Talk:Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1)

Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 17, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage / Stargate Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Stargate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Best episode, IMO. (Opes 22:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not by a longshot, but if you meant Best humorous episode, I concur.

The short and effective episode summary has been replaced by a long, rambling one which gives a blow-by-blow analysis. Do we need to get half that detailed? Does explaining everything benefit the article more than giving the important bits? I'd very much like to replace it with the previous one altogether, but for now I'll at least try to fix the English. --Kizor 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Are these in any particular order at present? I'd think that chronological order might be best, especially as this will more logically group the "Bad example" triad. Alai 15:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of loop

There's some dispute about the length of the time loop. I thought some one mentions a ten-hour period? —wwoods 04:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was thinking that myself; after I edited the article I had to stop and think if it was a six hour or ten hour loop. The problem is, now I'm not sure either way. Does somebody have the episode available to check? JBK405 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it, and nothing better to do. Well, I do, but...

—wwoods 04:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand. Lemme know what they actually say and I'll figure out how many "days" Daniel and Jack lived through. JBK405 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 23 minutes in, Jackson says, "Think about it. Who would build a device that loops time every ten hours?" But that was only the ~~third~~ fourth time around the loop, and Jackson must have gotten that from what O'Neill and Teal'c had reported. It's about right though. The loop starts at breakfast and ends later that day. The first time, they had time enough for briefing, gearing up for the mission, and when first seen they'd been on-site for a while. It occurs to me that O'Neill and Teal'c never need sleep, even though something in their minds carries over, to give them their memories.

Well, on to the next number: O'Neill's golf drive — which is a heck of a lot more than "several billion miles". That wouldn't even get out of the Solar System.

—wwoods 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...But that's what he said. Either Teal'c or the scriptwriters screwed up. One light-year is several trillion miles and the planet was yeah-many ltyr away.

—wwoods 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a light-year is several billion miles. Several thousand billion miles, true, but it could still be measured in the billions (Just like the distance between the earth and the moon could be measured in inches). JBK405 18:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of time, I think we should remove the 6 or 10 hour comment - the two comments provided (6 hrs before mission start vs. ten hours total), are not mutually exclusive if the mission lasted about four hours - after all, both Carter and Daniel had some hefty research going on... 87.221.86.56 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always figured, when watching this episode, that the loop was 10 hours and the extra 4 were spent in a combination of the mission itself before the loop started and the time that passed between them starting the loop and the conversation that mentioned 6 hours until the mission. After all, they start the loop eating in the cafeteria and Janet is sure to have run some tests on them as soon as they said something about repeating events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AniKitty (talk • contribs) 05:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total length trapped in loop

The article says that Earth was caught in the loop for at least three months, but then says a minimum of 216 days. That doesn't seem to make any sense, three months would be more like 90 days... Is this a mistake? Solanum 04:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mistake, though it is easy to misunderstand. The figure 216 refers to the number of loops, which were each only ten hours long, so 216 loops, each one its own "day," is only 90 days in straght time. JBK405 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Windowofopportunitystargate.JPG

Image:Windowofopportunitystargate.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) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA Review Requests

Lead

Since we are an international project, in what country it first aired should be added.
Might want to add why there was a shortage of footage.

Plot

Any character article for Malikai? No problems if there isn't, I'm just wondering.

No, he was a one-time character, completely unimportant outside of this episode.

Teal'c and O'Neill have already been linked in the lead, they should be de-linked here.

Reception

All reviews given here are positive. Are there any negative ones that could be added to give a more even perspective on the episode?

No negative reviews that I am aware of, especially not off-forum .

Xpose is a red link, should be de-linked.

It seems to be a major British cult magazine, so I redirected the redlink to the publishing company.

External Links

It's usually customary to link the page to the same episode page at imdb.com.

Other than those, looks good. Mastrchf91 (^t/_c) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This review came much quicker than I expected, but I won't complain. :-) I tried to address all of your concerns, but I left replies above where I couldn't or wouldn't address them. Thank you for your throrough review, and please let me know if you see more that needs fixing. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time loop length

I don't think this exchange,

Carter: "Both of them claim they have memories of SG-1's mission to P4X-639."

Hammond: "A mission that isn't scheduled to start for six hours."

is a claim that the loop lasts for six hours. The loop began a while before this, and will end a while after the mission's scheduled start-time.

Carter: "Maybe you were sent back in time."

O'Neill: "For what? Six hours?"

This does look like a claim of a six-hour duration. But maybe it's occurring six hours after breakfast, and O'Neill is referring to the time back to the start of the loop rather than its full length?
—WWoods (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "window of opportunity" "six hours" stargate -"ten hours" gives you about 50-66% of what "window of opportunity" "ten hours" stargate -"six hours" gives, i.e. it's still pretty vague. Daniel could just be approximating the time, for all we know. But it is not really wikipedia's job to analyse anyway, just to report and let people draw their own conclusions. (I'm just happy to no longer be confused whether it's six hours or ten hours, but that is probably a continuity error.) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127111527/http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/stargate-sg.htm to http://www.absolutewrite.com/novels/stargate-sg.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Window of Opportunity (Stargate SG-1). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301011403/http://www.gateworld.net/interviews/joseph_mallozzi_1.shtml to http://www.gateworld.net/interviews/joseph_mallozzi_1.shtml

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]