Misplaced Pages

Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 4

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Stargate SG-1

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Matthew (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 11 January 2007 (rvt. edits by Avt Tor - user doctored message.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:34, 11 January 2007 by Matthew (talk | contribs) (rvt. edits by Avt Tor - user doctored message.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Stargateproject Template:WP1.0 Arts

Good articlesStargate SG-1/Archive 4 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.
WikiProject iconEgypt NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Replicators

"The Replicators are a product of a humanoid android who was created by a human (most probably Alteran) scientist." In atlantis it reveals that they built them to defeat the warith. Peachey88 10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I split it into a seperate article, leaving some high points here, to get the article back within size regulations. 21:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Season 7 spoiler in season 5 section?

As an anon edit just pointed out, Anubis's fallen state isn't revealed until later, yet we mention it in season 5. Should we modify this? JoshuaZ 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Season summaries

The seasons summaries are hardly season summaries at all. They just point out events that happen in the season and say what happens in relation to those events in future seasons. Most of the season summaries mention things that happen in future seasons, instead of retreading the events of the season itself. This needs to be changed. A few months ago I could have written them, but I don't remember the plotline of each season completely. bob rulz 00:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed a rewrite needed, but remember this page is meant to be an overall summary - we do NOT want a detailed summary season-by-season. Each season section should ideally have a brief outline of the major events and arcs of that Season, placing it in context with the whole. Brevity is a virtue here. Remember that we also have List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and articles for every episode.-- Alfakim --  talk  20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't go into too much detail, but I am a firm believer in good summaries in addition to detailed descriptions on subpages. Too many things on Misplaced Pages have short, insufficient summaries on the main page followed by in-depth articles that take a long time to read. No, it shouldn't be excessive, but I believe that the season summaries can be summed up in one paragraph better than they are now. bob rulz 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the best form of summary would be more like setting up the stage of things. Rather than tell us what happened in the series, tell us what has already happened to build up to this point, and what may or may not happen. Spoilers are well and fine, inside of episode summaries, but not in season summaries. -Emhilradim 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Jackson's sacrifice

"The scene where Daniel Jackson prevents a naquadria explosion with the use of his hands is possibly an allusion to an actual, similar accident involving Louis Slotin in the Manhattan Project." Would it be correct to say it is also reminisent of Spock's sacrifice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?

Not really, seeing as the incident is almost exactly like Slotin's and it occurs on a planet which is at the same level of development.--70.23.139.250 21:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

External link request

Could we add Addcontent.net to the external links section? It is a fan-run site about stargate, and it has a lot of info. I think the link would add to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.27.234 (talk • contribs) 00:47, May 30, 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm guessing you were reverted because the name "Addcontent.net" sounds like an advertising site, or at least something non-scifi/Stargate related, and the reverter didn't bother to click on the link. Armedblowfish (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no. Misplaced Pages is not an advertising website. We can't just add a billion fan sites to the links section. See Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Splintercellguy 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ya but isn't the wikipedia made better by having links to sites related to its articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs) .
No it isn't. because if you have one, everyone wants to add their site, and that's a problem. The best links to have are ones to link directories, such as open directory etc. Please note I've seen this addcontent site trying to be inserted repeatedly here and other stargate pages. This is now becoming spam linking. If this continues, the site may be blacklisted as spam linker, this would mean that no page on English Misplaced Pages or its sister projects could link to it (links would be rejected on attempted saves). If we link to any sites it should be more notable and better ones than this (though I'd prefer one or two directories). CaptainJ 17:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Link directories are crap. Anyone can put links in them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
And that is exactly why we shouldn't let anyone put links willy-nilly in Misplaced Pages articles! A link to a link directory lets anyone put a link one step away from Misplaced Pages. One link from us, to a site where there are a dozen links. Incidentally, the open directory project does have some criteria for accepting links (i.e. not just anyone can add one), but it still has excessive links. CaptainJ 07:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
How is it one step away? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.254.37 (talk • contribs)

I can see where this is going. Remember we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Answering your question does not add value to this encyclopedia. Adding a link to your site (hardly one of the top fan sites) does not add value to this encyclopedia. I won't engage in any more of this discussion, unless it is about making valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. CaptainJ 13:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


What about a link to GateWorld --65.164.18.178 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Longest Running Sci-Fi serial?

The article says:

On October 24, 2005 Stargate SG-1 was renewed for an unprecedented tenth season. This will make Stargate the longest running science fiction television show and the longest running cable show in U.S. television history.

--

What about Dr Who List_of_Doctor_Who_serials - which has been going (on and off) for significantly longer - both in terms of seasons and duration?

Does the "US television history" portion refer to both durations, or just the cable show part?

Dugo 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably both. GusF 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are three ways of answering this question

  1. The page you linked to lists less than 200 episodes. By the end of stargate's 10th season it will have more total episodes.
  2. Doctor is a universe devided into sevral subseries (which can be considered diffrent shows). Just like the Star Trek unievrse has TOS, TNG, DS9 Voyager and enterprise, Stargate has Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. Stargate SG-1 is one show. One series, making it last far longer than any subsiries of Doctor who or Star Trek.
  3. Doctor who is a british show and has only aried in the US recently, making stargate the longest running US show. Tobyk777 08:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a few corrections to this: 1) the numbers you were looking at as episodes actually refer to story arcs. There have been about 720 individual episodes of Doctor Who, it's just that many of them were multi-part stories. 2) Doctor Who isn't divided into many shows, like Star Trek was. It's one show that's been revived, but not in a spin-off format. The original ran from 1963 to 1989, then a TV movie was made in 1996, and now the new series began in 2005. You could conceivably make an argument that these are all different "shows," but the creators and the fans all consider it the same (and in any event, the original run is certainly one show). 3) The new Doctor Who has only recently begun airing on the Sci-Fi channel, but the original series has run off and on on PBS stations in the US since 1972. --Brian Olsen 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

pwned

change it to "On October 24, 2005, Stargate SG-1 was renewed for an unprecedented tenth season. This will make Stargate the longest running original science fiction television show and the longest running original cable show in U.S. television history." since reruns of doctor who have been playing on PBS, this might clear it up seeing as how Doctor Who isnt an original program of PBS... -Xornok 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Where is the article's main picture from? For some reason I don't recall SG-1 wearing those uniforms... --Tim4christ17 08:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhh ... could it be the 1st Season? :-) --Dennette 10:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That could explain it - I haven't seen the 1st Season in a while. --Tim4christ17 07:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Series/Movie Continuation

The following is in this article and has been popping up in other articles..

"Because of these differences, some fans of the film consider the television series as its own separate entity, rather than a proper sequel to the film. Using some of Emmerich's notes, Bill McCay wrote a series of five novels continuing the story the original creators had envisioned."

This version is much better in terms of NPOV terms but I still question whether or not it should be included. It is definitely original research and point of view but it is a POV that I would say most people agree with to a degree. So what does everyone think? Konman72 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Until I'd seen the mentions in Misplaced Pages about it, it'd never occured to me to think of SG-1 and Atlantis as anything other than a continuation of the movie. Yes, there were some minor discrepancies - but there will always be discrepancies in developing works. Rather, I'd thought of the Stargate Movie/SG1/Atlantis works to be part of one canon, and the Stargate movie/novelization/sequel books to be a separate canon. One work (the movie) existing separately in two canons. --Tim4christ17 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


I read on Aint It Cool News that 2 more Stargate films are in the works. The new films will be based on the original movie, and that the television series should be considered an alternate reality of the Stargate universe. Lobot72 12:55, 13 August 2006

External links

I added RDAnderson.com. It has a large database. PrometheusX303 15:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 cancelled according to GateWorld

Who ever it is that keeps putting the petition on the main article please stop! It'll only be reverted to the last good edit. WP articles are not the place for petitions. I like the series as much as anyone else but I dont need to see petitions to save a dying show each time i check this article. SimonD 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You might as well just accept that people will keep putting it up, when they feel so strongly. It probably best to allow the most accurate (least crazy) petition details. Otherwise your documentation of the phenomenon of Stargate is incomplete.

It is already linked here, no need for it on the article it will be reverted each time, I will request a temp edit block to anon posters if it continues SimonD 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.gateworld.net/news/2006/08/istargate_sg-1i_cancelled_iatlan.shtml

Nooooo!!!!! OMG sign the petition - http://www-dot-ipetitions-dot-com/petition/Stargate/index.html Morphh 21:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Misplaced Pages's spam filter (of all things) obliged me to disable the ipetitions link. Avt tor 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest, no petition can save Stargate. Stargate was in its twilight years no matter what. Every year it became progressively more expensive to produce because everyone's sallarys got a bump. After 10 years, those costs started wearing into the profits. Combined with other factors, Stargate was bound to fade off. SG1 is finishing its long run, and its time this horse get a chance to rest. Alyeska 21:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
All the same, I'd like it to go on just 1 more season. They're certainly not going to be able to tie up the current plot by the end of season 10. HaganeNoKokoro 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
They can tie it up in a single episode ... the Ancients step in and wipe out all ascended beings, including themselves, in a noble act of self-sacrifice. Problem solved. :-) --Dennette 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
So cliff hang it and do a miniseries. Alyeska 23:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The producer says the series will go on, we'll just have to see how. Source. Orta 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This sucks MarineCorps 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Stargate is the best TV show of all time, how can we let it end?!!?!?!?!? My reasoning for why it's the producers fault is here on the stargate project talk pages. There is a similar thread there. Tobyk777 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just can't believe this! I haven't known a time without Stargate (at least new eps) in 10 years! I've watched it since the beginning and this will take some getting used to! And why cancel it RIGHT after the 200th episode? To secure their place in the records books for longest Sci Fi series maybe? Also, 200 got a 1.9 rating which is the highest since the mid season 9 2 parter. I am thinking the best bet is a miniseries or movie of some kind. But the good news is that MGM wants it to continue beyond season 10 so it's possible another network will pick it up, although unlikely, it has happend before.

Faris b 07:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Secure their place"?!? Not even close... solid second, of course, but I'm not sure anything will ever surpass Doctor Who's run. (Any ideas on what the top five are?) --Ckatzspy 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Doctor Who's run is up for debate tho, it hasnt been on every single year and it hasnt been the same series since it first came on.... its kinda like saying star trek is the longest running show.... if you count them all together.... -Xornok 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Even without the 2005/2006 episodes, it's still the longest-running series, with (if memory serves) 695 episodes running continuously from 1963 to 1989. --Ckatzspy 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As for SG-1, isn't it premature to list "2007" in the actors timelines? While the series may have officially been cancelled, and the episodes scheduled for 2007, I think the date should still be listed as "present" (or something similar). --Ckatzspy 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ive changed it back to "'present" for now. Also the series is not actually discontinued till MGM (who owns the series) says it is. SCI-FI just wont be airing it beyond season 10. Lets not jump the gun. -- Rafy08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Humans from Earth?

It seems what we've learned from the Dakara superweapon deal, is that it was used to recreate life in the galaxy after the plague, but this contradicts what we learned from Teal'c (and the few things kept as canon from the movie) that the Goa'uld found the "first world - the Tau'ri" where all humans came from to other planets by the Goa'uld, if you take the Ancients' account as fact & the Goa'uld as lies then the Ancients are correct most likely and all other worlds ALREADY HAD humans on them. Which is it? Am I missing something here? Faris b 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC) There is not necessarily a contradiction. Given that a plague wiped out the Ancients, and that the weapon at Dakara was capable of (and we're told responsible for) seeding the galaxy for life after the ancients were gone; then we can assume that is what happened. The seeding resulted in a second evolution of humans on Earth, the Goa'uld, and other life forms. The Unas we are told were the first hosts of the Goa'uld. It is possible and likely they stumbled across humans on Earth, enslaved some, and the rest is as you say history. Mwhope 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

Quick observation/question: since technically SG-1 is an ongoing series (though that may change soon), shouldn't the infobox image be an image of the current cast? We can move the old cast image elsewhere on the page (and add one of the season 6 cast, since Corin Nemec doesn't appear elsewhere). Virogtheconq 13:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Guess now would be a good time to change it since it was removed for sourcing questions. Morphh 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The infobox image should really be from the titles of the show like on the Stargate Atlantis page.--NeilEvans 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No more SG1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont know what to say other than I have enjoyed watching SG1 and it will be sad to see it go. At least theres still Atlantis. --HeavyAmp 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that 200th episode shows that they're giving up and throwing in the towel. Not to mention that the Atlantis episode was tired and played out. As much as I loved the show, I think they're done. --Matt 02:49, 23 August 2006

You do know that the 200th episode was supposed to be funny. I understand not getting the joke, and not thinking it was funny, but to think that it is evidence that they are "throwing in the towel" is totally absurd. Konman72 06:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it isnt a joke :( http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=2&id=37607 --HeavyAmp 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not worrying about it. It still has 10 more GREAT episodes coming, Stargate Atlantis is still running strong (and hopefully for another 7 years like SG-1), another movie coming in a few years (as the rights have been sold for another movie), and producers say that another series might start on another channel (or another channel might pick up SG-1, either way). So even if SG-1 ends, there is still another movie and an ongoing series to keep the franchise going strong.- User:cjpwes

Stop with the online petitions!

People, the reasons your edits regarding online petitions keep getting reverted is the sheer fact that they are NOT taken seriously by networks because of the fact that a few choice people sign it about a couple hundred times. Even if you get a million sigs, sci fi will not care because it's an online petition. If you want results, make a REAL petition and try to get about a 1000 sigs THEN send it to scifi, if several people do this, it'll be taken seriously. I've seen petitions for cancelled shows in the past with over 200000 sigs and it didn't work.

Read internet Petition for more info on how they are not taken seriously.

Faris b 04:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also please stop putting 'savesg1' websites up, the producers have already announced SG-1 is ending BUT a new series might start, for god sake stop beating a dead horse it's been around for over 10yrs! Thats pretty good for a Sci-Fi series. SimonD 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included as it is part of the cancellation. It is also beneficial and of interest to the reader (regardless of how you may feel about the series ending - good or not). However, it should be worded correctly and the link should be a reference and not a embedded web link - possibly also as an external link. Perhaps the effort is futile but it is what it is - part of the Stargate story and its fan base. Morphh 14:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
While the fan effort to save the show in general might be notable, another problem is that no particular fansite is notable. Online petition and support groups are a dime a dozen. Mucus 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it appears (if you simply look at the hit counts) that savestargatesg1.com is pulling ahead as the main site/nerve center for the campaign. As such, I think a link should be included. I agree that no petition site is particularily notable, though. 70.128.139.69

In response to Mucus's statement that "there is no particular fansite is notable" is false, as GateWorld has an entire article promoting the fansite Savestargatesg-1.com

I am aware of that, but I am a HUGE Stargate/Atlantis fan so don't preach to me after I say this.

There is NOTHING more shameful than to see a great show like Stargate have these "Save Stargate!!" links, it just looks bad, they aren't going to help, if I thought there was a chance in hell that Sci Fi would renew it, I would be at the front line rallying for it. I have experience with these things with several other hit shows that were cancelled by the networks.

Faris b 03:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Almost all online petitons are fardulent. Right now I could sign the petiton 2000 times. It would do nothing. The way to save it is to have people send physical paper letters and cards and things. That way, they know 2000 couldn't have been sent by the same person. Internet petitions are not taken seriously. Also, to have the article begging for support, makes the show seem unpopular and unsupported, both of which are false. I am as big of a Stargate fan as exists and I want the show to be saved more than anyone. I am rallying letter writing and other things among my friends. The online route will not work. Don't make the Gate community look desprate and helpless by begging in the article. Tobyk777 06:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tobyk and Faris, to have the link makes the show look bad. Perhaps, as Morphh said, it could be used as a reference rather than a direct link. So basically, "fans have formed websites devoted to saving the show." Rather than, "click here to help save SG-1. This way the we aren't censoring the article (since the fact that fans have formed "Save SG-1" sites is notable), and we aren't advertising the site/movement. Konman72 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. I say we execute it imidiately. Tobyk777 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that is exactly what I thought. Yes, the other route of "fans have formed a website.." sounds infinitely much better. But still, I think it's a waist of time to even put those links on there. Why do online petitions even exist in the first place though? You would think it is pretty clear by now that they are futile.

Faris b 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not our place to worry about how futile online petitions are. They exist and they are a significant part of the story, so we have to mention them. Only including things that are likely to make a difference is OR. --Tango 07:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that they are futile, but this one is still notable. I have yet to see another save Stargate petition even get advertised, so it is the main one, and it has a large amount of signatures. Just say, "Fans have begun trying to rally support to save the show" and then reference both the petition and savestargatesg1.com and we will prevent censoring (to make the show look better) and include all notable material. Konman72 18:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think your change is the way to do it. Looks good Morphh 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Tango, what you are describing is actually NPOV, not OR.
The fan reaction via petition is OR. We need some magazine article or something that says "and fans made lots of petitions to help save Stargate" for it to not be OR. OR isn't about being true or not, it's about having the information previously published, etc. No matter how much I love Stargate and want to support every effort to save it (I even went and signed that online petition, even though I agree that it will likely not do anything), this is Misplaced Pages, and OR is a policy. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then just cite the gateworld article about the website. Gateworld is a reliable source and all the information is pertinent. Konman72 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

End Date

Okay folks lets stop crystal balling on the end date. Yes Sci-fi has not renewed the series. Doesn't mean its dead, or that the end episode will be shown in July. Lets keep the article accurate, and not speculate okay?? EnsRedShirt 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it couldn't have last aired in 2007 when it's still 2006. PrometheusX303 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That probably comes from IMDB, they're listed the last episode air date as somewhere in may, 2007. Don't panic though, remember showtime dropped SG-1 as well, and it only took 2 months for Scifi to pick it up. - 59.167.38.13 01:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes off

I was checking around the episode guide and doing a a little counting. I also went to gate world and double checked. I took into account that some episodes were aired out of order. At the end of Season 9 it looks like the count is at 193. GateWorld lists only 17 episodes so far for Season 10. Yes yes, this means there is something up with the how 200 is the 200th episode including that it may have been shown out of order.

It appears that some folks are counting 2 parters (that were already given their own distinct episode numbers) and adding wrong. It could also be that they are counting "Children of the Gods as 2 episodes despite that its episode number is 01-01 and the next episode is 01-02. It aired on Showtime as a single episode folks. The fact that it was re-run and broken up on SciFi doesn't change this. Lost City is another. Nope sorry 07-21 and 07-22.

So if we take 193 (Seasons 1-9) +17 episodes of Season 10 that are listed at GateWorld...well you do the math. Unless someone can shed some light on this it should be corrected. I'll leave it for now, just in case. TheDevilYouKnow 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, 2-parters, whether shown together or not, make up two episodes... COTG is 1.01a and 1.01b... therefore being 2 different episode... just cause you dont count like that does not change the fact that it is counted that way. 200 was the 200th episode... -Xornok 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So it's being counted as how it aired on SciFi (this 1-01a and 1-01b nonsense)? The pilot aired on Showtime as a single episode. Since the original channel listing is Showtime it would be counted as a single episode.
no, its being counted as the writers, producers, etc count them... you think they're all wrong and played the 200th episode one episode too early? right, cause im gonna go with your method of counting over the way people actually involved with the show count -Xornok 21:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Scifi - what gives?

What the hell is wrong with scifi that they're attempting to block MGM from selling the rights of Stargate to another network? Would it happen to be because they KNOW it'll do good and they don't want to loose money? Then why aren't they giving season 11 the go? What's 20 mil a season when you take in the account of the syndication bonuses and DVD sales and such?

Faris b 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree they're being stupid jerks right now. Tobyk777 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Driving towards a wall

Well, even if we did get a season 11, the show is basically driven itself into a wall now, all of the SGC's allies are going to be Ori-fied/killed it seems.

So far:

  • Chulak overtaken
  • Dakara destroyed - Jaffa nation is fractured
  • Langara (Jonas planet) overtaken, which most likely means that Jonas is dead as he would never bow to the Ori
  • The advanced Hebridans have been overtaken as well, which means they've been reduced from a society 200 years ahead of Earth to peasants
  • This whole easy win "anti-Ori weapon" thing makes it too easy. I mean, what if there was an "easy button" for defeating the Goa'uld from the start?
  • The Ori being too unbeatable, I mean a dozen Ha'tak, 2 Daedalus class ships and an Asgard ship couldn't even stratch them, that's too powerful.
  • The Sodan destroyed; although, I suspect they were only introduced as a plot device for those few episodes because I'm sure Teal'c would have mentioned them at least by season 7 if they were so "legendary".
  • The Jaffa losing Ha'tak like crazy, at my count they've lost about 19 so far (assuming they have about 100 or so) and the fact that a Ha'tak can be taken out with ONE hit is rediculous.
  • Earth making 4 ships in 4 years and having 2 of them be destroyed by the SAME enemy in the same year.
  • Adria having that shield that can block the Dakara device's energy, it was stated in "Threads" that no shield of any kind would prevent it's effects from working, wasn't it? I know it would have been too soon to kill her but they could have said it was a lookalike or something that got killed, I know, it sounds rediculous too but at least I'm thinking, unlike the writers.

I'm sure there are other things I'm forgetting at the moment but I'm guessing at the end of the season, Earth'll have no allies except the Asgard and possibly the Nox left as everyone else will probably be destroyed.

Tell me, WHY do these stupid writers have to destroy everything when they think the show is going to end/actually ending? Why not end it on a good note (The galaxy is safe and happy, no Goa'uld/Ori/Wraith or anything). Why are they going to have the whole galaxy ravaged except Earth?

And here is what I expect to happen at the end of season 10:

  • Earth is out of drones in the Ancient outpost
  • Ancient outpost destroyed just like Dakara
  • Chulak pulverized
  • Number of Jaffa left no more than the number of Tok'ra left
  • All Earth allies dead except for the Asgard and possibly Nox
  • They won't find the Anti-Ori weapon but yet another stupid clue that leads to a dead end
  • Ba'al will remain alive and hiding somewhere (Not that I wan't Ba'al gone but they're going nowhere with that storyline, either make him an Earth Ally or just leave him be)
  • Possibly one more Earth ship but it'll probably be destroyed as well.

I mean, think of all the friends Earth made over the past 10 years, now all these folks will be gone, I know most people don't care but I do:

Land of Light people
Cartago (sort of)
Countless other planets with primitives
Cimmeria
K'Tau
Juna
Latona (but they might not be destroyed as they have the Sentinel)
Salish planet (but they might also have some means of defeating the Ori)
The people that were in that dome to protect against the toxic atmosphere (Revisions) they were relocated so they are probably doomed now, they would have at least had half a chance if they were hidden in the dome.
P7J-989 people (with the virtual reality chambers) destroyed

Anyone else have any thoughs?

Not to mention the other potential allies like the Tolen, who could've been a BIG help. Also you might consider the Unas as manpower in fighting the Ori, though i'm not sure how far that'd go. Plus with the possibility of seeing the Furlings, they too could be wiped out... personally I'd almost be interested in a show similar to star trek's DS9, where we could see beyond the first line of defense / first encounter and deal more with establishing ties with the other worlds.

Faris b 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're going towards a wall. While most of the stuff you said is true, the whole point of the current plotline is that devastation is supposed to happen. Stargate has never had a sad ending. The writers are going to find some way to kill the Ori and save the galaxy by the end of season ten. THEY KILLED THE REPLICATORS AND GOA'ULD IN ONE EPISODE. THEY COULD EASLIY DO THAT WITH THE ORI. The worse the situation, the better SG-1's final acomplishment of dfeating the Ori will be. I think they want the situation to seem horrible, so in the finale of season ten, SG-1 won't just go out with a bang, it will be a nuke. Tobyk777 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty stupid to destroy every ally the SGC has made over the past 10 years in 1 season, why do they do this? So that no one in the future can ressurect the show like the original Star Trek was? Because the ST movies would have been borderline impossible if they defeated the Romulans and Klingons by season 3. Why does Stargate have to do the opposite? Sure they expressed interest in a movie but they'll never be able to have more than 1 if they keep this up.

What about the Orbanians and the Galarans and such? If it wasn't for the former, Earth wouldn't have Naqahdah generators. They're advanced, I'm sure they'll be destroyed as well, but there's a chance they won't, Adria said the galaxy would be converted in a year, I guess if they get lucky, they might not be destroyed. I don't know, I just hate to see every good race that SG-1 came across be destroyed.

Faris b 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site! This discussion page is for discussion editorial issues about the main article, not fancruft like this. Please take these kinds of speculations someplace else. --Dennette 05:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What's wrong with a discussion about the direction the show is going?

Faris b 05:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. We are having a lagitamate discussion. I see no problem with talking about something here. Ignore this guy and feel free to repspond to what I said. Tobyk777 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said above,I don't like them destroying everyone in the galaxy except Earth. I mean, unless the ships will shut down when the Ori are defeated, there is still the need to destroy their ships and such. Yeah, I wasn't a fan of the way they killed the Goa'uld, I was hoping for an all-out assault on the system lords by Earth, the Tok'ra, Asgard and the rebel Jaffa, as in a massive space war or something like that, not the replicators destroying the Goa'uld then Earth destroying the replicators. Sure that was pretty interesting, as I always wanted to see Replicators vs. the Goa'uld. I still have a hard time believing that not one single replicator remained behind in the Asgard galaxy. And where the heck is Thor these days? We haven't seen him since season 8. Kvasir seems to be his replacement.

Faris b 06:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

SG character articles up for deletion

Just an FYI that someone has nominated Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) for deletion, and is apparently fighting tooth and nail in regards to it, attempting to swing things in terms of policy which appear inaccurate.

The full AfD is here. rootology (T) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is that guy's problem?? Does he hate the show that badly??

How can this argument even hold weight? Why not just have admins dismiss it or something?

Faris b 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

seasons thought to be the last?

I seem to recall their being a blurb in this article, at some point, about how all of the season finales of SG-1 were expected to be the last, with a few exceptions. I tried looking in the history for a version that had this, but I can't find it. Was it ever on wikipedia, is it even true, or is my memory just playing tricks with me? TerraFrost 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

season 5 was a finale before skiffy picked it up, then season 7 and season 8 were both suppose to be the series finale, but it got picked up again, season 9 was written as if it was getting picked up, but they didnt know at the time... i thought this info used to be on wikipedia before... -Xornok 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that ALL seasons on scifi were thought to be the last and no, season 9 was also set up that way, they didn't show which Earth ship was destroyed until part 2 because if the show wasn't picked up, they could say it was either ship that fit the storyline and say that Sam was killed in that space suit and that Mitchell didn't make it, that's why it was set up that way so that either way could happen. And you forget, season 6 was also supposedly the last as well, that's why they had Abydos be destroyed, one of those "doom" ending that I hate.


Now I have asked this numerous times but never got an answer:

WHY do the writers make these stupid "doom" changes that someone or something in the show is destroyed?? Do they fear that someone else will pick up where they left off and make something even better? I mean, take a look at their track record; this is just a guess but it's a good one that would have been explained either on gateworld or another site or in a bad movie of some sort:

Season 5
Thor could have possibly died (YES he could have, please don't say they could have recloned him as that wasn't established until that very same ep and they could have easily said that they couldn't do it another time.
Daniel died (they could have said he just plain died if the show wasn't renewed).
Season 6:
Abydos and everyone on it died.
Season 7:
Dr. Fraiser died which was the WORST person to kill off at the time, it took 3 years to get a new permanent Doctor and now the actress is on maternity leave for most of the season.
Anubis killed (they could have said that it was enough to kill him if the show wasn't picked up.
Jack being in statis at the end could have been changed to him being killed when he was revived if the show wasn't renewed. Season 8:
The stupid "General O'Neill" year as I like to call season 8 was the first hint that they thought it was the last.
RepliCarter killed, that could have been a GREAT storyline if they didn't rush things.
All the Goa'uld defeated except for Ba'al, they did this because they thought the show was over so they had to make up the Ori.
The whole Moebius time travel fuss, they could have just said that the original SG-1 wa stuck in Ancient Egypt and said the end of the ep was an alternate SG-1 instead of the other way around if it wans't picked up.
Season 9:
Bringing in Louis Gosset, Jr, Ben Browder, Claudia Black and Beau Bridges was obviously a ratings ploy.
Killing off the best thing ever discovered since the Asgard, the Sodan, they could have gone a great way back 2 years ago when the Jaffa rebellion was in full swing but they have to wipe them out in the 3rd episode to feature them! Lord Haikon doesn't count because a single man can't ressurect a dead society. The whole Camelot thing where the Milky Way fleet was decimated, they could have said as I said above made everyone die instead of letting the main cast live and say the Ori targeted Earth and wiped it out right away.
Season 10:
Adding Claudia Black as a fulltime cast member, while I do enjoy her being on the show, it's another ratings ploy.
Having Chulak fall to the Ori is another one of those "doom changes" I talked about above.
Destroying Dakara and fracturing the Jaffa nation.
The end of the season is likely to be something simmilar to last year but this time it'll be the alternative I bet.

Hope everyone took the time to read that, if you forgot, my initial point was WHY THE HECK do the writers do those "doom changes" every year? I mean, what would have happened if they doomed Star Trek back in it's 3rd season (original Star Trek that is)? There would have been no movies or anything, why are the Stargate people doing the opposite? Sure they want a movie but 5 more would be better. I mean, there are so many things they could explore in the movies, finding the REAL Furlings, freeing the the people in the Ori galaxy because how will they know the Ori are gone? Destroying Celestis, exploring the other 2000+ planets in the database etc..

Faris b 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The reckoning breaking neilson ratings

In the last paragraph of the intro, it says that the 8th season, particualrly Template:Sgcite broke nielsen ratings for Sci-fi. I find this sentence vague and inplausible. Despite being one the best SG-1s of all time, (In both my opnion and fan polls) I don't think the ratings could have been that high. Could someone find a source for this statment. I thought that ref 2 sourced it but it didn't. Even if the fact is true we need to reword that sentence. Tobyk777 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It says it broke records for the Sci-Fi channel. SG-1 is widely regarded as one of the best shows on the Sci-Fi channel, so it's not that suprising that is gets the best ratings... --12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More online petitions that need to go

Someone put an online petition in the Planets in Stargate article. As I also put up save Stargate petitions at one time and the fact that I support these SaveStargate sites, I want someone else to get rid of it.Skynet1216 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Morphh 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD Releases

which moron moved this to the trivia section, and could somebody move it back --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnp001 (talk • contribs)

Please read: Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Misplaced Pages:Be bold. Thanks and welcome to Misplaced Pages. --Tango 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Should the savestargatesg1.com campaign be mentioned?

I've been having a length discussion on my talk page with InShaneee about the matter, and we're getting nowhere. Can the rest of the people watching this page give their opinions, please. I think most of the points have been discussed somewhere already, so lets give it a straw poll feel. --Tango 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable? It is the one singular fan campaign, supported by Gateworld and Stargate SG-1 Solutions, the former you will note is notable enough to have its own article. They have already made over $9000 in fan contributions and are aiming for $15000 by the end of the campaign. It doesn't get much more notable than that. Besides, I find your arrogance a bit off-putting. This straw poll is perfectly useful in determining whether or not it is notable enough to be included, so far the vote says that it is. Just because you disagree does not make us all wrong. If the poll stays the way it is then a concesus has been reached saying the campaign is notable enough for a mentioning so that is what we will do, whether or not you agree. Konman72 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't work that way. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and something is not notable just because you say it is. --InShaneee 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but given the fact that there is no other way to determine notability other than to discuss, present evidence and then find concesus I guess we are stuck with this. I, and all the other yes votes here, feel that it being the one singular fan campaign, having the support of the 2 biggest fan sites for the show (one of which is notable enough to have its own article here) and the amount of support it has proves its notability. You may disagree, but there is no way to determine who is right, so a concensus must be reached. Konman72 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several other ways of determining notability, such as the consistent application of guidelines. --InShaneee 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
If you know a relevant guideline, please give us a link to it. --Tango 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Notability/Arguments, for one thing. --InShaneee 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, that's an essay, not a guideline. Secondly, it's about things being notable enough for their own article, it's nothing to do with what should be included in existing articles. --Tango 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It's an essay that mentions/describes several guidelines, and it has often been used to decide what is notable within an article. --InShaneee 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In which case, quote the bit that you interpret as saying we shouldn't include this petition. --Tango 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Templates at the top of this page

Does anyone else think it's funny that four diffrent independent wikiprojects on completely diffrent topics have clamied this page. TV and Stargate make obvious sense. Egypt is a stretch. Colorado, that'sd pushing it. I just think it's funny to have all the projects fighting over their domains. Tobyk777 04:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed TV, Egypt and Colorado. For the TV one, I figured WP:TV is already represented via WP:STARGATE since Stargate is a child project of TV. Egypt.. I'm not sure how much help that's gonna be... and why the heck was Colorado on here? -- Ned Scott 06:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I can actually understand all of em, and if it improves th article, does it really matter? TV because its a show, Egypt because this program has really helped shed some light on that extremely interesting topic, and Colorado because it supposedly takes place there.. I say leave em be.. it just shows the impact that the program has had, and exactly what damage does it do, by notifing MORE people about the topic? EnsRedShirt 08:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't notify people to come work on the article, it's suposed to point editors that are already looking at the article to places of centerized discusison that can help them with this article.
Placing it as apart of Colorado because the setting is in a secret base in Colorado has to be one of the most retarded reasons for inclusion in a WikiProject that I have ever heard. Like I said, WP:STARGATE should already point to the relevant points of WP:TV, since it's a direct child project, so there's no point in listing both of them. The Arts banner, if you notice, is only there for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's efforts, and is not an actual WikiProject banner. (It could even be replaced by putting in rating code into the Stargate banner.) And for Egypt.. I seriously doubt SG-1 is a good reference for Egyptian history, being a fictional story where pyramids are actually spaceships and all.. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Please don't make POV statements in your arguments. The fact that Stargate is based around Cheyenne Mountain, agreeably, does not make it a part of the Colorado Wikiproject. But that's no reason to use inappropriate commentary in your arguments. One can argue that it benefits Colorado, because it improves rate of tourism, and interest in Colorado. Therefore, it can, but should not be mentioned in the Colorado Wikiproject. -Emhilradim 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but POV is completely acceptable on the talk page. (Further more, our policy, which applies to articles, is neutral point of view, not no point of view) I know one can argue such things, but why sugar coat it? I'm not attacking that WikiProject, or their scope. You seriously need to calm down there, buddy. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Misplaced Pages project. Agne 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I predict that at some point someone's going to set up a classification called "halfway decent articles" with looser criteria, to pick up the articles that would have once been called "good articles" (and perhaps even once long before that called "featured articles"). Not that I don't approve of increased standards over time, I just find it amusing how these classifications all seem to slowly creep upward like this. :) Bryan 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who lack of dispute

There is a bit of controvery going on as to whether Doctor Who is the longest running or whether Stargate SG-1. This is all well and good, however, there is no note of a dispute in either the BBC article being provided or with the GBOWR. And I quote from the BBC article itself "Doctor Who has been named TV's longest-running sci-fi show, after 43 years and 723 episodes, according to the Guinness Book of Records...US series Stargate SG-1, now in its 10th series, holds the world record for "longest-running science fiction show (consecutive)"." Therefore, neither the GBOWR or the BBC article can be used as a source for a dispute. Mucus 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll even quote the second reference: "UPDATED:

Although the sums involved have sparked much debate, the editor of Guinness World Records, Craig Glenday has this to say:

"Doctor Who is without question the longest running science fiction show in terms of years. Stargate SG-1 has run without a break since it first hit our screens in 1997, however, so is the longest show with consecutive back to back episodes.""

So dispute? Not so much Mucus 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the fans who comment on that page say things like "To be fair due to the hiatus in 1985 Doctor Who's longest continuous run was actually 63 - 84. But either way it was longer than Stargate. " This does show that fans are in fact disputing this. Ergo the sentence "Doctor Who fans dispute this claim" is accurate, and referenced. Just because the production team aren't arguing the point doesn't mean the fans are. J•A•K 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I just read the article itself, in which the response by the editor is followed by what seemed to be acceptance. Anyways, it is my impression that sources such as blogs and bulletin board posts cannot be accepted as a source anyways, ala Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet Mucus 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, surely the posting "I dispute this claim" indicates that this claim is disputed? To be honest, I read the response by the editor as being something which the main part of the article disagreed with anyway, but members of the production crew didn't want to upset the nice GBOWR people who were giving them awards. Regardless ... the fact that there's a decent argument there does seem to indicate that there is dispute to the claim. Why isn't that acceptable? It's not opinion, it's numbers.J•A•K 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We now have a valid reference showing there is clearly a dispute, so the comment can stay. Sorry I reverted the addition of the reference - when you're reverting there is no way to know that someone has edited the article since you last loaded it. --Tango 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But the reference was edited at the same time as the claim of the dispute... anyway, no problems, I do stuff like that all the time IRL. J•A•K 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The first time the dispute was added there was only one reference, and that was to the BBC article about the record, not the one about the dispute. --Tango 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just specify US scifi show. I thought that was the record in Guinness, perhaps I was wrong, but either way that would take the dispute away. Konman72 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You would need something to that effect that is citable. The Guinness reference, while problematic, is citable. (Actually, in some ways the Doctor Who reference helps, as it does establish that SG-1 isn't the overall longest-running series. Without a mention to that effect, it is easy for a reader to presume that SG-1 is the longest-running sci-fi series overall.) --Ckatzspy 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode Length

The article says 42 minutes, but imdb says 46 minutes. Does anyone know the right number? --Arctic Gnome 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 42, but I don't have any proof of that... --Tango 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It just IS 42 - the IMDb may be referring to the absolute maximum limit of an episode set by networks? No SG-1 episode ever has been longer than 43. --Alfakim-- talk 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Threads was 90 minutes (with commercials), so actually it was 60 minutes. Other than that, as long as you don't count the two parters that aired together, the episodes are 42 minutes (I believe, but I have no proof). -- Johnny06man 14:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's not hard to prove it's not 46 - just find a TV guide for a channel that shows it without adverts. It will be in a 45 minute slot, so it can't be a 46 minute program. To know that it is actually 42 requires actually looking at the length of an episode, which isn't something easy to cite... --Tango 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments

Emhilradim's deletion of various talk page comments has been reverted. While I appreciate the desire to clean up the page, that was NOT the way to go about it. Deleting some comments, merging others, and posing the same "warning" note repeatedly does not help. If so desired, the page should be properly archived, and a notice can be posted ONCE. --Ckatzspy 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Virtual Series

Stargate has spawned a number of virtual series, one of which is actually able to confidently boast around a thousand downloads per episode; this is readily possible considering that it is available in three languages. While an article on SG-1's virtual spin-offs would not be necessary, it is most certainly necessary to mention them under the 'spin-offs' section. Espescially consider that the Buffyverse has its own page, and mentions a number of virtual series and continuations. Why does Stargate not deserve that honor?

You would need to cite an independant reference - show they've got press coverage. 1000 downloads isn't that impressive, anyway. --Tango 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Horizon is officially a part of the Gateworld network. Does that count for anything?68.56.245.245 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Short Answer: No. Gateworld is a fan site, just like anyother. Being part of their network doesn't mean it's any more official to MGM.EnsRedShirt 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I would say it counts for something, but it isn't enough on its own. You need an independent source, Gateworld doesn't really count. --Tango 11:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't. They're fanfiction, they're not official. Therefore, they're not really spin-offs and don't belong to that section. If you mention them, you need to mention all the other Stargate fanfiction out there or it wouldn't be fair. If you want to make a Stargate Fanfiction article, that's fine, but make it comprehensive. Do not add them to the spin-off section. They don't belong there. --Andromeda 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"STARGᐰTE SG-1" (Yes, that's the Earth glyph!)

Just discovered that the Earth glyph is in Unicode: Canadian Syllabics Paai (U+1430). Just wondering how many others know this and whether it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I myself was thrilled at finding it in the Unicode chart! 

Wikilackey 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I just see a question mark.. haha.. :) Matthew Fenton (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I only see a question mark too. It's even just a question mark in the edit box, so I'm guessing Misplaced Pages doesn't support unicode...--Tango 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Misplaced Pages does support unicode, it must not support that particular part of unicode. --Tango 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I just see a rectangle, but I don't think that it makes much of a difference.--Dani 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Found it on the web 'CANADIAN SYLLABICS PAAI' (U+1430) Morphh 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I also found it, the number is right, but Mediawiki converts it to a question mark, it seems. --Tango 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages indeed supports all Unicode characters, as long as you have appropriate fonts installed. You'll need a unicode font that supports UCAS (Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics). Code2000, Aboriginal Sans, and Aboriginal Serif all support it; there might be others. And I just saw that I put the glyph on the wrong A. I fixed it. Go me. Wikilackey 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Title card for main image?

That image makes them all look horribly, horribly deformed. Since the Atlantis article uses the S3 title card, shouldn't we use the S10 title card for the SG-1 article? (BTW someone else would have to do it, I don't have any DVDs from which to take non-DOGged screencaps) --Codenamecuckoo 09:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Stargate_SG-1_Season_9_Title.jpg . Any ideas? Yes or no? --Illyria05-- 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I changed it to the picture I linked to in my post above.. Again, if you do not like it, you may of course revert it :) --Illyria05-- 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

VP:V

IMDB confirms that this show is produced in Canada. IMDB is authoritative; the database takes information from show credits. I am looking at the DVD credits right now, and it says "Filmed on location in British Columbia, Canada; With the participation of the Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit". Please do not waste time making unfounded assertions which deny documented evidence. Avt tor 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDb having information means nothing, it's non-verifiable. It being filmed in Canada does not make it Canadian, the same scenario applies to a book, if it was printed in Canada would that make it Canadian? I think not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
IMDB is widely acknowledged as an essential authoritative reference for TV pages across Misplaced Pages and many other online resources. You are drawing a false analogy. "Filming" is analogous to writing a book; it is where the artistic work happens. What you think is irrelevant. What can be documented is what matters. If you have no specific facts, you can't delete the facts cited simply because you don't like them. Avt tor 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
You are obviously mistaken, it's acknowledged as a good link to as a citable source. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." - IMDb is not verifiable, is a user submitted source with a high rate of false data. "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." - Yep, I challenged it and removed it. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." - Yes, that means you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I cited credits from the DVD itself, but that was reverted. If you listen to the DVD commentaries, Peter Deluise and others go on at great length about how, where, and why they produce at various British Columbia locations. Sources are easy to find, limited by one's typing speed I suppose. The facts aren't in question. Removing the facts seems highly POV. Avt tor 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of sources is irrelevant. We all know it's filmed in Canada, and it seems that's all the sources are saying. The question is, what does the "Country of origin:" section in the infobox mean. Does it mean "Where is it made:" or does it mean "Where is the company that owns it registered:", or both? If the former, "Canada" is the correct answer, for the second, "USA", and for the final one, "Canada, USA". There are plenty of sources that can tell you the information, and I can't see why anyone would question the facts. The only question is which fact we mean to put in the infobox. --Tango 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen the infobox used for the original country, not production, i.e. Americaland is Stargates original country. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
So have I, but only because it's always said "USA". We need to decide what it *should* be, rather than what it is. --Tango 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories: