Talk:Fictional materials in the Stargate universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Stargate Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Stargate, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to the Stargate franchise. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments


Contents

[edit] about Naqahdah spellings

Naquadah is the spelling used by gateworld, and is incorrect. you can see the correct spelling on a whiteboard in singularity (season 1). if naqahdah is correct, then naqahdriah should be spelt this way too (add "ri" between d and ah). the gateworld spelling is conflicting with some of the rules of spelling naqahdah, most importantly adding an "h" at the end of the word. gateworld spell it naquadria (no "h" at the end, and again, the "ua" instead of "ah"). not that gateworld is a bad site, but the spellings are weird.

Where is this whiteboard? I just went through Singularity, and I didn't see it.
The Stargate SG-1 Solutions Wiki seems to prefer the naquadah spelling, as well. slab 05:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Hate to reply to myself, but it seems that 'naqahdah' is the spelling used in The Serpent's Lair (2.01). I guess Gateworld really is wrong, then. slab 05:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
A few small problems: 1. scifi.com and stargate-sg1.com both use the "qu" spelling. They have the alternative spelling without the "h" at the end. I don't know why. Furthermore, in-crew conflicts and spelling errors are possible. So I'll stick with the ones who make the show. They have the scripts. 2. Never in the history of the English language has the letter "q" by itself been pronounced "kw". And I distinctly remember them saying "na-kwa-da", not "na-ka-da", which would make them sound like Unas (Joke). "Qu", perhaps, may be pronounced "kw". But never "q". 3. I remember an old story about an English town about four hundred years ago; the Anglicans wanted a Maypole, while the Puritans, who took their faith very seriously at the time, did not. They took their case to the mayor, who listened very carefully and said, "Let those who desire a Maypole have a Maypole and those who desire none have none, and bother me no more with your quarrel." And I say on the behalf of the world: Let those of you who desire a "u" have a "u", and those who desire none have none, for regardless of what is used, it redirects to the same article. So bother us no more with your quibbling. --LD August the eleventh, twenty-oh-five.
The NPOV way of dealing with an ambiguity like this is to mention all the major viewpoints and identify their adherents. In this case, I'll add a paragraph mentioning the variant spellings and upload that very handy screenshot to illustrate the article with. :) Bryan 03:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
What ambiguity? "Naqahdah" has been confirmed onscreen, shouldn't that make it canon? I know it's possible (in-universe) that it ws a mispelling, but until we have evidence otherwise, shouldn't we go with "naqahdah"? WayneC 21:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what the current version of the article says. It also mentions that the official sites sometimes use the "qu" spelling, which is also a purely factual statement. Do you have any specific objections to how this is being handled? Bryan 00:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
No. WayneC 23:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The Joseph Mallozzi blog spells it Naquadah.

21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naquadria

I just noticed that naquadria is redirected here (naquadah). As I understand it, one is an isotope of another, or they are related in some other way. I seem to recall that they have different decay rates and that naquadria is radioactive (see the episodes regarding Kelowna for more info). The bottom line is that they are NOT the same thing, so there should be a separate article on naquadria, rather than a redirect. If I have a chance, I'll write it, but that may be a while, so if anyone else has the time, go for it. --ZZYZX 06:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There's already a section on Naqahdriah here, at Naqahdah#Naqahdriah. It's fairly standard practice on Wikipedia to cover several closely-related subjects in one more-general article when there isn't enough material about them to warrant separate articles, and the single paragraph or so that we have about Naqahdriah looks like it qualifies. Taking a look at the other contents of Category:Stargate materials, it looks to me like even more merging might be warranted; there just isn't a lot of material here for any of these; trinium doesn't even have its own article (it redirects to fictional chemical substance). I'll take a crack at it tomorrow when I've got a bit more attention to spare. Bryan 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I've just done the merge. Category:Stargate materials is now empty, if nobody undoes the merge in the next few days I'll delete it. Bryan 01:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Sorry, obviously I didn't read all the way down. --ZZYZX 04:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trinium, etc.

Trinium and tretonin are part of "the fictional Stargate setting", even though they aren't part of the Stargate (device).
—wwoods 16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing I want to know is where the heck the SGC is getting Trinium from, PXY-887 (Spirits) wouldn't let them mine so did they eventually find another Trinium source or what? I mean, they have enough to the point where they can use it to make the hulls of ships so it must have a major mining operation like the Naqahdah mine on P3X-403.

Faris b 06:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutronium

How about neutronium then? All I remember about it is that Thor told SG-1 that it "is an integral part of Asgard technology" or something to that effect. Asgard apparently choose their home planet based on its neutronium content. I think it plays some role in human-form replicators too. --ZZYZX 05:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Quartz gets a section so I don't see why neutronium shouldn't. It'd be useful to note that Stargate universe neutronium seems to have significantly different properties from "real" neutronium, there's no way the real stuff would be found on the surface of a normal Earthlike planet (it'd either explode due to instability outside neutron-star-magnitude gravity or it'd sink down into the planet's core and possibly "devour" the rest of the planet's matter if it's stable instead). Bryan 08:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
So real-life neutronium is what makes up a neutron star? I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. I'm guessing that the writers needed another fictitious element, and they looked over the periodic table and didn't see neutronium, so they used it. --ZZYZX 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
No way? It makes narrow teknicolor-stabilisede strangeonic bubbels. -lysdexia 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tretonin

Should this really be under materials? Medicines usually aren't included in materials in my expeirience; everything in this article should probably be used in some kind of engineering role, after all, you wouldn't call penicilin a material. :) DUCK 07:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia does call penicillin a material. It is in the following category chain:
Materials → Chemical substances → Pharmacologic agents → Antibiotics → Beta-lactam antibiotics
Besides which, splitting it out would only result in a small and trivial little article without scope for expansion, just like it started out as before I merged all the Stargate materials articles into this one. :) Bryan 08:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't suggesting a new article, I just thought stargate technologies or the like would be a better place; perhaps I just have an odd concept of what "materials" means. In truth I think there are way too many Stargate related articles on wikipedia and we really don't need any more. DUCK 14:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Stargate materials → Fictional materials in the Stargate universe … Rationale: The current title suggests that these are all Stargate (device) materials, which they are not.--Zxcvbnm 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC) … Please share your opinion at Talk:Stargate materials. Zxcvbnm 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  • --Zxcvbnm 22:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life

If the half-life of naqahdah is 150 years why haven't the Stargates all fallen apart? Thinktank

Maybe the Stargates are made of a more stable isotope of it. WikiSlasher 15:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall where a fact like this may have been stated, so I've requested a cite on it. Anyone know where it comes from? Bryan 18:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect the submitter misunderstood Daniel's explanation of his dating technique in the episode 100 days (when Jack gets stuck on a pastoral world when meteor strikes bury the gate). Daniel is looking at geological strata, and mentions that the naquadah-rich layers indicate dust thrown up by meteor collisions, and that they happen 150 years apart. Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove this part. GreyKnight 13:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the line. What Daniel actually said was, "I figure the decay rate differential between the naquada is about a hundred and fifty years, give or take, so…" - he said nothing about half-life. To my knowledge, the half-life of naquadah has never been mentioned on the show, but it would have to be similar to that of Uranium, or it would be impossible for the Antarctic gate to have remained functional for 50 million years. --Denorios 15:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Shielding

"The use of naquadah as an energy source appears akin to standard nuclear fission reactors, although the radiation generated appears to be far more limited, shown by the lack of shielding used on naqahdah generators."

In Learning Curve Carter says the reactors will have to be lead-lined because of radiation. I've got almost no idea about nuclear radiation, so perhaps it's that the shielding on a Naq is too thin, but I was wondering what's going on with that statement? Biscuit Knight 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (Stargate Stub Crusader)

[edit] mining the asteriod in the episode fail sale?

Something I've not understood... why doesn't the SGC take to mining the asteriod that appeared in the episode Fail Safe (Stargate SG-1)? ...or maybe they have and it's just never been mentioned on-screen? TerraFrost 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That was always my assumption since the SGC hasn't really been low on naquahdah for quite a while. So they either mined the asteroid or had no need to mine the asteroid since they have mines set up elsewhere. Konman72 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I doubt it was ever a possibility to mine the asteroid for the SGC. Think about it, that was back in season 5 when Earth had no ships, not even that cargo ship, they got that in season 6 then lost it in season 8. Probably by then, it was out of range or something or they couldn't track it or something.

Their first ever Naqahdah mine was on P3X-403 (Unas controlled planet) that was why they wanted the mining operation so badly.

--Faris b 09:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well at the time, Prometheus, their only spaceship, was stuck in orbit around Tagrea. -- SFH 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naqahdah in Pegasus?

Is there any Naqahdah in the Pegasus galaxy? At first, I assumed there wasn't or the Wraith/Ancients would be using it instead but I started thinking, Stargates are made out of Naqahdah (because it's the only known element that reacts with neutrinos [Orlin's gate was made out of titanium and was a one time thing, that may have been because it wasn't made from Naqahdah so it doesn't count]) so there would have to be Naqahdah in Pegasus in order for the Ancients to have built stargates there, I doubt they built the Pegasus gates in the Milky Way then transported thousands of gates with them and it seems they didn't go between galaxies like the SGC does so there must be Naqahdah in Pegasus as well. But it seems that the Wraith use some unknown power supply which is more powerful than Naqahdah (a hive ship is very large and Naqahdah seems to be only able to power vessels the size of a Ha'tak) and the Ancients have ZPM's and their "unknown near infinite" power source that the DHD's use, also, the Ori galaxy has gates so I'm assuming near every galaxy has Naqahdah.

Anyone have any thoughts on this matter?

Faris b 20:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe the Ancients mined it all during the war with the Wraith. -- SFH 00:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Quartz

"Quartz was mistaken as the material that made up the Stargate in the feature film, Stargate and the pilot of the Stargate SG-1 series, "Children of the Gods". It appears to fit the definition of Naquadah as the tough mineral of the Stargate.

The term 'Naquadah' first appeared in the episode "Singularity", referring to the material of the object inside Cassandra. Naquadah was later identified as the mineral that makes up all Goa'uld technology, and the Stargate, replacing the term Quartz.

Quote from "Children of the Gods":

General Hammond: So, this Quartz material the Stargate is made up of, it must be tough stuff if it survived a Mark 2."

I removed the above from the main page because it's just a different name for naqahdah, not its own material. If it kept its own section we'd need different pages for "Goa'uld", "Symbiote", "Snake", and all the other names used by characters to refer to the Goa'uld (Not to mention everything else in the series given multiple names). JBK405 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naqahdah mine

"Naqahdah is very rare, and does not exist naturally in Earth's solar system. At least some of Earth's naqahdah supply comes from P3X-403, where, as a result of a treaty negotiated by Daniel Jackson with the native Unas..."

"Goa'uld who remained on their native homeworld (known only by its SGC designation, P3X-888)."

So are these two planets the same or what? P3X-403 isn't mentioned on Planets_in_Stargate, maybe it's wrong?

anon 20:04, 30 August 2007 (GFT)

No, P3X-403 and P3X-888 are two separate planets, both have Unas on them. However, in the latter, the Unas were brought there by the Goa'uld. As to it not being on the list, it is just an omission.

Vala M 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate Trinium.jpg

Image:Stargate Trinium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)