Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 4

It's worth to say, that they haven't used no deity currently being worshiped, so far, only the extinct religions have been exploited. I feel it as a safe way of political correctness - only living people (i.e. worshipers) can object (i.e. make problems). -- Bohusz, 2003-12-06

I guess that depends whether you consider Satan to be a worshipped deity. Sokar was a key villain for a time, remember. User:Xanzzibar

The hindu and chinese deities shown as Goa'uld are also still worshipped. Ausir

Also there is some cult that actually still follows the old nordic religion... In any event, it seems there are few enough alien races that all of them could be mentioned. Gadmeer, Reetou, Foothold Aliens, Spirits, Entity, Energy Life forms of M4C-862, though I think only those aliens seen in more than one episode should be listed. So I suppose only the Reetou. And then refer to the lack of info on the Furling under the great races. Even though we all know they are like like Furbies and Zerglings crossed into one smart alien. Tatarize

Moved some of the stuff around, switched some of the information to other pages. Using the same disabig tag as Jaffa (Stargate-SG-1) I'll leave the main page alone for a while. Though the great human tech stuff from x-101 to BC-103 should perhaps be shifted into the Human Tech section. My goal is to make the show pages at least half as good as Star Trek.Tatarize

Why take off the period from "Dr."?

Rank of Jack O'Neill

I thought Jack O'Neill was a colonel, not a brig. gen. When did the character get promoted?

--69.19.180.244 17:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i think that in season 8 he is promoted to general.. (so i read..) - --Cyprus2k1 19:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Parenthetical disambiguation in titles

I've noticed that a lot of Stargate-related articles have "(Stargate-SG-1)" in their titles, and I thought I should mention here before I do it that I plan to go on a page-moving rampage soon to move them to titles with "(Stargate)" instead (or without a parenthetical entirely when there's nothing else in Wikipedia with that name). Two reasons; firstly, the series title only has one hyphen in it rather than two, and secondly because most of these articles are relevant to Stargate the movie, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and even in some cases Stargate Infinity - not just the current Stargate SG-1 series. This is how Star Trek handles things with their multiple series and movies, so I think it's the correct approach here too. I'll do all the work necessary to fix links an redirects, just thought I should give a heads-up so that the rest of you wouldn't be caught by surprise. Bryan 19:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Stargate)

Yeah, I only stuck with (Stargate-SG-1) because it was on the jaffa disambig. I realized at the time the extra dash between Stargate and SG was wrong. Now, with Atlantis starting soon, the SG-1 is also out of place. I also created a few categories and weaved them in right... the base category is rightly "Stargate" and everything else goes off it. Yeah, I'll start moving some of the stuff too. Thankfully wiki makes it pretty easy.

O'Neill's rank

Also Sam's rank is altered. I try to avoid spoilers... I can only assume they get promoted and somebody went and pushed up the ranks early. Tisk. I guess there is a spoiler warning still caught me by suprise.

I'm starting to move them...

Fixing the redirects as a bulk edit will be easier this way... Search for "(Stargate-SG-1)" ect

I'll move some too, wouldn't want to make work for other people without picking up some of the effort myself. :) Bryan 01:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's one I'm not sure about: Spirits (Stargate SG-1). The article could be about a specific episode of the series Stargate SG-1, so in this case the "SG-1" seems appropriate. If on the other hand it's not about the specific episode but about the "Sprits" that were portrayed in it, then it should be singular; Spirit (Stargate). Any ideas? Bryan 01:51, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's my fault. The page was about the alien race, but for some reason I stuck in the "is a second-season episode". the page should probably stay on the race, until/unless we get pages for each episode. As for singular vs. plural, all the other alien pages are plural too, though for some it's not obvious (e.g. Goa'uld, Asgard). This seems right to me, since the pages are about the cultures/races collectively. Specific individual characters should have their own pages.
--wwoods 03:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia naming convention to use singular titles wherever possible; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization). I think it'll be best to move these over to the singular forms. In the case of races like the Asgard, Unas, Tok'ra, Goa'uld, etc. the singular and plural forms are the same, though, so those would stay where they are. I should also note that in the specific case of alien race articles for other science fiction settings, singular forms are used there too; see Category:Fictional alien species for many examples. Bryan 03:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I hope I'm not coming across as nitpicky. I'm just a long-time fan of Stargate and a long-time editor of Wikipedia, so I'm naturally obsessing over details here. :) Bryan 03:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'd grumbled to myself sometimes at the "_(Stargate-SG-1)" suffix, but hadn't gotten around to doing anything. But now we need a new phrase for the generic intro, to replace,

Foo is a/the Bar "on the SF television show Stargate SG-1."

"... in the Stargate universe."? Stargate franchise?
--wwoods 04:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like "in the Stargate universe", personally. I see that form get used a lot in other fictional universe articles around here. Bryan 05:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now that we've done The Move, someone's going to have shift some content around. Currently, Stargate is just a disambiguation page. Following the Star Trek model, a lot of the stuff on Stargate SG-1 should go there, leaving the stuff that's specific to that series.
--wwoods 19:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. The remaining meanings are all sufficiently minor that they can be shuffled off onto Stargate (disambiguation), IMO. I'll get to work on it in about an hour if nobody beats me to it - I'm just headed off to vote in the 2004 Canadian federal election right now. :)

There, just got started by moving some chunks of this article's "Summary" section over to Stargate. I left the SG-1-specific bits of summary here. Now the question is how much of the "races", "technology", etc. sections to move over. We should mention the Goa'uld and Ancients in the main Stargate article, at least, since those two species have been involved directly or indirectly in every Stargate movie and show so far. Some of the more minor races and technologies, on the other hand, will probably only be seen in SG-1 and aren't all that relevant to the overall setting. Any ideas? Bryan 02:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It'll depend on what happens with Atlantis - how much overlap in aliens and planets and plots. I'd guess a lot of the info will be relevant to the whole universe. We'll probably wind up pushing a lot off onto 'races/gadgets/planets of Stargate ' pages.
--wwoods 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the structure of the page is still iffy, I guess we will see in a short while after Atlantis comes out how much stuff actually has to be moved to show neutral pages. It won't be too hard to toss the technology into a "list of stargate technologies" and provide some indepth information where applicable. Some of the stuff like the weapons disabler is pretty much one line information and hardly warrent a different page. Also, there are huge lists of stray planets like P3R-233 (trans-dimentional mirror (hmmm, that's something worthly of noting somewhere), P3X-666 (the planet on which Dr. Frasier died (I wonder if the mark of the beast is a fluke), P3X-888 Goa'uld origin world, P4X-234 world SG-1 gated to while Thor's ship burnt up in the atmo of earth. Beyond the 1 line about them and a hundreds of other crappy planets there's no real information. Some planets like Kheb Oma Desala guarded shifu there, give the standard information about isis and osirus and seth and how they found the planet and how in "the warrior" it was used as "heaven" for Imhotep's cult like following. Just saying, it's not really going to get in the way, because no definitions should refer to that many crappy planets if they are really that crappy. The stuff should be added to independant lists and moved to the stargate page, and ref'ed from both the show and the main pages. - tatarize 30 Jun 2004

Something like List of planets in the Stargate universe would be the best place for a huge list of one-liners about the various P3Xes and whatnot, with the handful of "special" planets like Chulak getting links but the rest without. The list would probably be too long to include in a general article like this one. Bryan 04:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cast list

[was==POV in time==]
It seems to me that the fate of Colonel Simmons can be left to his (as yet hypothetical) page. It's kind of a spoiler to put it up front like that. But when I was making the table, I wondered about the changing ranks. E.g., should Carter be listed as Capt, Lt Col, or Capt–Lt Col? And while going through the pages yesterday I noticed that some present the material in the past tense, and some in the present. Should we be viewing events from a particular time: "as of the end of Season N", or put it all in the past?
--wwoods 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that characters whose ranks have varied should have all ranks listed, with the seasons during which they held the rank specified. Material should be written in the past tense.

Acegikmo1 19:34, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I can see it now. -

Capt. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (101-303)
Maj. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (303-80...something)
Lt. Col. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (80... onward)

Actually not that ugly, though it does seem redundant. - Tatarize 7-3-2004

Hmmm, that's not what I was thinking of. Actually, I'm not really sure what I imagined. In any case, I like it. What do you think of:

Capt. (101-303)	Samantha Carter -	Amanda Tapping
Maj. (303-80?)
Lt. Col. (80?-???)

Acegikmo1 17:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	Major Characters
•	Maj Gen	George Hammond	– Don S. Davis
•	Brig Gen	Jack O'Neill	– Richard Dean Anderson
•	Col	(101-80?)
•	Lt Col	Samantha Carter	– Amanda Tapping
•	Maj	(303-80?)
•	Capt	(101-303)
•	Dr.	Daniel Jackson	– Michael Shanks
•		Teal'c	– Christopher Judge
•		Jonas Quinn	– Corin Nemec
•	Dr.	Janet Fraiser	– Teryl Rothery

Even seeing it like that doesn't make me sure, still looks sorta odd. I dunno, up to you folks. My rule of checking what Star Trek does and stealing their formatting and hoping its fine. Several members of the crew in TNG were promoted. Lt. Cmd. Data for example, was listed with his final rank. Though, if listing all the ranks they held, that's pretty much the way you'd have to do it. Although I wonder about adding Carter's Dr. title, she preferred her millitary rank so maybe just calling her Lt Col Samantha Carter, PhD... nah that's way worse. ... totally wish I knew how to do that automatic sign... - Tatarize 7-7-04

Perhaps if it makes the table too messy we could just leave the ranks out entirely, leaving it up to the individual articles themselves to explain what their ranks have been over the history of the show. Alternately, just go with the most recent rank; these characters have presumably passed through a whole lot of other ranks on their way to where they are now, the only reason we're considering listing the ones you mention above is because they happened to pass through them on-camera. :) (PS: to do the signature thing type three tildes to just add your name and four to add your name plus the current time and date; ~~~~) Bryan 15:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plus if ranks were skipped there wouldn't be a need to change Thor's rank to "Supreme Commander of the Asgard Fleet" which would mess up the table. Tatarize 23:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of this:

Rank	Character	Actor
Brig. Gen. (80?-???)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Col. (101-80?)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Capt. (101-303)	Samantha Carter	Amanda Tapping
Maj. (303-80?)
Lt. Col. (80?-???)

Or even

Rank	Character	Actor
Brig. Gen. (80?-???) Col. (101-80?)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Capt. (101-303) Maj. (303-80?) Lt. Col. (80?-???)	Samantha Carter	Amanda Tapping

Acegikmo1 18:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edward Tufte would probably object to putting the info behind bars. I think it's just a cast list; all that's required is

<CharacterName> -- <ActorName>

Prefacing a name with a title or salutation is conventional but the character's CV should go on his own page. Or alternately we should have a list of characters like the lists of races:

CharacterName -- (played by ActorName)
- Got involved with the Stargate program somehow. Did thus and such. ~~Was eaten by a giant snake.~~ (Sorry, I've been watching Buffy recently, while waiting for Stargate, Season 7)

--wwoods 19:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Description of the Show and Star Trek Franchise

I don't know the actual article in question, but a while back star trek reference was changed to franchise, which might actually not be correct. Franchise-wise I think Star Trek has leaps and bounds more fans base. I think it might have been primariy referring to TOS. Though, I am not sure. I think think that in a few days that info will be too old to use anyhow, as S8 is starting on 9th, and Atlantis is starting on the 16th. In any event that information is old and probally should be scratched. First air date, reference perhaps the seasons list, not sure what else, but those boring dates hardly kick off a blanket introduction before the premise paragraph is set. That and perhaps a reference to the francise page. - Tatarize

Odd duplication

This article has some wierd duplication of information problems. I think something went wonky and copied the article on top of itself or something... -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Episodes?

I've noticed that Stargate Atlantis has articles for each episode that has aired. Would it be appropriate to begin to do that for Stargate SG-1? -KorbenDirewolf 20:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea is good, but take a look at this. I'm doing work on episodes of X-Files, check here, and it's not easy. SG-1 has aired 7.5 seasons, so this would be some hard work to do. Solver 20:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you're right.. I'll have a look at that and at how the Atlantis episodes were organized. Maybe I should check out some other longer running series and see what they've done.KorbenDirewolf 20:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Generally, the Atlantis episode articles don't contain much. Maybe it's a better idea then to have one page for the entire season, as with X-Files above. Makes it for less articles that are very small. Also, makes the big season page look good even if only a couple episodes are filled in. Solver

The general convention that has been applied to several other TV series is that once an article on an episode is written, it is linked from the episode list. For example, if you look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, you'll see that only one episode has an article about it ("Wormhole X-Treme!"). If someone writes an article about, say, "Exodus", then it will be linked from the episode list page (and possibly the main article page). This format has been used successfully on Star Trek: Enterprise.

Acegikmo1 20:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I started doing with X-Files, creating a separate article for each ep and filling it with some details. More than a paragraph or two, actually. But then it was suggested that the whole thing is made on one big season page, as is now. Solver

I prefer the separate article format myself, especially if the content is more than just a brief summary. If there is significant information about a single episode, I think that episode deserves its own page. Usually, fans write about episodes that are very popular or very important to the series, and using separate pages for separate episodes has worked on series like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Acegikmo1 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see that there may be some problem with that method. "Thor's Hammer" and "Prometheus" are episode titles as well as technologies that are used more than once. I think I'll wait a while and see what some more people have to say about this. I do have around 15 episode articles I wrote for other purposes, but would have to seriously rewrite then before they would be appropriate here.KorbenDirewolf

That's a reasonable concern, but Wikipedia's disambiguation policies take care of it. For example, there is an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise called "Azati Prime". However, Azati Prime is also the name of a significant planet in Enterprise fiction. As such, the page Azati Prime describes the planet, while the page Azati Prime (ENT) describes the episode. Such a method could be applied to Stargate SG-1 as well (e.g. "Prometheus (Stargate SG-1 episode)" and Prometheus (ship). Acegikmo1 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess that would probably work. I'll just create the episode (or maybe season) articles for what I have once I get them rewritten. Thanks to everyone for the input.KorbenDirewolf

Okay, I've posted one of my rewritten articles on my User page. I still think it may be a bit long and probably still POV. Any ideas on what I could do to make it better?KorbenDirewolf 00:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I can't spot any significant POV at first glance. You did misspell O'Neill's name throughout, however. :) Bryan 08:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugh..I almost always do first time through somethine. "I" before "E" and all that stuff.KorbenDirewolf

Misc. questions for general edit

So, I'm going through, fixing typos, sprucing up grammar, and generally improving readability, and I have questions. Quite a lot of them, actually.

From the first paragraph:

"The show has undeniable popularity, in part because—unlike other sci-fi franchises such as Star Trek or Babylon 5 — it is set in the present day."

Is this really necessary, or even necessarily true? The sentence is awkward, I don't know how to fix it, and it sounds an awfully lot like someone's opinion. Can anyone vouch for this as a motivation of a sizable portion of the fan base?

Moving to the summary:

"The Stargate's very existence and all of its activities are operated as SCI-classified ("Sensitive Compartmented Information"), utilizing a covert top secret cover."

Obviously the fact that the whole thing is classified is significant, but does the official term matter? Do they even mention it in the series? (Again, an awkward sentence. It'd be easiest to just take out the SCI bit, but of course I don't want to remove relevant information.) And, is there some military significance to "covert top secret cover," because to me it just sounds redundant.

Can anyone think of a reason why the second paragraph shouldn't be written "Led by Brigadier General Jack O'Neill..." with susquent changes? I know it's hard to think of the Stargate Command without Hammond in charge, but the change is well-established at this point. Since there's a spoiler warning, I can't think of any reason why the article shouldn't be completely up-to-date.

The first line of the Summary section was originally this: "See Stargate for a more general summary of the universe this series is set within." I'm keeping it here because I haven't figured out how it make it sound right, yet.

And... actually, that's as far as I got before getting distracted by another article.

The folks who've worked on this article have done great work, by the way.

-Salli 20:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)