Talk:Timeline of Stargate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has things to do
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 + - project - talk + - join 

Contents

[edit] notable?

incase this is deemed for deletion - hold on. this will be linked to a lot and expanded, and is a needed article to explain the dating system used throughout Stargate articles. see also: Dates in Harry Potter. -- Alfakim --  talk  12:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks too much like original research to me. I can't see any reason to ever link to it - where are you expecting it to be linked from? Also, how can it be expanded? It's not like Star Trek with a complicated stardate system and lots of formulae for trying (unsuccessfully) to convert them to dates. The dates in Stargate are just regular dates. Prehaps a better article would be Timeline of Stargate events, with an aside about how it's all worked out. --Tango 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Argh. I wrote a really big explanation and then my browser crashed. ANYWAY.
This article IS needed because lots of Stargate articles (eg Free Jaffa Nation) make references to real dates. To an outside reader this sounds odd, nonsensical, unsourced, etc. However the show DOES make it clear that events take place in tandem with the present, and this dating system IS used. So this article explains it.
What I meant by linking here was that whenever we use a real date in another article, there should be a link here to explain it. Suggested uses:
"The System Lords fell in March 2005"
"The System Lords fell in March 2005 (see: Dates in Stargate)"
"The System Lords fell in March 2005[1]" where ref 1 is "See: Dates in Stargate"
"The System Lords fell in March 2005(SG-date)"
Would be nice to also settle on one of the above as standard. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer a timeline, with an explanation at the top, rather than what is really an essay - WP doesn't really do essays. I'd also like some kind of external reference for the dates. They aren't obvious from the episodes, so some research is required, and we shouldn't be the ones doing that research. Another thing that needs to be considered is that some episodes take place over a long period (eg. A Hundred Days (Stargate SG-1)) - that will need to be mentioned in the article. --Tango 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Other long episodes:
--Tango 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep well that's pretty much what I meant to say. This article should be focussed on the timeline with its explanation at the top. References to episodes which state how long they take and so on. Gateworld is bound also to have information on this so that will be a good source too. But regardless of sourcing I think this is a good article concept that is needed for the project - and should be linked to as above. I prefer the first one. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, making the date the link is best. I suggest we move this to a title with "Timeline" in it - that way it looks like a timeline with an essay introducing it, rather than an essay with a timeline added as an afterthought. --Tango 10:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay agreed. I suggest Timeline of Stargate - nice and simple - if you agree just move the page. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somehow I think the explanation is wrong...

I think that the dating from the release of Stargate is contradicting the statements in episodes about time. 2001 is set as present day in the first half of Season 5--that is, it was aired on August 31, 2001 IN THE REAL WORLD. Hence, since there really isn't much difference between 1994 and 1996, the "Present Day" in the film Stargate must be 1996 in order to be consistent with 2001. Because of this (and thank God for this) there is a one-to-one correspondence between Stargate years and our years. LD 20:45 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] decisions

I think we should settle on the more canonical idea that the Stargate timeline correlates exactly to year of the season. So season 1 is in 1997, season 9 in 2006. this is at least supported by the show on a few occassions that need to be cited. The fact that the film was in 1994 needs to be mentioned as an afterthought.

this decided, I'd like to see a timeline here at some point. if nothing's here in a week or so I'll do it - exams exams exams atm.

Lastly, should we be mentioning real dates in the other articles, then? Should we mention them at all? WHEN should we mention real dates? I think dates should be mentioned only in more formal descriptions of events, and should be mentioned as afterthoughts. So we should favour "In season 1 (1998)". [In season 1 ([[Timeline of Stargate|1998]])]. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I can start a timetable a little sooner than you, I expect - my last exam is tomorrow. I'm not sure about when we should be giving dates... let me think about it and get back to you. --Tango 11:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
First exam begins tomorrow. :S -- Alfakim --  talk  14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha! I'm all done. :) And for some baffling reason, I've just gone, completely by choice, to the library to get a book on Relativity... why do I have be interested in things that make my head hurt? It's a curse... Anyway - Stargate. I'll have a go at putting together the outline of a timetable either this evening or in the couple of days. One thing I've been trying to decide - did the Ancients leave Atlantis "10,000 year ago" or "in 8000 BC" or "in 8000 BCE"? Any opinions? --Tango 14:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a very difficult thing, but here's a good policy: go only and exactly by what is said in the show. So i suggest actually starting with "several million years ago", the first words of the Stargate Atlantis pilot (atlantis departs from earth). Then use normal dates for the rest, so 8000 BCE. BCE is more scifi so use that :P -- Alfakim --  talk  23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
But I don't think the show ever says "8000 BCE" it always says "10,000 years ago". Also, we have slightly more accurate dates for the ancients being on earth from "Frozen", but that's just details. --Tango 10:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant we should infer that "10,000 years ago" means 8000 BCE. the anomaly would be only the first entry "several million years ago" because this is vague - the others are pinpointable. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it comes through

And suddenly I see that there was a bigger point to this article... it lists in chronological order the major points of the entireity of the story of Stargate. In no article have we got a full review of Stargate's story, and now we do. So not only does this article provide a reference and background for dates in other articles, it also provides a solid background for the story as a whole. I think it should be linked to from various plot-sections (after it is complete). -- Alfakim --  talk  01:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why I wanted it moved from Dates to Timeline - it's the timeline part that is a brilliant article. Prehaps we should add an appropriate link to the episode infobox - to the correct year, or even correct place in the table if the episode has it's own mention. It would be good if we could include every episode in the right place, but only giving details of events if there was something significant that happened - I'm not sure of a good layout for that, though... Also, how are you calculating the months? Just from the place in the season? I think it would be good to include more info about where the dates come from with them - so the bit of the table about an episode that gives a set date would mention that it gives that date, and other dates that are calculated from it explain how. That would also avoid the "in-universe" arguements a little more - at the moment this article is completely in-universe other than the intro. --Tango 13:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Didn't understand the proposal with episodes, but it sounds far too complicated. I think we've got a good layout already. The months are calculated from season position, yes, although in some cases not. For instance, where there are large gaps between episodes obviously in direct continuance, I write "cc. [month in the middle]". I can't remember any episodes that give dates explicitly, but it they exist then they should be used. For instance, "Secrets" says it takes place 1 year after "Children of the Gods" - so I took this into account although they were not aired as such. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Secrets took place "one Abydonian year to the day" (I think Jackson said exactly that, but I'm going on my mental transcipts, which are pretty good, but not perfect), not one Earth year. We know how long their day is (36 hours springs to mind, but I'd need to look it up to be sure), but I don't think we know how long their year is. That needs correcting. Part of what I was saying was that the section on Secrets should explain that it's where it is because it happened a year after Children of the Gods - you should explain the reasoning behind any date that has a specific reason. What I was saying about all episodes is basically that I would like some easy way to know where any given episode fits into the timeline, even if nothing happened to warrant an actual mention. Maybe just including the episode numbers for the episodes we do mention would be enough - then you can see what episodes the one your interested in in between. --Tango 12:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's needed as we are going by "episode takes place at airdate unless obviously otherwise"; but if we added this info at all i think it should be in the episode articles, not this article. SG-1 has over 200 episodes, this timeline would be too huge if we included every episode. As for the Abydonian year, that explains it. I think we should thus go by the airdate, as that's in August and the pilot was in July - it's roughly a year, but not - explicable due to the Abydonian year (why else did they place the episode at that time). -- Alfakim --  talk  13:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not the date that's interesting, it's where it fits in with everything else. It would be good to be know where each episode fits in with the major story arcs, even if that episode didn't actually add anything. Just including episode numbers in the citations you've already made would make it easy to tell where other episodes fit. Actually, we'll need 2 episode columns - one for episodes that refer to that time and one for the episode that actually takes place at that time. --Tango 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vast imcompleteness

After finding this page for the first time, and reading it just now, I think that although what we have is very high quality this page is very far from including all the content it needs to. I think this page is great and I'll start adding alot, but I don't want there to be a misconception that this page is all-inclusive, yet. (Soon it my be all-inclusive) Tobyk777 01:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Like, duh. No one said this was complete yet - i'm working on it. But yes, when it IS complete, it will be good.-- Alfakim --  talk  01:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A summary, not exhaustive

If you add to this article, please remember - it is a summary. We should not include information from every episode. Indeed, most episodes should be skipped. The criteria for inclusion are:

  • Significant for the story as a whole
  • Part of a major plot arc
  • Required to explain an event that is included further down

So don't add "July 1997: SG-1 visit a planet of Mongol origin". This does not contribute significantly to the Stargate timeline and would clutter it up. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various inacurcies

There are various inacruacies in this article. When I fixed some, my edits got reverted. Here they are:

  • This article states that the Anciens returned to earth 8,000 years ago. It was in fact 10,000 years ago.
  • The dakra superweapon seeded life on many worlds in the milky way; not just earth. This article makes it sounds as if humans were only on earth before the Goa'uld. The Goa'uld took humans from the abundant population on earth and spread them out, but they already were in other places.
  • We do not know if every single ancient was in Atlantis when it flew to the peagasus. In fact, many probably were not. This article makes it sounds as if Ayanna was the only one left behind.

I corrected all of these problems, but my edits were reverted. I am not sure why Tobyk777 17:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • 8000 BCE means 10,000 years ago, since it is currently (roughly) 2000 CE
  • I'm not sure if humans were seeded elsewhere, but other forms of life certainly existed on other planets (the race in "Space Race", the race that's immune to Gou'ld implantation that that bounty hunter was from (don't remember the episode title), etc).
  • In fact, we know at least 2 people were left behind - there was a man and a woman watching Atlantis leave in the Atlantis premiere. I would imagine almost everyone else either left or died of the plague.
--Tango 18:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, no. What you've written above is very much speculation. One thing, however, is wrong. Humans were only on Earth before the Goa'uld, that's why they're called the Tau'ri - people of the first world. The show is yet to say explicitly that any human life anywhere else was created by the ancients. -- Alfakim --  talk  19:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Why would almost every planet in the peagsus have life seeded on it, but only one planet in the milky way have life seeded on it? Also, the dakkra weapon, destoyred all life in the galaxy, then reseeded the entire galaxy. After that, why would there only be life on one planet? Tobyk777 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia:No original research. 2. We're talking about HUMAN life. In general. Pegasus=Ancients schlepped humans from Earth to keep them company.Lockesdonkey 19:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No, the humans in Pegasus were seeded directly, they weren't brought from Earth. I think the hologram they found in the premiere explained that. We do need to be careful to avoid OR and speculation - if we don't, the whole project will probably be deleted... --Tango 23:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The point is we don't know anything other than what they've said. They've said that humans came solely from only 2 places - 1, the ancients, and then 2. independently, only earth. Tau'ri. the dakara stuff is pure OR. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The Dakra stuff is not original research. Here is my explantation without any speculation or original research: It was stated that the Ancients used it to reseed the galaxy with human life. The peagasus humans are seeded directly by the Ancients, that's why in Rising the hologram states that the Ancients were able to watch humans develop. In the milky way, ancients were not there when life eveloved. They came back, to find the second eveloution of humans, created by the superweapon. The reason why some Humans have the ATA gene is becuase humans and ancients interacted on earth. The Goa'uld were stated to have merely encoutered humans on earth, and spread them elsewhere. This doesn't mean that they weren't already in other places. Tobyk777 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. We're told they reseeded the galaxy with *life*, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say human life. (I have a near photographic memory for these things, but feel free to check a transcript.) --Tango 10:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And we are certainly not told that they used the Dakara Superweapon, and certainly not told there was human life elsewhere but earth. -- Alfakim --  talk  12:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
We are told they used the Dakara Superweapon. Anubis (in disguise) tells Daniel about the irony of it all. I don't remember any mention of humans elsewhere, although the term "Tau'ri" only tells us the Gou'ld don't know of anywhere else - we can't rule it out, or confirm it, so anything we say about it would be speculation, so let's just not mention it. How about we just quote Anubis directly and leave it at that? --Tango 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Really? I don't remember that for the life of me. Is that in an extended cut maybe? I'd like to see a quote and/or point me to the episode (i'm guessing Threads). -- Alfakim --  talk  20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's definately there. It's about halfway through threads. Ive seen it at least twice. Tobyk777 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it's there. It's one of the scenes with "Jim" walking into the diner with a newspaper, I think. --Tango 23:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coming along nicely

This article is developing nicely. I have added stuff here and there (and will contiue to do so), but I just want to say good job to Aflakim and any other contributors. Tobyk777 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

why thanks :P -- Alfakim --  talk  12:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justified text

The episodes in the last column are fully justified resulting in 2 word titles having large gaps between each word. I can't work out what in the code is causing this alignment, so I can't fix it - can someone else? Thanks. --Tango 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not happening on my PC at all - must be just you (there IS nothing to make it do that).-- Alfakim --  talk  20:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's stopped doing it now... very odd. --Tango 22:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)



Why is any of this stuff on Wikipedia? Wouldn't the best idea to be to create a single stream of pages relating to Stargate as a television show, then create an entirely different wiki to go into details about the Stargate universe, say like Starwars or Battlestar Galactica? 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There are already wikis dedicated to Stargate (some of them are linked to as references on some of our articles), and they go into a lot of detail about the fictional universe. We try and keep to discussing Stargate from the perspective of a TV show rather than as if it were real. If you find any article that looks like it's pretended Stargate is real, please either fix it or let us know so we can fix it. Thanks! --Tango 12:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004-2005 (Season 8 SG-1 & Season 1 Atlantis)

This article/timeline is looking rather good, and I'm just wondering if anyone is currently working on the 2004-2005 part of the timeline, as it currently contains nothing. I would, however I'm currently without a TV and don't have the seasons on DVD. Just a thought, TheJC TalkContributions 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Been bare there for a while. Will eventually get round to it, but would much prefer someone else did it. -- Alfakim --  talk  07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone volunteer for the completion of the timeline? --86.126.36.159 08:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can come along and add to it. There's no need for a single person to volunteer. --Tango 11:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to have a go at seaon 8 but my spelling is poor and im lazy with links so it will need some cleanup --Nicoli nicolivich 10:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
i dont like to delete other peoples work but i think this section is becoming too long. i think some bit could be cut out; specifically the events of "covenant" and "endgame". they have no real bearing on anything and the situation at the end is much the same as at the beggining of each eppisode.--Nicoli nicolivich 14:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I just spent some time correcting the timeline to incorporate Atlantis into the right spots because whoever added it put it in it's own section outside of the existing timeline. Also, the date for both shows was "2004" even though some event tooks place in 2005. I didn't delete any content though because of the large number of changes I made, but the section does have a lot of info. Maybe we can delete some and merge others? It's not like we need plot synopses here. We just need the CliffsNotes. --Bark 14:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed "Prior to 1997"

Hello! The section "Prior to 1997" was fairly big. I've divided it up into three sections: Basically before the modern discovery of the stargate in 1928, the time between that and the film, and the film itself. I think the three sections looks better than one large section. Hope it's alright. --Bark 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teal'c's hair

Is Teal'c's hair notable enough to get a mention in the timeline? It's actually a tricky decision. While someone's hair style isn't very notable, it is very useful for identifying when something happened. You see a flashback and Teal'c has no hair, you know it happened before he grew it. Opinions? --Tango 22:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it for now, but it may be removed in a later preening when this article gets large.-- Alfakim --  talk  03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I expected that to be reverted instantly.-- nicoli_nicolivich --  talk  11:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who messed up the table

it might just be my computer but this page appears completly messed up. most of the tables are gone and the one thats left has too many columns. i tried to fix it but couldnt figure out how. is it sortable or does it need a major revert? --Nicoli nicolivich 11:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Tobyk777 added a whole load of ref/ tags when he meant to add /ref tags, which has caused the whole article to end up as one big reference, I think. I'll try and fix it... --Tango 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that fixed it. I'm going to revert most of it anyway, though, as this page should use ref tags, it should just name the episodes in the table. --Tango 12:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ori/Ancient Split

Where in the series does it state that the Ori and the Alterans became two distinct groups prior to their Ascension? Unless I missed something, it was only after various members of the Alterans Ascended that the two became hostile (And two seperate groups). Nothing in the Ori religion or history would really make any sense if they split before Ascension, since the entire reason for the split is that their Ascended members had differing opinions on how to act. JBK405 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The split was when the Ancients left the Ori behind and came to the Milky Way, that was clearly well before they ascended. Daniel says they ascended separately quite soon after finding out about the Ori (I don't recall which episode, and technically he was speculating, but I think it was conclusive enough for us to tell as fact). I'll go and read the bit about them having differing opinions, because I can't remember exactly what was said about that - maybe they were still friends, just in different galaxies, until they ascended. (Of course, you have to remember, they didn't all ascend at once, I think it took place over 1000s of years, and basically only stopped when the unascended ancients died out or merged with modern humans after evacuating Atlantis). --Tango 14:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It didn't happen over 100s of years. It happened over millions of years. Tobyk777 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the Storm

I saw that someone removed info added abouot the storm in Atlantis. I think that that is lagitamate info and far more important than some other things in the timeline. I think that that should be added back in. Tobyk777 04:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that was me. What impact did it have on any on-going plots? It was no more significant that any other episode. I know there are other things in the timeline that should be removed, I just happened to see the storm being added on my watchlist, so I removed it straight away. Someone needs to go through the rest and remove things that aren't significant (I might do it later). --Tango 12:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The storm is stated to hapen every 20 years so it is usefall to know on what date it happened so that one can work out when previous storms accured and when future ones will hapen. But then again i dont see then making 20 years of atlantis shows.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicoli nicolivich (talk • contribs).
If they do an episode that concentrates on the storms and shows how they have some big effect on something, then we can put it back it. Until then, it's no more notable that any other episode, and this article isn't intended for episode summaries. --Tango 01:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it had a significant effect on the geni plotline and is refered to often. I still think it should be kept. I also disagre in that I think that there is little here that should be removed. Anything that you feel should be removed should be discussed fist. Tobyk777 03:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to re-watch the episode to remember its effect on the geni, but I don't remember it being refered to since - can you give an example? If I go through trimming, I'll just remove stuff - if you want to put any of it back, do so, and then we can discuss it. No point discussing every little change. --Tango 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] spoiler tags

why were the spoiler tags like:

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details for Stargate SG-1 Season 1 follow.

removed? they were good because they marked out which season the timeline referred to. --Alfakim-- talk 14:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it isn't divided into seasons, it's divided into years, and we don't learn everything about each year in one season. We have (or at least should have) information learnt in later seasons included in the year in which it actually happened. One spoiler tag at the beginning is the only way it will work - we can't be worrying about what seasons spoilers come from in the rest of it. --Tango 14:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Info from Stargate infinity

I'm not sure if SGI info should be here or not. It's not considered cannon, and if we added all sorts of tangential info from books comics, fanfic, and other non-cannon stuff, not only would the timeline be cluterted with junk, but it would contradict itself in sevral places. Then again, I'm not sure if SGI is mainstream enough to go in, or if it contradicts SG-1 at all. Do you guys think SGI info should be in the article? Tobyk777 05:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one mention to show where it fits in is ok, I wouldn't put any great detail in, though. --Tango 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes don't add any more information than that, and make sure it states clearly that it's not the usual canon. --Alfakim-- talk 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merlin's retaking of human form and the Goa'uld

According to the latest SG-1 episode, Merlin ascended, presumably before 3000AD, and then, some thousands of years later, retook human form to build his weapon. The article on King Arthur states that the most likely time that he lived was "in the late 5th century to early 6th century". Is this enough to merit adding this event to the table as having taken place "in the late 5th century to early 6th century"?

Also, it seems that, for a time, atleast, that just about every Goa'uld lived on Earth. At the very least, Daniel Jackson is able to put just about every Goa'uld in the context of Earth's history. The fact that they all, all of a sudden, left, seems a little odd. Maybe the ancients who hadn't yet ascended are partially to blame? TerraFrost 23:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your meant BC, or BCE. All I know is Merlin wasn't ascended in 8000 BCE, ascended, then descended sometime later. Whatever everyone else wants to go with is fine by me. As for the Goa'uld, there was a transition for them from the Unas hosts to the human hosts. It makes sense that during that transition, they came to Earth for the new human hosts. At least it makes sense in my mind. --Bark 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The article on King Author suggested AD - not BC / BCE...
About the Goa'uld - that's a good point. TerraFrost 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, I don't think you meant 3000AD because that's still 994 years into the future.  :-) --Bark 13:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops :-) TerraFrost 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why remove this?

This was a good addition, why remove it?--Alfakim-- talk 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a good addition. Revert the removal. Tobyk777 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I'm not sure what happened. I thought that section was there, and the anonymous user removed it. I then thought I put it back into place. That's why my edit has "Explain Deletion Please". I see now the exact opposite went down. I obviously want to expand this article, if you look at my contributions, you can see that. Therefore, my bad. Funny, I don't remember drinking that day... --Bark 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years of Birth

Should the years of birth for the characters of these two series be added to this Timeline? I can offer this information if anyone decides to start adding birth years to the Timeline:


  • In the Season 1 episode Brief Candle, Jack O'Neill says he's 40 years old. If that episode is taking place in 1997, then he was born in 1957.


  • In the Season 4 episode Entity, whilst the Entity is checking the personnel files, Samantha Carter's birth year (and date) was shown as 1968. The 29th December to be percise.


  • And in the Season 10 episode 200, Cameron Mitchell confirms he was born in 1970 after references were made to the Season 2 episode 1969.


Is this info worth having added to the Timeline? I would like to think so. Alan-WK 22:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add it, if I were you. It's quite useful info. Make sure you give the citations as you've done here. --Tango 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Character Names vs TV Character Names

Do we make the article consistent with the same spelling, and only note the differences in the margins? (I believe this is less confusing for the uninformed, and it's consistent with the other articles in our project.) Or, do we spell the same character names differently when refering to the movie? --Bark 03:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

when refering to the movie, they should be spelled the way they were in the movie... the difference in spelling is discussed on the Trivia page i believe... -Xornok 17:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient vs Alteran

Should we use "Ancient" or "Alteran" in the first part of the timeline? Ancient is the more well known and common term, Alteran is the term actually used by the fictional characters in the time being described. Which takes precedence? --Tango 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

well, seeing as how this is a timeline, it should be what they were called in the time of question... they didnt call themselves the Ancients when they flew Atlantis to the PG did they? so they should be called the Alterans... but in early SG-1 years, they should be called the Ancients because thats how WE knew them as... -Xornok 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic at all. It's not a timeline written by contempory authors, it's a timeline written by viewers of the show on a real life encyclopedia. --Tango 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say Ancient because it's the more commonly known name. --Bark 23:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] seasons vs years

it seems like the timeline is seperated into seasons and not years, ie 1999-2000 (being season 3), not 1999 and 2000. i think the timetable she be rearranged... -Xornok 19:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Approve. fix it any time you want. Nicoli nicolivich 19:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

yes captain, my captain, sir -Xornok 20:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, we don't always know what year something happened - they don't generally celebrate new year, so we don't know when the year changed. We know what years the season included, but that's all. --Tango 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

but i suppose it would be save to say that they take place near when the air... -Xornok 21:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

When the episodes air is determined by the Sci-Fi channel, not the writers. For example, there isn't usually a large gap in-universe when there is a large mid-season break in them showing the eps, so the 2nd half of the season probably happens a couple of months before the episodes air. --Tango 11:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

Would Canada have known about the Stargate program from the beginning since it was right below NORAD? --Bark 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense, but it's never been mentioned, so it would be OR. --Tango 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Canada still would have been informed before "Disclosure" because Rodney, a Canadian, worked on the program for months before "48 Hours". --Bark 13:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
McKay was on the USAF payroll, though, and was a civilian. What is the system for non-US civilian citizens working on top secret US projects? Are they trusted not to tell their country's leaders as part of the non-disclosure agreement, or can they only work on the project if their country is in on it? --Tango 13:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no way the U.S. Government would employ a foreign national for a Top Secret project UNLESS their country of origin was in on the project. --Bark 17:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'd have thought. It's not unusual for the US to forget Canada is a separate country, but it would seem odd that a show filmed in Canada would do that, yet they never mentioned that Canada knew about the program. --Tango 19:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiyana

Seems to be a character for stargate, but currently it's linked to an incorrect reference. It should be fixed. I am working on orphaned articles. Aiyana is now unorphaned. I don't know stargate, so I can't fix this. --meatclerk 08:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've linked it to Ancient characters in Stargate#Ayiana. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tango 13:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETimeline_of_Stargate_6986.html"