Talk:Stargate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stargate has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Stargate is part of the Stargate Topics series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.

	This article is part of WikiProject Stargate, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Stargate on Wikipedia.
stargate-sg-1-atlantis -edit talk + - Portal - project - talk + - join Things to do (this article) Add things to do for Stargate Things to do (project-wide) Articles to be written: None Articles to be expanded/improved: Lists: Tau'ri characters in Stargate SG-1 - List of Stargate Atlantis cast Episodes: Premieres, finales and multipart episodes. see also Episode stubs Characters: Adrian Conrad - Janet Fraiser - George Hammond - Carolyn Lam - Hank Landry - Bill Lee - Cameron Mitchell - Chekov - Nerus Carson Beckett - Teyla Emmagan - Elizabeth Weir Cast & Crew: Kavan Smith - Martin Wood - Brad Wright Other: Lucian Alliance - Trust (Stargate) - NID (Stargate) - Timeline of Stargate - Stargate Atlantis DVD - Stargate: The Last Stand see also Stargate stubs, Articles with tasks FA drive Stargate WP:1.0 drive Stargate SG-1 - Stargate Atlantis Stargate Quick links Edit Quick links Stargate WikiProject Stargate Stargate stubs Races - Groups - Tech - Terms - Civs - Chars - Actors Stargate SG-1 episodes Stargate Atlantis episodes Stargate episode stubs

	This article in the Arts category is being tracked by the Work via WikiProjects group at Wikipedia 1.0, as part of our plan to organise and build a collection of articles for offline release.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
edit

Stargate is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Egypt Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Opposition to Fictional Universes here

See: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External link request

Could we consider adding Addcontent.net to the external links section? It is a Stargate info site. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [http://www.flitsjachtfansite.nl/

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Something like this

is there something like this for stargate??

eg:

This user keeps an eye
on Neptune, CA.

The closest thing would be this:

SG	This user activates the Stargate to explore other planets.

Or this: {{Template:Stargate}}

This user is a Stargate fan.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] GA!

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

[edit] Page Moved?!?

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

I think it's better, but it probably should have been Stargate Franchise instead... Valrith 23:24, 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStargate_bf99.html"