Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 →

Contents 1 Notes 2 Spoilers 3 Proposal 4 ? 5 fan polls 6 Season 2 episodes 15/16 order question 7 In-Jokes 8 Sky One Schedule change 9 Usage of tags 10 Scheduling 11 References to Food 12 Air dates are wrong 13 Original airdates 14 Copyright violations in episode synopses? 15 Another airdate problem 16 Airdate Change 16.1 Airdate Change (continued)

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)

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)

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)

?

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfakim (talk • contribs) 15:07, October 9, 2006

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 2006-10-09.) 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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

Uh... Do YOU find it funny when you go into Dunkin Doughnuts and you realize you were there a week ago? Eating is part of the human condition. So for so long, you'd have to see them sit down and drink or eat. What if the reason for all the doughnuts was because they actually had them on set? Same thing with Wormhole X-Treme, they were refrencing that the crew in the episode should have had them just like they did in real life. While you're at it, lets have 20 minutes a season about how each character goes to the bathroom and how each one sleeps... Definetly way too trivial.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Airdate Change (continued)

Well, I can't see a result from above discussion for each of both approaches, so I wanted to raise this question again with ScorpSt editing the list and Xornok reverting it and all. First of all, I am biased as everyone is, imho the airdate section is for the first time an episode aired anywhere, not just in the US. Original in that context means "first time" not "country of origin". But that's not the point.
Point is, as long as there is no real majority for a US-airdate-section, there shouldn't be one added. Start a voting on the topic, let's reach a consensus...but don't just try and force your view on the list. That goes to both sides of course.
Before any whining starts, I reverted your additions again, ScorpSt. As said before, if you want to change the way it has been done all the times before (on this list), feel free to open the discussion again and reach a clear consensus. But don't change it before discussing it completely. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with SoWhy's revert & reasoning. I also ask that ScorpSt. discuss his edit on the talk page rather than edit war. Matthew 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going for an edit war, I just wanted a discussion on it. It seemed like nothing was getting done here so I figured I'd take a bit of radical action to stir up some talk. Now that people are listening, let's talk about this.

In addition to my comments below, I'd like to point out that, at times, Sky One has premiered episodes before SciFi, but in those cases the US airdate has been kept. The US airdates for the latter half of the 10th Season needs some sort of mention is all I'm saying.--Scorp Stanton 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just starting is not a good way to get people to discuss, they tend to be angry then and will be less understanding. Regarding the topic at hand, I ask you to point out where US airdate has been kept despite a sooner airdate elsewhere, afaik that never happened on this list, which always used the date it first aired, no matter where (like Stargate Atlantis usually has the Canadian airdates for the second half of a season because they aired them sooner).

I don't know, WHY the US airdates should need any sort of mention, if they are not the first time the episodes air. We do not include German, French, Italian or any other airdates, so why should we include US? Just because the series is produced in the US and Canada? Shouldn't we add Canadian airdates for every episode then?

I think there is no need with above reasons. TV lists on WP are not a substitute for a TV guide and thus shouldn't be specific for one country, even if it's (one of) the country (countries) of origin. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)