiosity about the ongoing nature of any contact between Earth and Atlantis, and why (in-universe) the Atlantis Expedition doesn't go home? Do they have the ability, but not the desire? Or why Earth doesn't send them a lot more resources (people, stuff, power...)? [Or maybe Earth does, and I just haven't learned that yet.]

And if these answers can be provided ... Is it worth including that sort of information in the article, in whatever section or fashion is deemed appropriate?

134.48.176.175 (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (You all can call me Carlos)

For the first season, they were completely cut off. Since then, they've had ships going between the two (which resupply with equipment and people) and most of the time they've had a ZPM which allows them to dial Earth from Atlantis. They are still there by choice, they could leave at pretty much any time, but they still think they do useful stuff there. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WGA Strike

The Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television article says that this show is unaffected by the strike because it uses WGC writers and not WGA writers, even though it is an American show... this should be in the season section. 70.55.85.35 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Rainbow Sun Francks

Why is he still being listed as a major cast member in {{Stargate Atlantis Major Cast}} and in the Stargate Atlantis infobox. He hasn't appeared on the show since season 2 (which was only a few episodes anyways). Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 06:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is about the series as a whole, not just the most recent season. --Tango (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Todd as recuring character

Would anybody object if I added Todd to the recurring characters bit? He's as noticeable/more noticeable than the people in the list Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

style

Could there be an explanation of how the style of Atlantis is different to sg1 and the film. watching a few episodes apart from the Stargates the 2 series have very little in common perhaps an explanation of this could be included in the article. Ideally the section would cover both reason from real life and from the Stargate canon. --86.15.155.53 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled

I just read somewhere through a link to one of the actor's blogs and they admitted that the show was cancelled. I rushed here to look for some more confirmation. I'm assuming this is true, but I don't have a good enough source to legitimately add this to the article. 99.240.191.134 (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort to think in terms of this specific piece of information being added to Wikipedia for the everyone to access. This has been added/edited by many people to this article quite a few times. Although it is not specifically cast light upon as a new subsection in the article, it is present in the article and in the related articles as well. The last line of the section "Production" reads:
"On August 20, 2008 it was announced that Season 5 of Atlantis will be its last. [11] Executive Producer Joseph Mallozzi also confirmed this in his blog. On August 21, 2008 it was announced that there is a 2-hour Atlantis movie slated for January 2009.[12]"
Aly89 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of Episodes and Last Episode

Ok, so there's been a bit of back and forth on the number of episodes and the date of last episode since it was announced that the show's being cancelled. Some think we ought to put the # eps at 100 (which it was announced will be the last), others want the running tally of those that have appeared so far (and only those). I don't care either way, but why don't we discuss it in the hopes that people will stop changing it after a consensus has been reached. - EndingPop (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that the episode count is fine the way it is. And I recommend that we keep updating it every Fridays. Also, an interpretation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL, might suggest that only the current episode count should be shown. Aly89 (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not do both? Give the number of episodes currently aired and then the total planned in brackets afterwards. --Tango (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Per custom, we only list what has aired for shows that are currently airing new episodes, thus avoiding the "crystal ball" issue. --Ckatzchatspy 17:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but in most cases there isn't a known final total. In order to avoid any dispute, why not compromise? Make it clear that it's 100 planned episodes and it's not definitely going to be 100, and then there's no crystal ball issue. We include planned events in articles all the time. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You are correct about including planned information; with regards to this, it is already detailed in the lead section. however, we generally avoid doing it in the infobox. There shouldn't be any dispute, as the custom is maintained and the information is still presented. --Ckatzchatspy 18:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
For the crystal ball issue; Why do we mention the dvd film here too which hasnt even been made yet? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice observation! I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out here. The DVD is planned, just like all the upcoming episodes, it hasn't even started production. I vote to remove the "1 DVD" reference under the List of Episodes. Aly89 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it looks like one of the fellow Wikipedians was kind enough to do it. The "1 DVD" has been removed. With regards to the total number of episodes, I guess it is a custom and should be followed. Aly89 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

torri higginson

Whoever his removing my edit on the stargate atlantis article of torri higginson, please stop. I posting actual information that is real. If it is removed again, i will notify wikipedia about what your doing. I even posted a reference site that proves it. ~~majinsnake~~.

torri higginson

Whoever his removing my edit on the stargate atlantis article of torri higginson, please stop. I posting actual information that is real, not fake. If it is removed again, i will notify wikipedia about what your doing. I even posted a reference site that proves it. The actress turned down to guest star in the fifth season because her character was written off. She kept asking the producers and they assured her that everything was okay. Since she asked alot, the producers didn't like it and wrote her character off. Same reference site below [2] ~~majinsnake~~.

I've removed your latest edit (for the first time, I don't know who did it before). That reference doesn't mention season 5, in fact it was written before season 4, and it doesn't say anything about Torri not wanting to come back. --Tango (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Actually it does mention it, just not the season 5 phrase. Did you read the whole page?? Read the part under how she found out her character was being written out of Stargate Atlantis. It was written before season 4, because producers plan ahead for later seasons/episodes. The recurring part in the quote meant guest starring in season 5. She turned it down from what had been happening already with her character.

"Quote - How did Torri find out, and react, to finding out Elizabeth Weir was being written out of Stargate Atlantis? “Honestly? I found that quite shitty, to be honest (laughs).Oops. But I found out, because I kept going to them, I kept going up to them saying ‘I have a feeling my character, you’re not doing anything with me, and you guys have me for six years and I don’t want to, you know, be here not doing anything. Let me know what’s going on.’ And they kept saying “no, no, no, it’s great. We love you. We love you. Things can be great.’ And I said ‘well, if that’s the case, can we do something with her’ and they kept reassuring me that nothing - and the very last day of filming season three, as I finished filming the last scene on the last day I was called up to the office and was told that my character was going to become recurring if I chose to be. So, I thought that was not very, um, dignified, way to deal with it, and I was a bit surprised. So I was—so my reaction was one of yeah, I was a little bit surprised. I was a little bit upset by how it was dealt with. But I wasn’t upset at the decision because I understood it. I kept going to them saying ‘I get, I get what’s going to happen, just give me some notice so I can pack my apartment and move back to L.A. Really. So I wasn’t upset with the decision. I was upset with how it was handled.” Quote end"

Here is another link that says she will not be returning for season 5, with the actual season 5 phrase. Sorry if the link isn't correctly shown for the REFERENCE commands, but those aren't working on my end when I use them. http://jeffords.blogspot.com/2008/02/torri-higginson-leaves-stargate.html ~~majinsnake~~

You can't include something in an article with a reference that doesn't actually say what you're including, it's as simple as that. They don't plan more than a season in advance, they don't even know if there will be another season until half way through the previous one. That second link is just to some random blog, I don't see how it's a reliable source. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there is quite a few other links, i took whatever was first. If ever it does get included (Reason she left), than okay.

~~majinsnake~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 07:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Directed by David Winning?

It says in the info box "directed by David Winning", but he's only directed 2 episodes. What does it mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack O'Neill?

In the production part of the artical, it says this

In Season 5 Robert Picardo became a regular as his character (Richard Woolsey) replaced Samantha Carter as the commander of the Atlantis Expedition. Torri Higginson declined to appear as a guest star, instead her character Elizabeth Weir was portrayed by Michelle Morgan. Richard Dean Anderson as Jack O'Neill guest starred in a two-part episode. Dr. Carson Beckett, played by Paul McGillion, guest starred in several episodes.

Shouldnt this be Michael Shanks as Daniel Jackson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.104.49 (talk) 10:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done You are right. Thank you for pointing out that typo. I went ahead and corrected it here. Cheers! Aly89 (talk) 18:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_Atlantis/Archive_1&oldid=1142778696"