Talk:Stargate/Archive 1

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

Novels

There are SG-1 novels also.--wwoods 16:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alright, I've mentioned them now too. The line I took out didn't actually specify which version of the setting the novels were in and so could have referred to any of them. Bryan 23:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I moved the article on the actual Stargate itself to Stargate (device) instead of Stargate (Stargate) because I felt it distinguished it from the movie's article better that way. It should definitely be a separate article from this one IMO, both since it's a distinct subject and because it can be placed under the Stargate technology category that way. Bryan 05:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could one of you folks who knows something about the books please clarify this bullet point: "The science fiction television series Stargate SG-1 first aired in 1997. Several novels are based on this story of this series. " Do you mean several novels are based on the TV series? Or maybe several novels are based on the TV series as opposed to the film? I'd like to fix the grammar, but I hesitate to change a sentence I don't understand. Salli 01:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Show-Universe page

Gateworld doesn't specify it's about SG1, so really the link should be moved out here. And yeah there are novels and such which should be listed. Also the link on the Stargate SG-1 page refers to Stargate as the movie, though it should be Stargate. When in doubt, check how Star Trek did it. Should move the stuff about atlantis to this page. Amonst other things.

"Tau'ri"

Many other races refer to Earth's humans as the "Tau'ri", meaning "those of the first world."

Come to think of it, do they -- or is just a Jaffa term?

the new coordinates SG-1 picked up on Abydos had to be corrected for stellar drift before they could be used.

How they 'correct the coordinates' on an essentially digital device is a rock we're probably better off not trying to turn over. --wwoods 09:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The explanation for how Stargate coordinates work has always struck me as a little wonky, but I'm pretty sure I recall that being mentioned in the first episode of SG-1. I'll be getting the DVD in about a month so I'll be able to re-check then, feel free to revert me in the meantime if you remember differently. :) Bryan 14:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[For some reason this paragraph shows in the preview as having only one level of indentation.]
I remember it the same way, in SG-1. In the movie, Jackson's key insight was that one glyph represented Orion. How that led him to the address for Abydos... In SG-1, I think they dropped the constellation idea, because that let them have the stargates be built by the Ancients, not some Earth-based civilization. The list of addresses Jackson brought back gave them targets to try to reach, though how they correct for stellar drift remains a mystery to me -- give a chevron a couple of lightyears of english as you set it? In "Fifth Race" they do talk of the eighth chevron as analogous to an area code.
I couldn't talk the library into buying them, so I wound up getting all six sets of DVDs myself. If you have any particular questions, I can check.
--wwoods 19:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Heh. It turns out that at some point years ago I downloaded the first season of Stargate SG-1 off of some now-defunct website, burned them to CD, and forgot about it. The video files are too highly compressed to make out much of anything visually (an hour and a half in just 44 megabytes), but I just hit the bit where Samantha is explaining how the expansion of the universe has thrown off all the old coordinates except for Abydos because Abydos is the closest to Earth. It's at roughly the 37 minute mark. Daniel also mentioned that he was able to chart some of the coordinates to places in Abydos' sky, so they may still be using the constellation thing. That doesn't necessarily tie the Ancients to Earth culture, because perhaps Earth culture picked up its constellations from the Ancients rather than the other way around.
As for how one might "adjust" such coarse-grained coordinates, Sam's exact quote was: "with this map as a base that should be easy. All we have to do is correct for doppler shift. Then I should be able to arrive at a computer model that will predict the adjustments necessary to get the gate working again." She doesn't actually say that they need to come up with new coordinates, just make an "adjustment." If I may speculate, perhaps this is yet another one of those user interface features that's normally handled automatically by the DHD but which the SGC had to MacGuyver up themselves; a sort of "scaling factor" that tells the Stargate how to deal with the minute change in the curvature of space due to the universe's expansion over time. That's too speculative to put into the article itself, IMO, but it makes me feel a little more comfortable with the idea that perhaps the writers have thought out and kept track of the behind-the-scenes logic better than it may seem at first glance. :) Bryan 07:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was established in a season 6 or 7 episode (the one with the gate virus) that the gates with DHDs dial each other automatically every couple of hundred years in order to update their knowledge of the other gates' locations. This implies each Gate/DHD has a complete set of gate coordinates for that galaxy in them. Presumably even the Goul'd lack the technology to get this information out of the DHD or gate given that there are gates they do not know about. Robertbrockway 09:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The idea behind the 7 chevrons is that it takes 6 points, with lines draw between them, to specify a specific point in 3 dimensional space, and the 7th is the home chevron, representing the starting location. Also, it is a proven scientific fact that the universe is constantly expanding (pick up Elegant universe, or Universe in a Nutshell, the beginning chapters should explain it all) and the writers tried to use this to explain why the random dailing had never turned up anything besides Abydos. However, doing this doesn't make any sense to me, because if you're using moving locations as references to a moving object, if they are all moving at the same rate, then the refence should remain valid, also if the reference isn't valid anymore using the Stargates way of identifying a planet (6 points to represent a specific point) it would be extremely had to shift the coordinates, so that they represent that planet again (since each gate only has a certain few chevrons on it). ASCIIDuck
Celestial bodies aren't all moving in the same direction. Space is three dimensional so that means celestial bodies can move vertically, horizontally, and also front to back. Galaxy's move away from the center of the universe, solar systems move away from the center of galaxy's, and planets move away from stars. (or towards) This means that the 'moving locations' and the 'moving object' aren't necessarily moving in the same direction. Sure, sometimes they do, but the odds of all seven chevrons moving in the same direction at the same rate, I'm pretty sure are slim. --LordKrump 05:33, 3

August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lord Krump here. This could also account for why several gate adresses (such as Proclarush Taonas, though this was for a different reason) could not be dialed in the course of the series, though they arent mentioned. As the stars move into new positions, they upset the adress and possibly move into a position where there arnt 6 symbols to represent the planet. This brings up the question, how do the Goa'uld account for planetary shift? The answer to this is probably "I am your god. I am all knowing" as usual, but their advanced technology can probably figure out something so simple as the movement of every star in the galaxy at the same time (pun intended). Nick M.

Stargate "in transit" visual effect inconsistency

I just rewatched the bit of the first SG-1 episode where the characters travel back to Abydos, and noticed that the "traveller's-eye-view" visual effect is actually still the same as the one in the movie. I presume it was tweaked shortly thereafter since I didn't remember the movie's effect being used in the series until the long-distance dial Jack did later, but this means it's not actually a change between movie and series but rather a change that was made at some point in the series itself. Anyone know more about this? Bryan 06:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How can the "in transit" effect be from the travelers’ point of view? Aren’t their molecules supposed to be broken down? How can they see anything at all?--68.228.190.177 23:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is just filmmaker's license. In the movie, Jackson stumbles out of the Stargate as if he'd just been on a rollercoaster ride. O'Neill says "It's okay, it's over." It IS what they see, but it's not to be thought about too much. It's a viewer's helper, like when computer screens in movies say "ACCESS GRANTED!!!" --alfakim 16:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canonicity in general

I've been involved in a long discussion over on Talk:Stargate (device) over whether the Stargate in the movie is "the same thing" as the Stargate in the series, with Centrx arguing that they aren't and that discussing the Stargate in just one article was deceitful. I don't think his argument is at all valid, but in the course of looking stuff up on the web I've discovered that some fans of the movie apparently consider the SG-1 series to be somehow illegitimate or non-canon. I'm not familiar with the Stargate fan community, just the show itself, so I don't feel comfortable adding discussion of this directly to the article. Does anyone know any details about this, such as how widespread this apparent schism is? Bryan 06:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I do not mean deceitful, rather false, incorrect, or substantially misleading. - Centrx 20:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to be as concise as possible and apparently oversimplified as a result. Bryan 00:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The writers/producers of the movie have absolutely nothing to do with the television series. As I understand it, they originally planned to make one or more sequels to the movie, but then the rights to the franchise were somehow removed from their posession, although I do not know if it was actually some sort of shady deal or if they simply sold the rights. The first television series was then produced, and many details from the movie were refuted or retconned. (Having just watched the Ultimate Edition, I can vouch that many things in both the theatrical and director's cuts don't jive well with the TV series.) As I said, I don't know exact details on how it all happened, but I'm pretty sure that's why most people (edit: I should say "some people") view the TV series as non-canon. McGravin 18:42, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'll start a paragraph on this shortly. BTW, what details were refuted or retconned that are not already listed in Stargate#Retroactive continuity from the film to the SG-1 series? I just got the Ultimate Edition a few weeks back myself and I can't think of anything else offhand. Bryan 23:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hey, there's already a list. Well, let's see... On that list, Abydos was said to be in another galaxy, but not necessarily on the other side of the universe, and Ra was never said to be the last of his species, but merely that his species was dying out. Maybe I'll fix those two details later. Anyhow, the biggest retcon I can recall from the Ultimate Edition to the TV series involves the fossilized guards. In the deleted scenes and director's commentary, they were supposedly sent through the gate after it was buried and therefore beamed into the rock and fossilized. In the TV series, the iris prevents any material traveling through the gate from being rematerialized at all. I'm pretty sure there are other things, but that's the major change that I recall. McGravin 18:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
Does the iris issue really count as an inconsistency? I notice it's not on the list in the article, which may be just as well since I believe that they profess to have added it sometime in the first episode. Salli 01:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
They do mention adding it in the first episode. They don't have it initially, but after some unexpected entries they get creative. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the TV series, a material that is "less dense" such as water (or in the case of the Giza Stargate, sand) does not stop matter from rematerializing on the receiving end. It is conceivable that the guards ended up drowning in sand once they rematerialized on Earth. The wormhole vortex also could have "carved out" a sinkhole that would temporarily hold the materialized guards until the sinkhole eventually would collapsed.
All this talk about the Stargate (device), and there is just a small mention in the article that it was not the first fictional transit devise so named. Everyone seems to forget about the Stargates in Buck Rogers in the 25th Century show. I suggest that Stargate (device) be renamed to Stargate (Stargate device), or that it be made more general to include all devices called Stargates and list haow they all function. Just my opinion. Lady Aleena | Talk 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, this is an old discussion that has been discontinued here because of the creation of the Stargate (device) article. Second of all, there is not enough detail on those other devices also called "Stargates" to justify that they be other than what they are, mentions in the Stargate (device) article. The Stargate movie and television shows provide a lot of information, so that is why so much information is here. If you've got more information on the usages, please add it. If you can add enough information, then a renaming, as you suggest, can be performed. Val42 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Listing insignificant changes

Is a wikipedia article really the place to list insignificant changes from the film to the series, such as difference in effects or minor changes in character names - when these changes have caused no mentionable effects? I think it would be better to replace some of the list by a generalization such as "Also some of the character names were changes slightly (Jackson's wife Sha'uri to Sha're, Kawalsky's first name from Adam to Charlie, and such). There were also some minor differences in the visual effects." --153.1.48.94 10:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amen. My favorite:
The visual effect representing the perspective of the traveller as he passes through the wormhole was longer than in the television series.
Jesus. Get a life. 21:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe these would go under a 'Trivia' section, wouldn't they?

Ra and the "dying race"

In one episode, I don't remember which (one that talks about/has the Asgard in it), the SG-1 team learns that the Goa'uld were nearly wiped out by the Asgard in a war thousands of years ago. The episode attributes Ra to being in hiding on Earth essentially, and thus finding the race of man. This is most likely what accounts for the series explanation of Ra being part of a "dying race". I just don't have the specific episode to back up the claim at the moment.

It may well have been true that at the time Ra arrived on Earth that the Goa'uld were a dying race. After arriving on Earth and using humans as hosts, they seem to have thrived and and took humans with them as the established new colonies. It does seem that humans were ideal hosts.
You have to remember as well that the Jaffa, who act as Goa'uld incubators, were origionally human (episode, Hathor) and were later given their symbiote poutches. It is likely that the origional hosts for the goa'uld had shorter life spans and as Earth had not yet been discovered (therefore, the Ancient healing device and subsequent Sarcouphogus design) they truly were a dying race. Finding Earth enabled the Goa'uld to survive. This original mention of the Goa'uld as a dying race was in Stargate (the movie) and was depicted on a wall on Abydos. It is also possible that when Dr. Jackson translated it, he made a mistake (especially since in the movie he had only just learnt how to speak the Goa'uld language, though he could read it) and translated "Ra was dying" as "Ra's race was dying", though most likely when the made the movie, they didn't plan on this as the series wasn't originally planned. But in this way we can account for the translation and the Goa'uld as a race in the series. What I've written here is theoretical of course, but if they ever tried to explain this in the series this might be how they would do so. This paragraph was written by a different person (for the record) than the other two preceding it. Nick M.

Move it

The film is the seminal issue, and the other stuff is just a spinoff. Move the film here -- move this to Stargate universe. -St|eve 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What would the benefit of such a reorganization be? Have you considered equivalent moves for Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.?
—wwoods 22:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The "just a spinoff" is one of the longest-running science fiction series ever, I don't think it's obvious that the film should have higher claim to this article title. Moving this to "Stargate universe" doesn't reduce the need for disambiguation, either, and as Wwoods points out there's established precedent for handling things the way they currently are. I don't agree with the move proposal. Bryan 04:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This page as it is now seems somewhate hodgepodge. why not make Stargate the disambiguation page, and have the Stargate_(Universe) entry detail how the movie, series, and novels are interrelated, along with a list of important articles that explain the majority of what is going on in the stargate universe. Carterhawk
The name would be Stargate (universe) or Stargate universe (although I don't know if the latter term is in common usage) or similar. But I'm not sure that is necessary. As things currently stand, the two television series and related material are actually much more prominent than the movie. (No matter how you feel about the film, it remains a relatively minor science fiction film, the most notable aspect of which is the fact that it's spun off a highly successful TV series.) The current system is a reasonable application of Wikipedia conventions. Someone looking up Stargate is more likely to be looking for the TV shows than the movie. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it should not be moved, but the page really needs some work. I think something like the Star Trek page would be good. Even if the series is called Stargate SG-1, a lot of people call it simply "Stargate" (and, outside the US, is often called Stargate only by TV stations). I vote for a rewritting of the article in a similar style to the Star Trek one. -- Andromeda 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The Star Trek article is definitely much more polished. Go for it! -Aranel ("Sarah") 15:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I've rewritten the article, though I think it could be improved. I wasn't sure what to do with the "Retroactive continuity from the film to the SG-1 series" section. For the moment, I left it. Any ideas? -- Andromeda 21:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice job! I'm working on a copyedit. (Massive rewrites always require copyedits.) I think that the best thing to do with the continuity section is going to start with cutting it down to a much smaller size. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, there's some more edits. The page needs a picture of a stargate at the top. Image:SG1stargate.jpg would do, but one with a "kawoosh" would be better.
—wwoods 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it needs an image at top, but I can't find a good image of an Stargate engaged with nobody in front. If you have one, please upload it. Thanks. -- Andromeda 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Just about to upload sg1stargateside.jpg, sg1stargatefront.jpg and sg1stargatekawoosh.jpg.--alfakim 13:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Andromeda 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

general question

guess you can delete this afterwards if you wish XD i was just wondering if anyone can tell me where i can get the 88 (i am guessing its 88) symbols on the stargate and has anyone actually match it to our constellations? thank you 70.70.209.80 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Check out Stargate (device)#The_Giza_Stargate's_symbols, there's a table of them there (there are 39 in total). The Pegasus galaxy's symbols are also in Wikipedia (there are only 36 symbols on Pegasus gates), see Category:Stargate glyphs - they don't have any real-world constellations associated with them since they're from way far away in another galaxy. Bryan 04:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
hehe, i guess its 88 cuz of the eartly constellations

sorry, just an additional question. what was the 7 symbol to get to SG1? i understand its universal for the TV-Series 70.70.209.80 05:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

List of known Stargates has some gate addresses, including Earth's. It looks like the full 7-symbol intergalactic address for Earth isn't known (in the real world, that is - they've dialled it from Atlantis in the show before) but our 6-symbol address is (to which one would add an appropriate origin symbol to the end). Bryan 14:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

stargate: horizon

ok i'm not entirely sure what this is, but if it's big, isn't it worth a mention?

Yes, but is it actually big? It's just one fan fiction project by an aspiring writer/producer. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC):

(Newb here) In general, should Stargate virtual series be mentioned? Because Horizon certainly can be considered a sizeable project, and they're now on to they're (yes, they-there's more than one writer) second season with more than enough steam to carry it out, and probably another season still. (And yes, I'm a fan; shoot me.) In the interest of completeness, should VSes be mentioned? http://sg-universe.net/ Hub of Script-based SG VSes I await the newb-flames! NoDot 04:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, at risk of my hide, I added Horizon and Destiny to the Other list. NoDot 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Horizon is not an official spin-off not a licensed project. If we list that, we have to list all fanfiction sites online because, no matter how big, Horizon is fanfiction. --Andromeda 02:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
(We're venturing into the dangerous realm of personal opinion, so care needs to be taken...)
I might disagree. Horizon and Destiny (if it's finished) are virtual series. Yes, they are FanFic, but they are also VSes. I think they should be there.
That's semantics. Any work not backed up by the copyright holders is fanfiction, no matter what name it runs under or how pretty it is. If you want to add a section about Stargate fanfiction, do so, but do not talk only about Horizon/Destiny, but about the several trends of Stargate fanfiction. I am a fan of some kinds of fanfiction, I just don't think they should be refered as official works. I'm not saying they're worse. I've read fanfics that are better that many episodes. They just aren't official and saying otherwise will only confuse people. --Andromeda 13:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Stargate dialing

Would this be a good place to ask a geeky question? If so...

When dialing from a planet(A) to another(B), when does B's ring start spinning, indicating an incoming wormhole? I can think of a few theories:

1) When you press/input the first glyph, ALL stargates with that same first glpyh start spinning and as you enter the remaining 6, it gradually narrows it down to one. Problems with this: It would heavily disrupt normal gate travel for other people.

2) A waits until the dialing is complete and the kawoosh occurs. Then, B starts spinning. If someone enters A before B's wormhole is open, A holds them in some kind of stasis while B forms the wormhole.

Or:

3) B starts spinning at the speed of plot. :/

Any ideas?


i was under the impression that only the Earth's gate needed spinning because of the missing dialing device 70.70.209.80 07:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

True only the Earth gate spins, but the cheverons light up on the other "off-world" gates as well as on SG:A, I figure number one is correct, if you watch the Episode where they find the 2nd earth gate the cheverons at the SGC was lighting up as Sam was trying to dial using the 2nd gate. although number 3 works to :-) marc

I always thought that the gate dialed lights up with all seven chevrons immediately when the seven have been put in on the A planet. so the kawooshes are synched. No? -- Alfakim --  talk  17:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I recall SGC getting into "dialling races", trying to dial their 'gate and establish an outgoing wormhole before a hostile finishes dialing in to Earth's 'gate to do something horrible to them. This suggests that the chevrons light up one by one as they're dialled, otherwise they'd have no warning of an incoming dialling attempt before the wormhole was established. This does leave open the question of how a gate can predict when it's being dialled before the dialling finishes, of course, but perhaps we should repeat to ourselves "it's just a show, we should really just relax." :) Bryan 05:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Gate System waits until the red 'Enter' button is pressed, and then the lights begin to light up, because in Solitudes, they had the glyphs activated, but nothing happened until they pushed it, which then the Stargates started shaking simultaneously. Sorani172 03:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad I am not the only one thinking this geeky question :) . I think the answer as to how the gate works would be answered in the episodes where someone is dialing in while they are trying to dial out. The event horizon is not created on "our side" until all 7 symbols are entered. Once our event horizon is created a connection reaches to the other gate and the 7 symbols on the other side need to be entered so an event horizon can be created on the other side. Basically, the process of enterring the 7 symbols creates the event horizon. This is of course only my explanation and should not be considered canon or something that should be placed in wikipedia. However, it solves the problem for me. DanielZimmerman 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

ROC?

ROC Books - what does ROC stand for? --Alfakim 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello? anyone? -- Alfakim --  talk  14:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Roc is a trademark of Penguin Books Ltd. They publish a number of Stargate paperback books. Roc being a bird..like a penguin..only mythical. They have other "imprints" like Pelican Books, Puffin Books, Ladybird Books and Peregrine Books. Dreadlocke 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Time travel television series

"Category:Time travel television series" is a newly-created category. There is a discussion over how much "time travel" should occur in a series before it should be included in this category. Please join the discussion in that category's discussion. Val42 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A Warning

Just to let you all know. If you visit sg1archive.com message boards, do so at your own risk. The members there are not open minded. They live in own little world. They don't respect others points of view about Stargate sg1. They insult anyone who expresses different opinions. It is a hate site.--Tjkphilosofe 01:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


It's not a hate site...they just feel strongly about the show. If you go to a PSP forums board you'll find the EXACT same thing. Sorani172 00:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Fictional Universes here

See: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive V#How about: Sectioning off of.2Fpossible banning of Fictional Universe_articles. I hope I am not in violation of WP:SPAM by informing talk pages of Fictional Universes about this thread. User:AlMac|(talk) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it, proposals like this drift up every once in a while and never go anywhere. If this one does start looking like it might be going somewhere, I'd suggest trying to get sports-related articles included as well and that should give the supporters pause. :) Bryan 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

history, note all the vandalising seemingly done by 67.168.46.34 & 205.188.116.71 (let me know if my eyes are off). Page reverted. - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • damn. Sorry I reverted the Stargate article to the wrong version. I'll take more care next time and look. I wasn't intending to keep the vandalising going. - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Stargate movie

Given that in the movie the term Goauld is never used I don't think it should be in the movie summary. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 21:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the name Goa'uld should be moved into the series summary.--Raguleader 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SG-1 team description

The article describes SG-1 as the "first exploratory team." Is this accurate given that other teams were formed basically simultaneously? Would "flagship" or "leading" possibly be better words? JoshuaZ 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the sense of "O'Neill's team", SG-1 predated it's designation. —wwoods 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the dying race meant the former hosts that Ra was using... the unas??? i think i need to re-watch a few episodes...or the movie.... Whangdoodle 23,May 2006
What about the Furlings? They are one of the four races in the alliance...we never hear about them anymore. Wallace 23, May 2006
I think that Wikipedia needs to specify who the Ori are...not that we know a ton about them... maybe....Korn 23, May 2006
Shouldn't Wikipedia also mention some of SG1's missions? Maybe thay can name a few alien races...or some of the Goauld they've destroyed...
All the above are excellent suggestions. Since you can edit Wikipedia, please feel free to implement them! Captainj 11:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

External link request

Could we consider adding Addcontent.net to the external links section? It is a Stargate info site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.27.234 (talk • contribs)

I've seen the site here before, it being removed. The problem is that the more external links there are, the more other websites will want to be an external here (having links on Wikipedia can significantly improve google ratings). And there are so many sites out there that the article can quickly be overrun. Be careful about posting links (or even requests for links) as this can be taken as link spamming, especially from Anon or new users. Captainj 16:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've removed the dross from this category. If I removed good sites, I apologise, but please read this all to see why I did it. When you have a lot of links (for example 4 IMDB links) it only makes webmasters from other sites want to put their links in the article. We spend time removing links, instead of editing, but why should we allow one link and not another, and another, and another. Better to have only a couple of decent links (alright I'm not sure about the German link, perhaps it should be replaced....).

Links about individual film(s) and series certainly shouldn't be in this article (otherwise you have 4 IMDB links, maybe even 6 if there is a new film and series), but certainly may be appropriate for the articles about the individual series / film(s). If you want to add a link, please make sure it is better than any of the links displayed, and also I would suggest not having more than 3/4 links (i.e. at 4 remove one if you add one). Captainj 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that if we're going to have external links, then we should at least provide as many appropriate ones as we can; If we give only a few, then the people who read this aren't getting any benefit out of possibly learning more about a topic. Rotten1 19:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I think that this page unnecessary spoils too much without spoiler tags. I mean: that the Goa'uld are distroyed and replaced by the Ori, isn't really common knowledge. Here in Holland, we're still at the 7th season, and this really spoiled it a bit for me. Same thing goes for the Stargate - SG1 page.


The spoiling part here: "At the end of season 8, SG-1 (with great help) vanquished the Goa'uld only to find in season 9 that a greater threat existed in the cosmos, a cosmic group of violent ethereal self-evangelists called the Ori which continues in season 10."


The spoiling part at Stargate SG-1: "After more than 8 years, despite having advanced sufficiently to defend Earth against the Goa'uld, when the new threat of the Ori is revealed, Earth has once again begun to taste severe inferiority to its enemies."


It's just one sentence at both pages. I don't think the informational value of just one sentence justifies spoiling the demise of the Goa'uld for our international viewers / renters who are catching up. I think it should either be removed, or put in a (very small) spoiler tag. Cristan 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

edit: It has been changed by CaptainJ :-).

____________________________________________________________________________________

Some interesting stuff put back in. Those looking for duller material could try the following site:

Scouting is sportiever dan veel mensen denken. Waarbij het bij voetbal duidelijk is dat het sportief is is het moeilijk te zien wat een scout nou doet aan lichaamsbeweging. Nu heeft u de kans het in praktijk te zien. Pak een stoeltje en ga op 1 november langs de weg zitten. Grote kans dat u scouts voorbij ziet rennen/lopen/fietsen/rijden/zwemmen want het jachtseizoen is geopend.

For those who prefer plain English to Dutch (double or otherwise):

"Scouting is a sportier activity than many people think. It's pretty easy to appreciate that football is a sport but hard to see what scouts do in the way of exercise. Now you have the opportunity to see for yourself. Sit on a stool by the roadside on the 1st of November and you are likely to see scouts running/walking/cycling/riding/swimming by. The hunting season is open"

Thank you Christan for sharing those thoughts with us and taking the censor's scissors to Stargate. An apparent willingness to censor the real-life aspects of Stargate and a penchant for boy scouts is all that Wikipedia needs.

____________________________________________________________________________________

At first, it's Cristan, not Christan. Second, what do these words at a website of mine has anything to do with "taking the censor's scissors to Stargate"? Also, I AM a boy scout, yet I fail to see why this has anything to do with my abilities to judge what edits should be reverted and whose shouldn't.
Besides: I'm not the only one who have reverted your edits. There is also Andromeda [1]. I have to say: making anonymus personal attacks to anyone isn't going to change the public opinion about you in your favour. Cristan 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

actor swap

"Michael Shanks was replaced during Season 6 by Corin Nemec, but was swapped back afterwards." This seems to imply that they played the same character like Becky on Rosanne. --Gbleem 04:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the wording on it. - DiegoTehMexican 04:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference 6

Who made reference 6? It doesn't make sense. How does the episode "Chimera" explain that the stargate is a military secret? The whole siries describes it as a military secret. What does that episode have to do with anyting? Tobyk777 08:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Something like this

is there something like this for stargate??

eg:

VMThis user keeps an eye
on Neptune, CA.


The closest thing would be this:
SGThis user activates the Stargate to explore other planets.
Or this: {{User:UBX/Stargate fan}}
This user is a Stargate fan.

-- Sgeureka 16:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Gedge

Somebody might want to look into the 1982 book "Stargate" by Canadian author Pauline Gedge. Basically the same concept, and it pre-dates the movie by a decade. I read the book expecting it to be related to the film, but found that the plot was completely different, although some of the ideas expressed are interestingly similar. I'm not sure if this was an inspiration for the film, or if the film's writers stumbled across the same idea by coincidence. Wikipedia has "Stargate_(book)" but this redirects to a rather empty and useless page for Pauline Gedge with no information on the books themselves. I figured some of the more thorough editors might find this curious/interesting/cool.

Please read the book and increase the length of the article. Val42 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA!

A excellent and well-referred read. You guys have earned it! Check-Six 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Moved?!?

Was this discussed? I much preferred this article at the title Stargate, why obfuscate? --Alfakim-- talk 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This move makes no sense; Stargate should be the general page for the franchise, just as Battlestar Galactica is the general page for that franchise. -- DiegoTehMexican 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


merge new article

someone created denya (stargate). Can someone merge please? --meatclerk 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That article would not be merged into here; it needs to be expanded into an article on characters from the Ori home galaxy. -- DiegoTehMexican 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct-to-DVD Movies

I added a little about the Direct-to-DVD movies under SG-1, since they will unequivocally be SG-1 movies. If there's some principled reason for putting that information in a new category, I'm not sure what it is. The information in that section just makes it sound as if the storyline will not be continued unless someone picks up the show. That seemed misleading to me. Also, the link to the story that was supposed to be claiming that the new movies will lead in to a third series is dead. I've included a link in what I added that is not dead, and it says that they haven't decided if it will lead to a third series. The text in the article is fine on this, but the name of the story in the footnote suggests that they have decided to lead into a new series with one of these movies. Nothing in the only story I could find on this said any such thing. All it says is that they are considering a third series, with no mention of a lead-in from either of the two movies. Parableman 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the info about the Third Series and the upcoming SG-1 movies are already in the article, should there be a "Future of the Franchise" section? llcopp 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A quick note- Well done to whoever updated this section, I was just wondering where the 3rd movie fitted in.Proberton (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it fits here. I removed the line about the atlantis movie having a release date of June 2009 because they haven't even signed the cast yet, let alone have it finished for release in a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.144.40.51 (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

critical reception

This page needs a critical reception section i don't know why most pages about media on whik don't have them.

  • I think the depressingly simple reason why Wiki media pages lack a critical reception section is that most contributors are uncritical fans. That is why media wikis read more like fanzines than encyclopedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.16.74 (talk • contribs) 07:18, July 3, 2007
    • "Critical Reception" doesn't necessarily mean bad things. I think you should reconsider your comment, as it is an attack on the validity of fans who edit the pages of their favorite fictional creations. The reason that this page does not have a Critical Reception page is likely because it's very difficult to get sourced critical reception for a mid-1990's film and its spin-offs online. Would you like to take the time to find them? =David(talk)(contribs) 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Garry's Mod

Would it be okay to add Garry's Mod the the games section? A lot of players of that game use Stargate portals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.73.118 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Garry's Mod isn't an official Stargate game, just a modification of another. It would be okay to put Stargate on the Garry's Mod page, though.
If there were a cultural references section, it could be placed there...but I don't know that enough cultural references to Stargate exist to warrant a section.=David(talk)(contribs) 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
We could add a "Game References" section or some similar section, because there are now a number of things that display the stargate in some form. These include Stargate: TLS, Stargate Worlds and of course, aVoN's Stargate Addon for Garry's Mod. Alteran Ancient 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed from See Also section

This has been removed from the main article as it is unsourced, and attempts to provide original research.

FYI - The Kailasa Temple, Ajanta, India, built around 200 to 300 BC by Buddist monks (prior to Hinduism) dipicts a similiarity to the 'StarGate dialing device' used to dial the gate across galaxies. On one of the temple's roofs rests a tri-circle - each within the other - depicting different symbols. On top of this 'dialer' stand four lions surrounding a cover stone in the centre. The cover stone is also shown on other buildings - protected by stone guys (warriors) surrounding it. The temple complex appears to have been made of sold rock carved from the mountain side. How they carved this temple out of sold rock with such artistic detail is beyond me. Could this be a base point for a legend of the StarGate intergalactic teleportation system? The temple looks like it is composed of a warehouse vault, skyscraper pyramids and even a little victorian house or temple - all made of rock from an ancient time! The front of this mountain temple has a fortress protecting it.
Proof can be viewed on the 2000-08 calendar from Clariant International Ltd., CH-4132 Muttenz, Switzerland. August shows the temple from an overhead shot. Main sites - Roha, Thane & Kolshet. Credits under the picture state the photo is from Clariant (India) ltd., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (T +91 22 202 2161 F +91 22 202 9781)
The source for this article was from that calendar picture and research - using the internet.
Question: How did they measure the velocity of event horizon?

Grymwulf 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Franchise Value

Does anybody know the estimated value of the franchise? I have seen that MGM has said Stargate is their most valuable franchise second only to James Bond. Does anybody know what type of revenue they actually make or what type of impact is made on the local Vancouver, Canada economy? I know at one time it was costing near $2 million to make one episode of SG-1 so they had to have revenues of at least $2 million per episode at that point. HotOne121 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Fandom" Section

Does anyone else other than me find this section a complete waste of space? It seems like this is just a word made up by a group of fans that has taken on more popularity within the fan culture but that holds no real importance outside that culture. It sounds like nothing more than trivia and it hardly has the history or notability of, say, "Trekkie" to warrant inclusion. I'm hoping some people will weigh in on this. If I get no objections I'll remove it. NcSchu(Talk) 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I just merged it here as the content of the former article Gaters. A fandom section is common, see Firefly (TV series), LOST and Carnivàle. Do what you want with this section as it really sounds like shameless selfpromotion, but if you want to get rid of it in full, better revive the Gaters article and send it to AfD, I don't care. – sgeureka t•c 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

2014?

I'm noticing the relatively recent addition of the year 2014 in the intro as the projected end of Stargate Atlantis. I'm assuming this is vandalism, but I wanted to check with someone who'd know better before removing it, as I suppose it's possible that the show is intended to run for ten seasons like its predecessor. --Moralis (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Either obvious vandalism or unsourced claim. – sgeureka t•c 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Joe Mallozzi mentioned on his blog that 10 seasons might be expecting a bit much and he's hoping for around 7, so definitely not a valid claim. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Navy?

Are there ever any Navy personnel in any of the series? All the other major branches of the US Military have been in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.88.184 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are probably some around somewhere in the background in the various episodes involving travelling in boats (the one with the replicators on the submarine and the one with the mothership that crashed underwater and flooded are the two that spring to mind... my memory for episode titles fails me, though...). I don't know of any non-extras in the navy, though. I can't think of any army people either - just air force and marines. --Tango (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends on how you look at it. There are 4 departments, and 5 branches. The Marines are a part of the Department of the Navy. I would have to double check but I am sure there would have been Navy present for the breach of the Russian sub and the rescue of Jack from ejection into the Atlantic from the X302 (whether they appeared on camera or not...). There only branch of the US Military never showed (as far as I can tell) is the Coast Guard. IanCheesman (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories of the coverup

It has been theorised amongst some fans that stargate (movie and tv show) is a cover for a real stargate style military project (in America). This theory goes that if there is a leak about the real stargate style military project then the US government has deniablity, using the tv show as a source for this leak. As an intresting aside the 'Wormhole Extreme' episode in the stargate tv show can act as a double cover for the real program (confusing isn't it? I understand these to be more flights of fancy than conspiricy theories). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbearbear83 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right... --Tango (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


On one of the "Special Features" disks, it is shown that there IS a Door inside Cheyanne (SP?) Mountain, labeled "Stargate", that is said to be nothing more than a Broom Closet. This door is locked, labelled Top Secret, and displayed as a joke for the tourists flooding there to see the set.

Conspiracy theorists reign free :)

Deliberate error on this page

Sorry, im not very wiki-pedia-ish and i dont want to intrude, but it says that Stargate: The Alliance was meant to be based on Stargate Universe. Er... might want to fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.217.4 (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It says it is "based on the Stargate universe", universe not capitalized. And as far as I know, this is true. – sgeureka t•c 15:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline page?

I remember there used to be a timeline page of events that had happened in the stargate universe (dating far back to thousands of years ago to present) I cant seem to find it. Was the article deleted? (if so can someone tell me why i always thought it was a pretty good one) or am i just not looking in the right place?--Zoobz19 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted after a discussion here. There was too much original research in it (the dates were mostly worked out by the people writing the article). --Tango (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You can still find all relevant "millions of years ago" facts in prose in the article Ancient (Stargate). The season articles automatically give you the "present" timeline. – sgeureka t•c 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, that page is available in somewhat more navigable form on the Stargate Wikia. - Sikon (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Egypt?!

I don't think we need the banner saying this page is part of WikiProject Egypt. If this page is part of that WikiProject, it shouldn't be! The only link between Egypt and this page is that the original movie Stargate featured some Egyptology, and that the Earth gate was found in Egypt. This is in fact nothing to do with Egypt itself, anymore than Babel is to do with Egypt. And if anything, the article Stargate (film) should be part of the WikiProject Egypt, not this general article about the franchise - what does Atlantis have to do with Egypt? I suggest we remove the banner and notify the appropriate WikiProject that this article is irrelevant to their needs. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the Goau'ld are based on Egyptian gods, too, but I agree it's a bit of a stretch. I doubt anyone interested in articles about Egypt are going to have anything to do with this article, so having it in the project serves no purpose. --Tango (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

lyrics

did you know that there are actualy lyrics to the stargate song? here goes:

stargate its a big world with a crazing swirl you step inside to another world were talking stargate its an amazing trip you can go quite far when you dont need a car or even a ship there's cornal o'niell and carter and daniel and teal'c look out for that gould

if i have spelling errors feel free to change them --Hawkey131 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually those lyrics are a joke, and are not official despite coming from Stargate developers. They are unencyclopedic trivia unfortunately, so make sure not to include them in the article. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, they could be notable, they are written by the show's writers, even if they are just for fun. We would need to find a some reliable secondary source to verify notability, though. --Tango (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I curently have the lyrics memorized in my head. i found out what the lyrics when i was watching an episode of season four with the audio commentary on. the eppisode was called "Prodigy". writen by Peter Deluise and someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkey131 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

okay just recently i looked it up on google to find a reliable secondary source and i found a lot of sites with the lyrics on them. they were close to the lyrics i put up on this talk page or they were the same.Hawkey131 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You need more than just a source for the lyrics, you need to find a source which establishes notability. Something discussing and analysing the lyrics, or something. Also, fan sites are not generally considered reliable sources, it needs to be something more reputable. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Term Stargate coined by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1968 novel 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Or does anyone know about an earlier usage?

82.154.190.248 (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Arthur C. Clarke may indeed have named something in his book "Star Gate", but it's not really the point is it? Whoever used the term first doesn't matter - it's not like their usage has anything to do with this one. However, actually there are several references to Arthur C. Clarke's works throughout Stargate, presumably as a homage to his original coining of "Star Gate" as a cosmic teleportation device. 2001 (Stargate SG-1) and 2010 (Stargate SG-1) are examples of this. If and only if you can get a reference (interview, etc., see GateWorld) where a Stargate developer actually says he was inspired by Clarke, then mention that Clarke made up the name. Otherwise it's trivia. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Mythology" section?

I was recently watching season 1 of SG-1 again, and it struck me that there's a LOT of 'mythology' involved in the franchise (in the sense of things like the theoretical physics that explains certain aspects of how things work, the various relationships of the powers that be, etc.) that really doesn't have a home in any other articles. For instance, I vaguely recalled that during an episode of SG-1 (I think), someone made a passing comment about how the gate works in only one direction (ie. once the gate is open, you cannot step back and forth from origin to destination), but thought it was kind of odd that this wasn't a more prominent point to be made, as I actually wasn't even aware that this was the case until something like season 3 or 4 (IIRC).

Anyway, my point is just in asking if this article could do with a "Stargate Mythology" section of some kind? A kind of accumulated smattering of various in-universe information and such? Not so much a trivia section, as a resevoir of franchise mythos details, as there have been numerous times when I would have loved to come to wikipedia (or wherever) and found out say how it's to be believed that a Zat gun could stun in 1 hit, then disintegrate in a second (beyond the plot device aspect I mean).

Thoughts?

99.243.197.87 (talk)

Most of these things are actually covered in their respective technology articles.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The going through a wormhole one way thing is mentioned in Stargate (device), the way zats work is mentioned in Goa'uld technology in Stargate. The principles behind the way a zat works have never been mentioned on the show, so any discussion of them would be speculation, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

SG Movie: Bomb NOT sent back with a bigger warhead

"...which Ra intends to send back to Earth through the Stargate with an enhanced warhead increasing its destructive power a hundredfold."

As I understand the storyline, as the dialogue implies, and as the actual footage implies, there is no intention whatsoever to send an enhanced warhead back to Earth. The intention was to send back the original warhead, with a shipment of ore (presumably naquada, though this name isn't mentioned) - that ore would act as a catalyst, which would increase the power of the explosion, rather than sending any sort of improved warhead.

Something for the chemistry-inclined contributors to thrash out, anyway. Refer to the film (I was watching the extended DVD edition, so I do not know if it is in the original film), towards the end where Ra looks out of his pyramid-spacecraft-ship-thing and mentioned that "the caravan is coming". You will see that the first platform they are carrying is laden with objects which look similar to ore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.57.219 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Premise section

Is it really worth separating the "premise" section from the lead? --Aquillyne-- (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No separation needed. It may already be enough to simply remove the header of the Premise section. – sgeureka t•c 21:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Used to be in the lead -- someone added in that header. --Aquillyne-- (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)--Aquillyne-- (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SG-1's Opening theme music is three Stargate move song's spliced in to one.

First part is based off "The Coverstones", second part is based off "Battle at the pyramid", and the third part is based off "Stargate Overture".

After that I think they just Space Macgyvered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.226.5 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

in universe timeline

should there be added in a major event calender for events during the series, e.g. 1997 stargate programme reactivated or some of thing of that nature.

Digmores (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in this one, you have to make another timeline. Vilnisr T | C 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

timeline

should a visual (graphic) timeline be added in order to show how each cannotic series and movie fits into the overall timeline of the franchise. Digmores (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not bad idea Vilnisr (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The timeline is nice however incomplete as Stargate Infinity has been left out. Novadestin (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
infinity is not canon Digmores (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Last I checked it said "Stargate franchise timeline" and Infinity, canon or not, IS part of the franchise. This is a page for the franchise as a whole and not just the main canon. Novadestin (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
well, problem is not it is canon or not, Infinity are only series set in the future, so production and story timeline do not match, i suggest to make a separate template for Infinity, or at least to separate Infinity from other shows within existing template! What you think about that.Vilnisr (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
For me the only thing that matters is franchise means the whole franchise. It just really annoyed me that it was not included in the first place but still called a franchise timeline. I know a lot of people scorn it or whatever, but it is a part of the franchise and thus must be included when talking about the franchise as a whole. The new graphic looks nice though, I know they differ time wise so the way Infinity is shown makes sense. Novadestin (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
as i said, problem was not - it is canon or not, problem was because production and story timeline do not match. It's only way how to put Infinity into template Vilnisr (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

I boldly merged Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 into Children of the Gods in January, but the redirect was reverted, which is perfectly fine. Now I believe that Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1 can fit into a subsection in Stargate as an even better merge target, with other possible partial mergers as necessary. Since this is not a notability issue but a representation issue, I created this thread to find consensus if that is really a/the preferred way to do. I'll also point to Star Wars as a franchise article that recently became a Good Article (Stargate became a GA in 2006 when criteria were not as strict), and I think a merger would be beneficial to achieve a similar quality in the end. Size limits shouldn't be much of a concern, particularly when Stargate#Stargate is trimmed for plot depth. – sgeureka t•c 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Stargate is a far better target than Children of the Gods. What's this article for if not for discussion of things related to more than one part of the franchise? The current differences article needs more content from secondary sources (reasons for and reactions to the changes, for example), what's there at the moment could be trimmed and merged into this article quite easily, I think. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Children of Gods was just my first idea for a merge target (nine months ago), and I agreed with the reverter afterwards that it wasn't the best idea. I just wanted to express that I believed then that DbSaSSG-1 should be merged ("somewhere"), and I still do. :-) – sgeureka t•c 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the target, the article needs to get merged; it's the definition of unencyclopedic. I don't know how much of this article is actually from real-world sources as opposed to OR; I can see turning it into a redirect to Stargate#Stargate SG-1 and just having maybe a paragraph acknowledging that there are differences and let that be it. That would be my favored option (because the specific differences themselves are trivial minutiae and mentioned elsewhere in any case). However, if the bulk of the article info is to be kept, I think the Stargate SG-1 would be where it would be the most relevant, because at this point the Stargate franchise has grown to the point where the differences between the movie and SG-1 have become completely insignificant. -- Yzx (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I merged the majority into Stargate#Other films and Stargate#Stargate SG-1, and parts into Stargate_(device)#The_Wormhole. To my knowledge, other in-universe things that are just alluded to, can be found in the respective articles/sections (e.g. Jaffa, Ra and Abydos). – sgeureka t•c 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of anonymous edit

I have reverted the incorrect edit by anonymous regarding the cover stones found in Egypt. The edit was made, pointing to the markings being on the Chevrons and not on the Cover Stones. This is incorrect as the markings (hieroglyphs as constellations) are on the cover stones and one of them even carrying the full address to Abydos within a Cartouche. The Chevrons, (7 of them placed around the outer edge of the gate and overhanging the movable ring with the symbols) only serve to "lock" the symbol aligned under it. They have no symbols on them. GoonerW (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


It's been a while since I watched the original Stargate, but it seems you made a couple of minor errors in your plot summary. In P2, you say Jackson was hired by the USAF. No, he was hired by the elderly Egyptologist whose father discovered Stargate. The USAF then took over the project immediately following. In P5 you say the "alien" (refered to as "The Traveller, a member of a doomed race) was posing as the Egyptian god Ra. The premise of the movie is that he was actually Ra, considered a god by the ancient Egyptians due to his much advanced technology. Salud (Marianware (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

Atlantis closing shop

From everything I heard, MGM was pulling the plug, not The Sci-Fi Channel. Something about them wanting to end it with people still interested so they will jump on the DVD movies they will be bringing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

About the controversy section

Re: "The closed official web page". The FAQ from the stored official web page of the Stargate series in the www.web.archive.org.(English speaking aliens and human cultures in Stargate universe).

Dear user Sgeureka, do you really believe that what the official web page of the series answers in their FAQ or the dozens of people in the internet are asking about, is "insignificant"? Please use a search engine first before you make such statements. How many science fiction series or movies have you seen that in their mythological universe, everyone, was a native English speaker? That was a serious flaw in the series and the most cauterized one.

And please, do you seriously expect anyone searching wikipedia for an answer, concerning this flaw, to search the answer in the part that engages with the mythological universe of Stargate?

What does the mythological aspect of the series has to do with the decision the creators of the series made to speed up the action of the episodes?

I really, honestly do not understand your logic about this and I really disagree with you. But I will submit to your choices for the best of wikipedia.Polemos (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Insignificant" in the sense that giving one whole paragraph to an in-universe issue and labeling it "controversy" gives WP:UNDUE weight. "Insignificant" in the sense that I have never read an article in the New York Times discussing it. When Michael Shanks left SG-1 after season 5, that was a major controversy that the media reported on. The major cast changes of Atlantis caused a major outcry. I guess the cancellation of Atlantis and the immediate greenlighting of Universe was also controversial. But that a few aliens on a scifi show speak English - not so much.
This article is the main article on 15 years of a franchise, and it has to focus on the major stuff. Mind you, I wouldn't be opposed at all to a section talking about production difficulties and resulting plot contrivance. Having gained a little experience with writing fiction articles on wikipedia over the months/years, I tried to rewrite your controversy section for a better real-world perspective and came up with a two-liner. As I couldn't find a new place for it in the article (a two-line paragraph is bad practise), I moved it to the next best place, Mythology of Stargate, which deals with all the important races. Why those races talk English would certainly be appropriate there, regardless of the article title.
I hope this explains my reasoning and actions better. (By the way, if you want to discuss editing choices with a particular editor, it's more common to drop him a note on his talkpage than to start a discussion on an article's talkpage that the editor can miss easily.) – sgeureka t•c 19:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Box office numbers

Hey bitches, fixed the box office numbers for The Ark and the totals, they were totally wrong. Look at the reference before one of you Wiki nazis reverts my shit, you will see that it's right. Peace out. 13:15, 22 Aug 2012 (AEST)

Oh you really showed us, you silver-tongued bard. tahc chat 05:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking it in good humour tahc  ;) 07:45, 30 Aug 2012 (AEST) (talk)

The Truth Behind The Story

It seems like all big hollywood movies, stargate is based on real evidence hidden from public, like an old defense system in russia, like the one used in stargate to fight against ennemies of the earth, and a lot of other things, search by yourself :

http://www.wands.ru/tunguzka.pdf

http://wands-of-horus.com/

http://wands-of-horus.com/attachments/article/89/Wands_2010.pdf

http://wands-of-horus.com/attachments/article/168/pyramids_EN.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.140.205 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Kickstarter

Sgu Season 3 kickstarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1230230734/stargate-universe-season-3-20-episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jooe15 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dark Horse (Katy Perry song)

Dark Horse - Katy Perry music video show elements of Stargate, for example: flying pyramid reminds Ra starship [2][3]. And also "magical bolt of lightning from her ​​hand" reminds handheld device of Goa'uld. To change of article in Wikipedia we need reliable sources about this. In internet there are some sources, but (at present) not reliable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the above, governance slaves like a goddess and punishing death like as Goa'uld, giving gifts for goddess, Egyptian style in music video etc. In my opinion, music video of Dark Horse by Katy Perry could be promo video of new movie of Stargate :p :p Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Stargate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stargate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The French title

I do not see how this and a problem given that the countries of origin are the Canada, France and the United States of America, otherwise you are editing in bad faith? - Counny Talk 19:10, 26 July 2012 (CEST)

Regional adaptation does not make it french. And the reference used does not support the assertion either. If that's the case, it's spanish or brazilian title should be added instead, as it was released there before France. All filming was done in the US, in english. --63.143.230.138 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The filming was done in Canada. Canada is an officially bilingual country at the federal level (English and French are the official languages). - Counny Talk 22:59, 8 March 2016 (CET)

Stargate the movie was not filmed in Canada. --63.143.225.189 (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This article includes the franchise Stargate, and original movie is included. Please stopped to remove the French title. The nationality of the franchise is American, French and Canadian.[1][2] - Counny Talk 18:35, 13 March 2016 (CET)

It is a HUGE stretch to say that this franchise is French. American and Canadian, perhaps, but by this logic, every single movie and TV show that is shot in Canada (and there are a ton) should have the French title included. That's ridiculous and doesn't serve any purpose. The show premiered on American networks and was shot in the English language, thus the French title is superfluous. I won't revert it until others have weighed in.Rcarter555 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia's rules allow to the French title, the moment that the nationality origin and French, or other Francophone countries. - Counny Talk 19:30, 13 March 2016 (CET)

Only the language of origin, if it is different from English, is necessary. This is not the case here, so no need for the French title. Mezigue (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A quick check of multiple shows filmed primarily in Vancouver show that only Stargate's wiki lists it as Canadian in origin (Country of Origin). Not the Flash (2014), Not BSG (2004), McGuyver, The Arrow, Smallville, Dark Angel, Vancouver, etc. All of them are listed as Country of Origin: United States. 90% of films tagged "Category:Television_series_produced_in_Vancouver" are American shows, and not listed as Country of Origin: Canada. Shouldn't this be fixed, and remove Canada as Country of Origin for SG-1, SGA, SGU? @Mezigue: --63.143.225.22 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Stargate. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

New series Announced

Stargate Origins announced at 2017 San Diego Comic Con — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.140.81 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-comic-con-2017-stargate-will-return-new-series-1500601031-htmlstory.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stargate. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Stargate - country". imdb.com. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  2. ^ "La porte des étoiles - country". cinoche.com. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate/Archive_1&oldid=1144384265"