Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Minor correction

In the Stargate universe, ascension is "conscious" and "willful", the Ancients "learned to shed their physical bodies and exist as energy", so the description of the Ancients and the Ori as ascended beings "meaning they have ascended to a higher plane of existence after they have died" (my italics) is inaccurate, so I removed the "after they have died". EmmetCaulfield 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Air Force

Can anyone remember, or figure out, why the frik the Stargate is under the Air Force's jurisdiction? I mean, the majority of their actions are ground-based. Most of the rest are spaceborne naval operations. Sure, Cheyenne mountain is an Air Force base, but why Cheyenne Mountain in the first place? Why not a different, ready made facility? And why Air Force? Jachra 03:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

it makes perfect sense, actually. the way the military is setup the air force is a natural partner for any space expeditions (umm hello: NASA), so while the majority of thier actions may be ground-based (which would thus allow non-air force personel to be on a team) it seems only natural that the government would organized the SGC under the air force chain of command. Plus you have to remember that the US constitution only deals with the army and navy (seeing as their was no Air Force at the time, which allowed, upon its creation, to be kind of outside of some of the red tape setup).--88wolfmaster 03:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, back in the '40s version of the project they didn't know what the heck it was, but the base containing the mothballed project got inherited by the Air Force when it split from the Army. Of course once the Air Force brass suspected what they were dealing with, they weren't going to give control of it to their rivals. Now, why they set it up in the basement of Cheyenne Mountain...

—wwoods 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Title card for main image?

[reviving an old complaint] That title card in the infobox doesn't do much for me. Can't we go back to a picture of the original cast? Currently the only picture of people in the whole article is a small pic of the season 10 cast — which doesn't include Richard Dean Anderson or Don Davis.
—wwoods 00:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception?

Hello. Normally I wouldn't bother explaining small edits, but I thought this one might look odd without a proper explanation.
"Immaculate Conception" doesn't refer to Mary conceiving Jesus. It refers to Mary's mother conceiving Mary (and Mary being born without original sin). As such, it has absolutely nothing to do with Adria. Bladestorm 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should be renamed

Hi all. This article is clearly suffering from RAS syndrome, since the SG part of SG-1 means stargate, its full title reads "Stargate stargate 1". This article should be renamed as soon as possible to clear up the discrepancy. Thanks in advance. Xhin Give Back Our Membership! 00:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So, what would you have it renamed then? The name of the series IS "Stargate SG-1". DemonWeb 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see, the name of the series is Stargate SG-1; yes, "SG" may be an acronym for "Stargate", but that is what the series is called. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 03:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just reiterating what the two previous users already said, the name of the TV show is "Stargate SG-1." We're not trying to describe the show or anything like that, which would have to adhere to something akin to logic, but simply using its proper and applicable name: The title of the article is what the shows title is, not what it should be. JBK405 03:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ranks in the cast section

This article is on my watchlist, and I don't know how many people are aware of it, but there has been a lame edit war over the main characters' ranks for (at least) six weeks now.[1] I tried to stop this about a week ago by removing all ranks[2] (which I admit was bold) but this was partly reverted.[3] In the meantime, the lame edit war continues.[4] [5] [6] Can we please find a solution and leave an invisible comment there? Now that almost every character was shown with almost any rank, I suggest something like "Samantha Carter, ranks Captain^{[Children of Gods]} through Colonel^{[Stargate: Continuum]} ". – sgeureka ^t•c 08:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this edit war is annoying. I went back through the history of the page, and for a while the only rank listed was the person's highest rank. I've been looking at a bunch of other TV shows, mainly Star Trek and BSG and in both of them they don't list any ranks. Perhaps we could do something similar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ank329 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranks don't play as important a role on Star Trek (or, I think, BSG) as they do on Stargate. It's very common for characters to be referred to purely by rank, which makes it very useful to list the ranks. My version just includes ranks which a character has held in a real-time, real-world, real-universe scene (no time travel, no flashbacks, no simulations, no alternate realities, etc.) Also important to note, Carter has not held the rank of Colonel in any SG-1 episode, and this is the SG-1 article (she'll be promoted in one of the films, if I understand correctly, but that shouldn't go in the list until it's released - it can be mentioned elsewhere, though). One additional restriction we could add is that only ranks held as a regular character count, which would remove the higher ranks from O'Neill and Hammond. --Tango 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The first big thing that Bridagier General O'Neill did on assuming command of SGC was to promote Sam to Lieutenant Colonel. 81.145.240.146 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

I beg to differ, ranks are very important in Star Trek; like Stargate, Star Trek is based around the military, and characters are commonly referred by their rank. But I digress, I don't see the value of having every rank a person held during the ten season listed along with their name. It looks confusing and cluttered. I think it would be much better to list the highest rank attained. Ank329 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all ranks, or no rank (or a range). Continuity is an in-universe concept, there is no sense of change from an out-of-universe perspective. The first episode is just as valid as the last, there is no such thing as "current rank". --Tango 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this format? It contains all of the information, yet makes it easier to read than the current format. Ank329 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it a lot. Extended possibility: shortly mention the season range for each rank so that we prevent mentions of the alternate universe ranks. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When was O'Neill promoted to Major General? I thought it was when he left at the end of season 8 (or beginning of season 9, I don't recall), can anyone name an episode in season 9 when he's seen in Brigadier uniform? --Tango 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when; his wiki page isn't helpful either. I remember that this was discussed as a continuity error in the audio commentary for "The Shroud" that showed him as Brigadier General in one scene and Major General in another. But I don't know what his rank in "200" and the three Season 3 Atlantis episodes were... – sgeureka ^t•c 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the Gateworld Omnipedia article on O'Neill he was promoted to Major General. [7] Since it doesn't mention an episode or anything, I'm not sure where they are getting this from, so I'm not updating the article to reflect it. Ank329 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

O'Neill was seen as a Major General in the Stargate Atlantis episodes "The Return" and "The Return Pt. 2". In "The Shroud", he switched between Brigadier General and Major General. On the commentary for this episode, it was said to be a mistake, and that he should have been shown as a Major General.--Dani 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've added in an hidden comment at the cast section to only have ranks that were shown on screen during the series, and were not a part of an alternate time line. Thanks, Ank329 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ranks

Its Brigadier General Jack O'neill!!!!Not Major General. Whoever wrote that is DUMB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.209.101 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He was subsequently promoted.81.145.240.146 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

can someone with the power to delete this actually delete this? I find it offending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.223.42 (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

promoted in season 10 u idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.206.205 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Under Ranks

Dr. Weir promoted oneill from colonel to BRIGADIER GENERAL in the episode when she resignes, and everyone refers to him as BRIGADIER GENERAL after that. It even says it on his desk (Brig. Gen. or something like that) And thus, everyone else is Wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.209.101 (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

During the events of the Stargate Atlantis episode The Return, O'Neill was shown as a Major General. While the actual promotion is not shown on screen, he is a Major General. If you take a look at the transcript from GateWorld.net for the Return, you will see him referred to as Major General, furthermore, his bio page on Stargate-sg1.com has his rank as Major General. Ank329 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In the episode where Daniel Jackson went to another reality, where Hammond was a Colonel, there he was a "major general". Back in reality, he was promoted to Brigadier general. But honestly, have you even seen the episode I'm talking about? The promotion was shown at the end of the episode and Weir resigns from being the "commanding officer" at the SGC. From the looks of it, your arguments are pretty much based upon internet websites that are potentially wrong. I mean, come on! You can't honestly believe everything you read on the internet. Its exactly like believing everything you read in a newspaper. And if you dont believe me, watch the episodes with Dr Weir (the ones in the original tv show, like season 7 or 8. not the spin off. They're just spin offs with random guest appearances.)

Its funny because i thought Hammond was given a promotion and reassigned to this "homeland security" thing. Theres even an episode where you see Hammond and delegates from other countries discuss who the stargate belongs to and where it should be put. (i think everyone knows what im talking about) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.223.42 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Its in the script, man. Now theyre just making mistakes. -The Under Ranks Creator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.223.42 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Another funny thing is that i thought brigadier general was a higher rank than major general (lietenant gen-> major gen-> brigadier gen)(considering the fact that major is higher than lieutenant) and thus, wouldn't a promotion to "major general" would really mean that he's being demoted? and wasnt hammond "promoted" from lieutenant general to major general? Then when i looked up air force ranks, it was the complete opposite of what i thought(brigadier gen->major gen->lieutenant gen). Quite frankly, though, i think that they should update these ranks so that they make sense. But its the army, so who's going to tell them they dont make sense?

-The "Under Ranks" creator

Brigadier General is the *lowest* of the General ranks, it's a "one star general". During Season 8, O'Neil was a Brigadier, after that, he was promoted to Major General and has been shown wearing a Major General uniform (with 2 stars) in various episodes since (although the costume dept did make a mistake in one episode, I don't remember which). That said, he was never a Major General while being a regular character, only after he become recurring, so IMHO, that rank shouldn't be in the table. --Tango (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clearing that up. But one thing still bothers me: the Hammond thing I wrote earlier (the promotion from lieutenant general to major general). I guess its just a mistake, but i could have sworn that he was a lieutenant general when the show first started and then he became a major general later on in the show.

-The Under "ranks" creator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.223.42 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, In the "cast section of the article, it lists tealc as a civilian. On the other sci-fi pages, like star trek, spock and worf are listed as aliens, so why not tealc? Its just a suggestion. -Mr. Under ranks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.223.42 (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about episode notability (not THE discussion of episode notability)

I left some notes about my plans for the SG-1 episode articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#SG-1 Episode notability. But before I execute these plans, I would like to ask other editors for their input (there, not here). Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts about the future of Season 1 episode articles at Talk:List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes#Straw_Poll_for_Season_1_episodes. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some help

hey, i have noticed that not only is Stargate SG-1 the longest running scifi american show, but also it seems to be the apex of all other scifi shows. actors from several other scifi shows becam actors on it. Ben Browder(Lt. Col. Cameron Mitchell) and Claudia Black(Vala Mal Doran) both from Farscape, Lexa Doig(Dr. Lam) and Steve Bacic(Camulus) from Andromeda, Morena Beccarin (Adria) from short lived Firefly (also Jewel Staite who plays Dr. Keller on Stargate Atlantis), and of course John de Lancie(Col. Simmons) as the infamous Q from Star Trek. These are the main ones, i was hoping people could do a bit of research and find any others, no matter how obscure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asha'man Nellis, Jearn Rift Sept of the Codarra Aiel (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy that played the EMH in Star Trek: Voyager is another obvious one. You can probably find out more by going through the cast list and looking them all up on IMDB. --Tango (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah, duh, can't believe i forgot robert picardo(Richard Woolsey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.45.6 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Has Sci-fi stated why they decided not to go on with an 11th season? Were the ratings dropping or was it something else. If anyone knows, maybe it should be put into the article.4.226.78.41 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Go from Episode articles to Season articles?

Please see WT:STARGATE#Go from Episode articles to Season articles?. Comments are welcome there. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [8]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia, including tis one. --Maniwar (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2008 (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 fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sg1 cast1-1-.jpg

Image:Sg1 cast1-1-.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review

I have started an episode review for all remaining SG-1 episode articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review, and ask for input from other interested editors (there, not here). As the current arbcom case only restricts the (un)redirection and (un)deletion of episode articles but not discussion, this review is perfectly fine. I expect the review to last for one or two months, and hope that the currently disputed wikipedia policies and guidelines will have confirmed their old consensus or have found new consensus. Should the policies and guidelines change to allow episode articles regardless of (established) notability or real-world content, this episode review will of course be moot, but I don't expect this to happen, so I seize the day (month). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

someone is unilaterally deleting images

[9]

someone has deleted just about all the images from the goa'uld technology in stargate article and now those images are about to be deleted from wikipedia.org for good. for example,

if the consensus, here, is that these images should be deleted, i'll be content, however, if this is just one rogue editor who thinks his opinions trump all and are the only one that matters, then i do care a great deal. it's vandalism of the worst kind. a vandal defaces a wikipedia article and it's reverted. it may take months for it to get reverted, but it does, all the same.

if a vandal orphans an image, then, after two weeks of that images being orphaned, it's essentially impossible to revert. hence my claim that if this is just one rogue editor, he is the worst kind of vandal. i'd rather have ten people adding goatse.cx pictures to articles then one person deleting images, because atleast goatse.cx is reversable. Autoswung (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor. Calling an experienced editor a rogue vandal is against assuming good faith and might get you blocked. As mentioned in the edit summary, the consensus has already formed and can be found at WP:NFC, which says to use as few nonfree images as possible (e.g. consensus for Featured Articles is no more than five nonfree images per article). The article has been tagged for {{nonfree}} use of images for two weeks, and there was a note on the article's talkpage to which no-one responded. I see no violation in the process. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean refactor (not refractor), and perhaps Autoswing already did. However, as I read it now Autos is not calling any editor anything. He/she starts their remarks with, "if the consensus, here, is that these images should be deleted, i'll be content" and then goes on to describe a particular type of disruptive vandalism. Please assume good faith youself. Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Typo, sorry, fixed. And as I am the editor in question, I felt the need to defend my edits to references or comparisons to "one rogue editor who thinks his opinions trump all [...] it's vandalism of the worst kind. a vandal defaces a wikipedia article [...] hence my claim that if this is just one rogue editor, he is the worst kind of vandal" and the preference of "ten people adding goatse.cx pictures". I was never contacted by this editor in private, I clearly stated the policy and my intent weeks before I took action, and I believe my reply here was as AGFy and personally detached as possible. Comparing transparent cleanup to a particular type of disruptive vandalism is jumping the gun a lot. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

my goal was to make the people with the most vested interest in that article aware of your edits and their long-term consequences. discussing your edits with you on your talk page wouldn't have accomplished that Autoswung (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most wikipedians are reasonable people, willing to discuss and/or explain their edits. My edit summary already linked to the relevant policy/guideline, and like I almost always do, I left notes on the talkpage where my edits will have longtime consequences, before and after my edit. I can see how you missed that or did not understand that at the time, but the way you presented your concern was *not good*. Please be more careful in the future. No offense taken if you genuinely just tried to save wikipedia from vandalism. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Walkie-Talkie (2-way-radios) used on SG-1

My very first Wikipedia post, go easy on me and let me know if I've done this incorrectly.

Does anyone know what type of walkie talkie units they use on SG-1? They make a very distinctive staticy/click sound when pressing and depressing the button. So other than the obvious sometime exaggeration of the distance between which each of the characters are able to reach each other (ie. after a person is ringed to another part of a planet that may be close enough but probably isn't to send/receive) is there any actual brand/model of walkie-talkies that are small like they are and make that static/click sound? Thanks.--MATTblah24 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend going to the reference desk for future questions like this (this page is for improving the article, not questions about the subject). But to answer your question, I believe that was a special effect added in post-production. If you'll notice, there are several times where they missed adding the click and other times added when the character didn't need it. Minor errors that didn't affect the storyline, but still... Hope that helps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Where is the reference desk? I'm still learning the ropes. --MATTblah24 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk. Wikipedia:Community Portal and WP:HELP are also great resources. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)