From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Stargate SG-1 episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

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

[edit] Style Guide

The following is a style guide for the list on this article (jump to discussion)

Images

• All images should use a thumbnail width of 150px. [[Image:Example.jpg|150px]]
• All images should be in the 16:9 ratio, and cropped if necessary.
  • All this means is that if your original image is 640px in width, you need to make sure it is also 360px (640/360 = 16/9) in height, so you'll probably need to cut off the top and bottom if it's a screenshot from an early series (later series screenshots are already 16:9).
  • You can crop images before uploading them in any photoediting program... even MS Paint.
• .JPG is probably preferred.
• Fair use tag images appropriately; see below

Synopses

• Try not to push open the cell; ie: stay below 3 lines of text
• Always try to make the synopses as full as possible, and not just intros. This is so that someone could read this article and get a full plot summary of SG-1 without mysterious bits missing. So something like "Carter and Daniel get stuck" is bad; "Carter and Daniel get stuck but are rescued by the Asgard" is better.
• Try to wikify the [[synopses]] as [[much]] as [[possible]]. Someone might be only reading season 8, so they dont want to have to scroll back up to season 1 to get all the links.
• Try to make the synopses mention anything important in that episode, for instance the creation of the Kull Disruptor.

Fair use 

The following should be the text on all Stargate screenshot image pages that are used on this article:

Change the last line ("...significant moment which...") as appropriate for the episode, and why you've chosen that image.

Source information 

You must also specify where you found the image.

Episode articles 

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet for a style guide to writing the actual episode articles.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Archive

• /Archive 1

[edit] Template

What was wrong with the template? It looks fine. --Will2k 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted the template is most useful for new lists, it can be useful for already established lists. For example, it makes future formatting much easier. Also, I didn't see any weird table renderings myself, ether. This is a featured list, though, so I can understand reluctancy to adopt some new template. I'm curious to the errors Alfakim experienced. -- Ned Scott 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is most suitable for featured lists to prove that it can work.--Will2k 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Column headers became disaligned, broke into two lines (e.g. "Episode number" as "Episode<br>number" despite a large cell) -- don't know why. The template either introduces a new row, or else an extra thick line, beneath each cell, which looks really ugly. Cells all misproportioned. Also, the template introduces a more complex code than the original table markup. Although the advantage of a template is that format style can be changed easily later, we don't ever WANT to change the format style of this article. It's perfectly fine. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The coloured rows are part of the agreed upon structure. If you find that line ugly, you should voice an opinion at the project page. However, nearly all episode lists contain such a line.--Will2k 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of images in Lists of episodes

A head's up that a weeks-long discussion has been going on at Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes/Use_of_images about the inclusion of screen captured images, such as those used in this list article. The position by some admins appears to be that they are a violation of Copyright and do not fall under Fair Use. Consequently, the images were deleted from the Lost episode list, and likewise will probably be removed from this one-- unless opinion on the use of such images changes. --Leflyman^Talk 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for more participants for WikiProject List of Television Episodes

Currently WikiProject List of Television Episodes is looking for more participants and input for the project. If anyone is interested in giving their input please drop by the project page or the talk page.As a featured list, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes already provides inspiration to other lists of episodes articles, and anything you guys have to share would be greatly appreciated. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This list is one of the best, if not the very best list on all of WP, however it was mainly made by members of wikiproject Stargate, not the list of TV episodes project. Perhaps the stargate project could give tips to the TV episodes project on how they got it so good. Also, I propose that the two projects corodiate on List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. Tobyk777 08:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More specificaly, the Stargate project members want to make a second FL. On the Talk page for wikiproject stargate the two projects should discuss how to do this, and then work toghther to make the changes. The list is already almost there, we just need to make a few more improvements. Tobyk777 08:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to the valuable input of WikiProject Stargate! -- Ned Scott 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descriptions

Id say half of them give away the ending and half dont. I personally like to ones that dont as they sound better but what do yall think? American Patriot 1776 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the complete (i.e. spoilerish) synopses per the reason given in the style guide above. EEMeltonIV 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I say let's remove th spoilers. As a frequent user of wikipedia, i often use it to see which episode is next, And when i read the description to find out what the problems are in this episode, i find out the start, the plot and the end. Thats one more episode ruined. I beg of al the people who are reading this, Start trimming the descriptions down. Glisern

[edit] Britian

When do the season 10 episodes start broadcasting in the UK? and wouldn't it be useful to include the British broadcast date as well as the Americian one?? --Mollsmolyneux 13:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

[edit] Discussion

I want to express my opinion that I do not think that the screenshots should be named after the episode title. That makes it difficult to track them. I would rather suggest to keep the naming as it has been done since season 9, naming the screenshots "sg1-sXXeYY-0.jpg" where XX is the season and YY is the episode number. This way multiple shots for one episode can be numbered simply by changing the "-0" to "-1" "-2" etc. and you easily find them again. It also helps if an episode has multiple names (like alternate spelling on air and on DVD). What do you think? --SoWhy ^Talk 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

100% agree.--Alfakim-- talk 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a better idea. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good standard. Do we have other Stargate standards - perhaps we should create a Manual of Style for Stargate ;-p Morphh 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool idea, lets go for it No Way Back 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of standards subpages, but no singular manual of style. For instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet. --Alfakim-- talk 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the uploaders choice in how he or she names the image, they may wish to use the title of the episode of the name or the episode number, however it is there choice. I my self am happy if they just put the name of the episode in the summary. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A specific naming allows to have a scheme for naming the episodes in a way that you can find a screenshot without knowing it's name just with season and episode number. If you disagree, vote against the proposal below. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

m:voting is evil; Also it is not upto you to decide the filename it is the uploaders choice. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Says whom? Is there a policy disallowing specific naming systems? --SoWhy ^Talk 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also something that I'd like to push for WikiProject List of Television Episodes. It's already listed as a recommendation via the template instructions, but I haven't gotten around to proposing it yet for the over-all guidelines, since they need their own updating and tweaking right now. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres no naming convention exactly, thus why you can not go on a crusade on how YOU would like to name things. The uploader chooses the uploaded name. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My questions is still remaining: Which rule states that it is illegal for the majority to create specific naming conventions? --SoWhy ^Talk 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was illegal, i said its not upto you how the uploader names a file. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Name episode screenshots as described above?

Pro

1. SoWhy ^Talk
2. Alfakim-- talk
3. Ned Scott 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Morphh
5. No Way Back
6. Tobyk777 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Contra

1. (m:voting is evil) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I posted a link to this discussion on the Project's Discussion page. I'd say we discuss and vote for or against my suggestion for 7 days (until Wednesday (02/08/2006)) and then use the consensus. This should allow enough time for everyone to express their opinion. Anyone against this way of doing it? --SoWhy ^Talk 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To seperate discussion from voting to reach a consensus, I decided to split it into Discussion and Vote. If you want to say anything, please use the Discussion part. In the Vote part, just add your name (~~~) in the corresponding section. That way we can easily overview pros and cons (Yeah, I'm complicated^^). I took the liberty of adding those who supported it in discussion. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To big?

I'm wondering if maybe the list is getting to big? Right now its at 82k which is way past the recomended 32k. I'm thinking it might be time to do something along the lines of the List of The Simpsons episodes to make it a bit more managable and reader friendly. At eighteen seasons long the main list article over their is 63k and much easier for the reader to look through. Thoughts? --Argash 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is oudated. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we need to worry about the size of the article yet. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers for upcoming episodes??

Should we really allow MAJOR plot spoilers for episodes not yet aired in the descriptions? Ex. The Shroud, I know its under a warning, but I think most people just want to look at all thesaesons at once, and maybe just want the basic plots of upcoming episodes..EnsRedShirt 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If there going to look at spoilers and dont want to be spoiled then they shouldnt look :-P, maybe we could trim down to synopsis only tho as each episode has its own page ? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think hiding spoilers is much of a problem since each episode has a date next to it. If it hasn't aired then don't look at it. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just thinking we can rewrite it without giving away the character and what happened.. so that some things are still a surprise. EnsRedShirt 06:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely aggree that spoiler-containing blurbs should be edited. For example, instead of "Where they discover daniel jackson has been turned into a prior" we could say "where they disover a most puzzling and disturbing prior" or some such subtle hint. - Eldar

Season Ten Episode 7. The description is a total spoiler, and skips ahead past the whole first half of the episode. These should not be spoilers, the main page for an episode can provide a full summary, these descriptions should not. Horkana

[edit] Individual Episode Pages

Everyone of the episode pages needs work. There are no cites, extended plots, and information that is best left out all together. Whoever is monitoring this page and those pages should read this Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. This is the policy created to establish guidelines for episode pages. If you do not have well referenced material try developing Seasonal pages until you do. Bignole 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

...this might have more bite if it wasn't a generic message that you just cut and pasted to multiple talk pages. If you try to force your view on the whole episode article thing you'll just end up looking like a dick. Also, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes is a guideline, not a policy. Policy pages are clearly marked as policy, this one is clearly marked with the message "A consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below." I'm not going to say that episode pages are a good thing or not, that's a debate that many feel very strongly about, but to accuse the editors here of not knowing what they're doing and basically belittling them is not how you should go about things. -- Ned Scott 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Most editors don't know what they are doing, and even if I didn't copy and paste my message it would have read the same minus a couple words. We are all ignorant of policy, guidelines, rules, etc, because most of us don't read everything that we should (me included). I don't mean to belittle just enlighten as to the proper way to create an episode article. Bignole 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And because you've basically called everyone ignorant, your suggestion will pretty much be ignored. And this is not the same situation as List of Smallville episodes. These articles are actually a lot more referenced than most articles on TV shows, and there's a good deal more information. Personally, I would avoid an episode-per-article format like the plague, but not everyone feels that way. Episode articles for Stargate SG-1 pretty much meet the guidelines for the TV ep discussion. -- Ned Scott 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Being ignorant of a rule does not make you an ignorant person, it merely means that you are unaware that it existed. These episodes don't meet the guidelines. They have external links, yes, but there are not citations for things that need them. Simply putting a source at the bottom of the page doesn't excuse it from citation. Also, have you read the plots, most need to be trimmed dramatically. So, again I'm not calling ANYONE ignorant, I'm saying it's ignorance of rules. People always jump back in disgust when the word is used, but it isn't an insult if you use it correctly. And I am not putting myself above anyone else, because when I first came I was putting in scene for scene plots for films, which was wrong. Episode-per-article format would be great if we actually had the information to support it, and not just a scene-by-scene of the show. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Lists page is already featured and with work it wouldn't be an off shoot to think that the episode pages could at the very least be Good Articles. Bignole 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What rule are you refering to? What needs citing? It's pretty obvious the episode pages them selves do not need citeing as the title its self cites the episode. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying I'm pro-episode article, but Matthew is right. If all that is covered in the episode article are things that happened in the episode.. then the episode itself is proper citation. And I'm a bit confused when you say that a source at the bottom of a page is not a citation.. Sources are what we cite... to cite is to recall / reference something.. -- Ned Scott 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example from "The Enemy Within" (the two in bold):

[edit] Notes

• The title refers to the nature of the Goa'uld, evil parasites hidden within otherwise human-looking hosts. It also refers to the fact Kawalsky become an enemy within the SGC itself.
• At one point during a conversation between Teal'c and O'Neil, Teal'c's symbol on his forehead is noticeably upside down.
• In a scene where Kawalsky slams Carter against the back of an elevator, actress Amanda Tapping sustained a real concussion.

Those two things needs cites. They need a citation that links to the specific article that says that. The first one could go either way, I don't watch the show, but it usually isn't customary to explain titles of shows in the episode itself. That seems like something deduced which would need a cite. It isn't a visual thing like the second one where it's obvious. The second one definitely needs a citation, because otherwise it's hearsay. Citations go next to what they refer to. I know you've seen plenty of Reference sections of articles, and the main List page has tons of citations in the first paragraph. That was just one episode (one that also has an overly long plot). Bignole 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

• This episode, despite the claims of some fans, does not include inconsistencies with laws of wormhole physics established in later episodes: While it is true that the velocity of objects travelling through the Gate is not maintained between origin and destination Gates (when SG-1 and SG-2 first arrive on Chulak, we see several members tumble through the event horizon, when they had simply walked through the other side) and Gate travel is reported to be painful and distressing, this is true of Gate travel from Earth at this particular time. The "rough ride" and frost effect of wormhole travel is an after-effect of several thousand years of stellar drift, the addresses dialed by the Earth Stargate no longer being precisely accurate, and the result is the unpleasant travel. (As an analogy, imagine that you're driving to a friend's house with the roads changed slightly since your last visit; if you follow the same route, you're going to end up driving on the bare ground instead of the pavement.) However, this is corrected in later episodes (accompanied by in-show explanations from the various scientists) by calculating the current correct positions of other Gates and adjusting the dialing appropriately.
• When Carter sees the DHD for the first time, she comments on how it took years to "MacGyver" a way to dial the Stargate on Earth. As she says this, you can see O'Neill smirk behind her (He is played by actor Richard Dean Anderson, former star of MacGyver). It is said that Amanda Tapping ad-libbed the line during her audition and that it was what solidified her position.
• The episode's original airing on Showtime featured one scene of brief full frontal nudity. Many fans were critical of this as were parent groups, due to the misconception that science fiction is only "for kids." This has never been repeated and future airings would have the nudity cut out for syndication. The DVD version, however, retains this scene.

Here is another one from the pilot episode (i pulled these three from the entire notes section). The first one talks of a misconception of inconsistency. If there was a misconception then that needs to be cited, and shown where it was thought to be an inconsistency, but was proven false. If it is proven false then that needs to be cited as well, because a fan's explaination is not a verifiable source. If Amanda Tapping really did ad-lib that line and it got her the job then that needs to be cited. The same goes for the "fans being critical of this as were parent groups, due to the misconcetption that science fiction is only 'for kids'". It needs to be proven that that was the reason why the scene was removed and later put back. Just listing some external links at the bottom is not citing a source. Bignole 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

I noticed that with about any article on Season 1 (haven't checked the rest), the microsummary already spoils the ending of the episode most of the times. I know there are spoiler tags all around it, and I know there is even a spoiler free page, but I don't see any news value in telling the end, especially when it's well documented if you click on the respective episode. Besides: most people come here to find the episode they want to know more about, not to have the ending spoilt in just one sentence (at least this works for me).

How do you all feel about this? Cristan 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Besides: most people come here to find the episode they want to know more about, not to have the ending spoilt in just one sentence (at least this works for me)." umm, you just said there is a spoiler-free page that is at the top of the page... if they dont want to be spoiled, then they can click on that instead... -Xornok

Yeah, I know.. But I simply like the little screenshots and the microsummaries. I just don't see any reason why we should spoil the ending. Cristan 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You can give a spoiler warning but you can't take it out just because it's a spoiler per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, there's a "spoiler free" version of the list too. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a reason to improve the spoiler-free version with screenshots, not remove captions from this version. Morphh 12:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonono, think about it - images are spoilers for the episode.

Although I do actually agree with Cristan, maybe this article's worth would be increased if the summaries were introductions rather than full giveaways? --Alfakim-- talk 12:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

then they wouldnt be "summaries", they would be introductions, like you just said, and from what i remember, a summary retells the entire story in a few sentences, which includes the ending... -Xornok 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call one screenshot a spoiler but if you've seen the episode, it does remind you of the story. Morphh 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

It is proposed that the above rationale be changed to the below summary/rationale as the former sounds like a legal contract (You should only sign something you own)

Actually, the user who uploads an image is the one who is legally responsible (not Wikipedia). In other words, if someone wanted to sue someone for a copyright volition with their images, they could sue the user who uploaded those images, directly. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at 1/2 (or more) of the uploads? Notice that the uploader generlly isnt the one rationalising! Also the former speaks as if it means everybody "we", This should be avoided. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the former baltently states it will not, you can not be sure of this thus.. believed is stronger. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?

I made some edits that were reverted by Xornok. His reply to the changes didn't seem to make sense to me so I figured I'd post. The reply was "the "?" means we dont know for sure when the episode will air and the last box is not needed seeing as how there is no information at all..." My reply to the "?" is that the box that states "Original Airdate" is the box listing when the episode will air - we list this as "TBA". The field in question is the episode number and not the airtime. Why would anyone think that a ? next to the episode number would mean an unknown airtime when thier is a field for the airtime that says "TBA"? The "?" says to me that your not sure of the episode number, which makes no sense as they are incremental. The second part of the revert was in regard to episode 1020. Since there is no information on it, your statement is that we shouldn't include it. I disagree with this though. There are 20 episodes, so we should show their being 20 episodes. The fact that we don't know the name of it or the summary should not prevent us from listing the episode. 1019 is not the last episode for the season but this is how our list appears to me. Anyway, not a real big deal and probably not worth a post, but I thought I should question this revert. Morphh 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

well, fine, we dont know the episode number for sure. look at sateda and irresistible... sateda was first reported as number 3 and had the airdate for it being the 3rd episode, but it turned out to be the 4th episode. therefore, we do not know for sure when the episode will air until they are actually aired. also, you are assuming that theyre will be 20 episode, and yes, they probably will be, but we dont know for sure. it just like on the atlantis page, someone kept adding a season 4 section when there was no information to tell other then there would be as eason 4, it was just pointless to include the section unless you have some information ... you never know, they might make 22 episodes this season just so they can have the extra two episodes to finish the stories... -Xornok 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fan polls

is this really encyclopedic? --Alfakim-- talk 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tbh, It doesnt bother me greatly, It doesnt do much harm, though they are slightly chunky.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think popularity ratings are encyclopedic. However, they don't format well with this page in their current design. Tobyk777 07:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who added this, I believe it a) meets WP:Verify, as it is all referenced b) meets WP:OR as long as we don't try to interpret the data, which we aren't c) meets WP:NPOV, since we are, in a statistical sort of way, representing the views of all the fans who voted in the polls. The graphs show the impact of Stargate SG-1 on fans. It also sort of ties all of the Stargate episodes from any given season together, showing trends. There are other statistics I intend to add (unless consensus is against it), namely syndication and scifi ratings. There is enough data to do syndication rating graphs for seasons 3-7, and scifi rating graphs for seasons 6-10. These graphs are also relevant to the profitability and cancellation of Stargate SG-1. You can see a sample of a syndication rating graph here, although it needs to be redone because I screwed up on some of the numbers due to confusion on how the ratings worked. You could also use the graphs to make notability arguments in AfDs.

As for the organisation/presentation, it can be changed. I can change the size of the graphs and the colors. We could put all of the ratings in a separate section from the episode lists, or whatever you people think is best. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it :-) Morphh ^(talk) 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the fan polls.. I know Gate World is typically seen as a notable source, but I don't think they're reliable enough information (at least for the polls), nor really useful information. I mean, it's a fan poll, meaning people who are rating the episodes are already fans. Even if we keep this info somewhere, this is hardly the best place to put it. Remember, this is a featured list. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You make the argument that since the voters are fan the ratings are distorted. The fans aren't comparing the eps to other shows. They're comparing them to other episodes. I think that it is encyclopedic, useful, and out of unievrse info to show each eeps popularity in relation to the others. Gateworld is the most notable Stargate source there is and is as reliable as anything on the web. I strongly support their inclusion if armedblowfish or anyone else can find a way to format them well. Armedblowfish if you're reading this comment, that was good thinking. Tobyk777 06:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Tobyk777 for the compliment. : ) I agree with Tobyk777 that the fan polls and Nielsen ratings are measuring two different things. Nielsen ratings show a percentage of people/households, either out of total people/households the channel reaches, or just the ones who had their TV on at the time, who watched the show. These people may or may not have actually liked the show. The GateWorld fan ratings show how much people (who most likely were regular viewers of the show) liked the show. GateWorld draws from a much smaller sample than Nielsen - as a minimum, they get at least 100 votes and leave the poll open for at least a week before tallying the votes, but I'm not sure what the average is. However, small samples are considered statistically reliable so long as they are representative of the population as a whole. (The important thing is that GateWorld isn't asking "How much did you like this episode?" in the middle of a conversation for people who really liked/really hated that episode.) Sure, the people rating the episodes most likely like the show as a whole, but that doesn't mean they like every episode equally. In a way, these people are more qualified to judge, since they can compare the episode to other episodes they have seen, and understand the episode in the context of the series as a whole, and this bias is alright since we are aware of it.

In any case, the Fiction-specific Manual of Style suggest writing from an "out-of-universe" persepective, which includes data such as "popularity among the general public" which both Nielsen and fan ratings show in different ways.

One thing I'm confused about is the Nielsen ratings. There are 3 numbers, but often only one is included. Could someone read this and let me know if you agree with me that if only one number is shown, it is the second number (so that I can compare all the episodes based on the same rating number)?

The formatting (placement/organisation, size, colors, labels) can be changed as per reccomendations.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielson ratings would be okay. GateWorld is in no way encyclopedic/objective. I don't think we should be factualising that kind of information. Maybe on the GateWorld article, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alfakim (talk • contribs) 15:07, October 9, 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on what you mean by "encyclopedic/objective"? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it's trivial information. It's something that isn't even representative of all fans, only fans who go on Gate World (I'm a huge fan and I hardly visit that site). It's a fan poll, people, this really shouldn't be something one has to explain. I'm not saying we shouldn't include the info on Wikipedia, I'm saying we shouldn't include it on this article. I'm going to take them out, and if you want them back in then we need to review the article's featured list status. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, someone beat me to it :P -- Ned Scott 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I commented them out because I believe one needs stronger consensus to make major revisions to something featured, even though I personally think they should be there. They are still in the spoiler-free list because I don't think consensus needs to be as strong for non-featured articles/lists, but if you want to comment those ones out too, I won't edit war.

Is there any reason the general opinion of fans who vote on GateWorld wouldn't be roughly similiar to (serious) fans in general? (See Student's t-test.) Would it make a difference if I put the word "GateWorld" in the titles of the graphs? Would it make a difference if we included semi-detailed information on the statistics of the poll in the caption itself, rather than a note? (The fan polls were conducted by GateWorld, a large fan website. During season 1 through season 9's 6th episode Beachhead, the voters were usually given four options - 0 (a real stinker), 2.5 (dissapointing), 7.5 (good show), or 10 (outstanding). After that, 5 options were given - 0 (terrible), 2.5 (poor), 5 (fair), 7.5 (good), or 10 (outstanding). A few episodes towards the end of season 3 and the beginning of season 4 also used a 5-rating system. No sample of votes was averaged until the poll had been open for at least a week and there were at least 100 votes. GateWorld notes that the fan ratings are sometimes polarized - in one Season 4 episode, Divide and Conquer, 90% of the votes were split between 0 and 10, and the overall rating was 6.15/10. See Fan Poll Ratings. GateWorld (©1999-2006). Retrieved on October 9, 2006.) Would it make a difference if we asked GateWorld to provide more data on their statistical methods, for example, the average number of people who voted in each poll, their method of preventing multiple votes (cookies or IPs)? Are there any other sources for fan ratings of Stargate SG-1 episodes? If so, how do they compare?

As for bringing this debate to the featured list/article community, I asked about that (generically) here. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates seems to be more about removing lists' featured status than critically reviewing them, unlike Wikipedia:Featured article review, so I'm not sure which would be best.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 2 episodes 15/16 order question

I'm watching the thinpack DVD boxset of Season 2, and episode 15 per the order on the DVDs and packaging is "A Matter of Time," followed by episode 16 "The Fifth Race." This contradicts the information given here and in the respective articles. What's the deal? —pfahlstrom 05:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

sometimes the episodes didnt air in the order they were supposed to... -Xornok 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thought Matter of Time did air before Fifth Race. Sky in the UK aired both first, Matter of Time on December 9, 1998, and Fifth Race on December 16, 1998. Not sure why the dates here show the first US showing for Season 2, instead of the first ever showing - yet for Season 10, episode 11, it uses the first UK showing, not the later American showing. Nfitz 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In-Jokes

A FANatic like me would love to see a few more (competent) in-joke related comments on the episodes. I don't see the phrase "piece of cake" anywhere, but as I binge through the series here (while most US Television is on hiatus), I notice multiple occurences to dessert, cake especially. In Season 1, stepping through the stargate was at one point a piece of cake. When Dr. Weir went through the gate, it was a piece of cake. When Jack had to use the X302 hyperdrive to get the American gate away from Earth and they had to keep the craft light, he "shouldn't have had that cake." When our two heroes from the Season 6 episode "The Other Guys" (608) need to take down the shields on the mothership and ring to the surface, it's a piece of cake. The seriousness of my comment ends here. Now begins the "stretching it" portion. Food, actually, is often a source of humor. The craft services table in Wormhole X-Treme! Teal'c has a fondness for donuts throughout Seasons 7 and 8. Harcesis eating fruit loops during his encounter with Jackson. Season 4's Window of Opportunity episode page even mentions Jack eating fruit loops. Writers put these sorts of things in their scripts in the hope that people will find them, and I think the community would be doing them a service by exploiting them here for all to see. Just a suggestion. Tarkaan 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sky One Schedule change

http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=732 can someone please edit the list now that sky one have changed the schedule?

[edit] Usage of tags

Should anybody need to transclude that list it would only show the season 1 list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things about this position which seem odd:

1. You've described it as an 'accesibility issue', but the above doesn't seem to have anything to do with Accessibility or Wikipedia:Accessibility. Presumably you mean something more like 'transcludability'... the inclusion tags define a subset of the page as what should appear when it is transcluded.
2. Without the tags any transclusion of the page would take everything... including the table of contents, references/notes, navigation templates at the bottom, categories, interwiki links, featured list star, et cetera. At the very least, the featured list star would be inappropriate on any other page this might be transcluded to.
3. The page isn't transcluded anywhere. Very very very few pages in the article namespace are transcluded because there just isn't much use or benefit in doing so... other than this methodology being used to display featured lists on the Wikipedia:Featured content page.

Given that this is a hypothetical objection that something which almost never happens, and which seems inappropriate for this page, could happen... wouldn't it at least be reasonable to leave the inclusion tags in place until that hypothetical became a reality? --CBD 09:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If this really does become an issue (and I doubt it will) a template switch can easily be made. It could work a few ways, such as only showing season one when translcuded on Wikipedia:Featured content or by using a variable of some kind like {{List of Stargate SG-1 episodes|shortlist=yes}}. -- Ned Scott 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scheduling

Why does Sky One get to show the rest of season 10 first. does this mean the first showing the series finale will be shown in the UK (and Ireland) before America--Irishboi 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they will get the series finale first. MGM has no (or little) control over when stations air SG-1 and Atlantis - the Sci-Fi Channel has elected not to finish either one until March in the US. THe Movie Network in Canada began airing Atlantis's back half in early November, but the SG-1 affiliate will not show the back half until April. Sky One is airing the second half of the SG-1 and Atlantis seasons now. — BrotherFlounder 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to Food

In the spirit of Sci-Fandom, I am including references to food in the Notes section of each relevant episode. I believe this to be a running gag in the series. I'm adding it under the notes section of each episode's page.Tarkaan 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And MatthewFenton does not believe that this is useful information, so I am unable to edit articles without his reverts. For what it's worth, the Season 7 episode "Chimera" has yet another reference to Teal'c eating donuts while posing as a Tau'ri, there are at least two others I remember (specifically Teal'c, specifically donuts). I guess WikiProject Stargate has enough editors, so I'll leave you guys to it. Tarkaan 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too trivial to include. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, though. Had not noticed that before. :) -- Ned Scott 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was funny too, and you don't get it unless you watch nothing but stargate back to back for a couple of weeks. I just thought, wrongly I know now, that even while the tone of the articles is meant to be encyclopedic in nature, the information contained really can be shaped to a target audience. Your average sci-fi fan is not going to care that Teal'c eats donuts in 7x15 or Jack eats fruit loops in 4x06 (an OBVIOUS gag..time loops anyone?) but your average sci-fi fan isn't going to be reading entire episode summaries of reruns of a now cancelled basic cable show. A die-hard fan like me might, and a die-hard fan like me might look at those little snips of information and chuckle, just a little bit, and smack his forehead just a little bit harder for not having noticed it on the first go. Teal'c slamming an entire pot of steaming hot coffee, the food choices in that wierd episode with the Tok'ra arm bands (what was that?) or Sam ending conversations with Jonas by saying, "Lunch?" ... Teal'c behind the craft services table at Wormhole X-Treme (Jack: Where are all the donuts?). Writers actually sit around in writers rooms thinking this stuff up, and they like it when their little additions make it into the episode. It's funny. Trust me, I've been there. They all meant to do it. But anyhow, it's not encyclopedic content, so revert away... Tarkaan 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Wiki thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess in a medium where space for knowledge is essentially unlimited, people can still find a way to limit the knowledge presented. Thanks also for being so dismissive in your one-link comment. Editors like you really show what's behind the information contained on these pages. Fine work. Love, Tarkaan 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In 7x21, Jack has the repository of the ancients downloaded into his brain yet again, and spends his time recovering from and anticipating the incident at home. Sam, Teal'c, and Dr. Jackson stop by. Teal'c brings..........donuts.Tarkaan 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too trivial.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air dates are wrong

Starting from episode "The Quest (Part 2)" down, the release dates are wrong, atleast for the United States airings. The new episodes don't start until Mar 2007 (according to SciFi's website). The dates where origionally planned for then, but changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.123.120.2 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The airdates are for the world premiere dates, which for the back half of SG-1 S10 are the British airdates. — BrotherFlounder 03:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original airdates

I would just like to point out that original airdates may vary from country to country. So, I guess we could either go through the trouble of comparing the original airdates for all countries and listing the earliest one (too much trouble), or indicate in some way which country's original airdates we are using. Thanks! — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Original is the first airdate, i.e. the first place it was shown, not the first American airdate. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As of my last edit to the list of eps page, all Stargate SG-1 episodes are the original airdates... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations in episode synopses?

I'm totally new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any mistakes on my part; for example, I hope I'm posting this comment in the correct place!

I've noticed that several SG-1 episode synopses in Wikipedia are lifted nearly word-for-word from the official episode synopses available at SciFi Channel's official site. This extensive borrowed material is not clearly cited or quoted (even with a link in the "External links" section of each episode's page); I suspect that this constitutes plagiarism and is in violation of copyright.

The three synopses I've found that I believe borrow too heavily from SciFi's site are all in Season 9: "The Powers That Be" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis), "Beachhead" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis), and "Ex Deus Machina" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis).

I've noticed a similar problem with a few Atlantis synopses; I'll post those details on the Atlantis episode list page. I hope someone with more Wikipedia experience than I have can take some action to solve this. Thanks! Kiramin 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you see any just blank the plot with a summary like "removing copyvio from <source>", or if you wish, list as a copyvio. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another airdate problem

It looks like someone has changed the second half of season 10's airdates to the American airdates... those aren't the original airdates. Thanks, whoever fixed it! I have no sig here because I'm not a wikipedia member or anything... but I had to point that out.

[edit] Airdate Change

Could we maybe split the airdates between the SciFi and Sky One airdates. It would seem that in some instances (not just the 10th season) Sky One aired the episodes ahead of SciFi. I just feel that it would be beneficial to everyone if we were to do it like this. Scorp Stanton 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

it shouldnt matter where it aired first... so, i disagree -Xornok 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. "Original airdate" does not equal "Original time it aired in America", rather the first (the original) time it aired, thus Sky One is correct. Matthew 08:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Scorp Stanton. List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes includes two air dates - one for the UK and one for the US. why shouldn't this article? or maybe i should just go to List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes and delete the US airdates for the first season and the UK airdates for the second season on? after all, as you all have said, "it shouldnt matter where it aired first" and the fact that List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes makes it seem as if it does matter makes me think that they need to be taught the error of their ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

BSG has two air-date columns as it's a co-production between UK Channel Sky One and American Sci Fi. HTH. Matthew 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SG1 isn't a co-production between either UK Channel Sky One or American Sci Fi. maybe we should just delete all air dates, then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe it is, nope. Thus exactly why only a single column is presented with the original airdates. Americans believing the column should only show American air dates (whoch, of course, aren't "original") is just systemic bias. Matthew 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree - i think it should be both. as in two columns. if we could only chose UK or US, though, i'd say US. it was SG1's US licensee that got SG1 canceled, after all. could SG1's UK licensee have had such an impact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The list page specifically states that they are the 'original' airdate. SG-1 is a USA/Canada production, but some have aired in the UK first, however, its not a co-production like BSG is.. All SkyOne did is buy the rights to air it, and as part of their schedule, aired it before the USA.. It does not matter where the episode airs, it matters when the original airdate is.. Personally, I do not see the fuss.. I agree with Matthew here.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i see. BSG has both airdates because it has two producers and that's when each of those producers decided to air it for their respective regions. SG-1, in contrast, has one producer - a producer who didn't get to pick and chose the airdates. so, since it's the producers decision that gets listed and since SG-1's producer never made the decision, we should just delete all airdates in this article to reflect this fact.

or maybe we should delete the UK airdates in the BSG article. after all, like you said, "it does not matter where the episode airs, it matters when the original airdate is.."

and of course you don't see the fuss. hypocrites rarely do. you're applying two incompatible standards to BSG and SG-1 and don't seem even to realize it.

Argumentum ad odium. Matthew 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam back at you. Don't think your ability to throw around fancy Latin phrases excuses you from making cogent arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs).

Um, this talk page is for sg-1 episodes, not bsg... if you have a problem about the bsg episode list, then start a discussion there... -Xornok 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Xornok, but I have to reply.. IP: you are NOT understanding, BSG was a co-production of SciFi and SkyOne.. And, how dare you call me a hypocrite-for absolutely no reason.. SG-1 is produced by SciFi, buy SkyOne bought it to air themselves (and of which, SkyOne aired some episodes first), but SG-1 is NOT a co-production of SciFi and SkyOne.. SkyOne simply bought the rights to air SG-1 on their network-on their schedule.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

if a show is produced by two organizations, the airdate those two organizations chose is shown, as is being done with BSG.

if a show is produced by one organization and bought by another, the airdate for the one that bought it is shown, as is being done with SG-1.

your argument hinges on the fact that SG-1 is bought out. HOW does being bought out imply that only one date be shown? HOW does not being bought out allow for two dates to be shown? you state it over and over again yet never EXPLAIN its relevance. you never EXPLAIN how your position follows from the fact that it's bought out.

so no, i guess your not a hypocrite - your just an idiot who doesnt see their own red herrings. and unless you can explain the RELEVANCE of SG-1's being bought out, red herrings are all you'll ever be making.

My understanding is that Sci Fi syndicate SG-1 from MGM and hold the license for American television first-run (thus why no more television episodes are being produced), Sky One do exactly the same in the UK, except that MGM is a US based company. Matthew 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)