Talk:Stargate (device)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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
Archives

Contents

GA, not FA yet

I'd like to get this relisted as a good article now that our references are verified. But I don't think it's near FA yet. There's a lot more tightening and style changes that need to be made, and a few more references needed (e.g. to things other than episodes, and also for the "Other Uses" section). -- Alfakim --  talk  01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Renominate it. I suggest saying that it used to be a good article (can you link to the results of the previous nomination?), and explain that the person who delisted it is now happy with it. If you want I'll do it, but I thought someone who had contributed more to the article might want the honor. Armedblowfish 02:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I can't quite work out how it's done or I'd have done it up there already. So would appreciate if someone else put it through. -- Alfakim --  talk  08:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Good luck! As you know, I thought it good enough even before the last set of changes. Metamagician3000 07:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

DHD Symbols

I counted the buttons on the DHD in the picture on this page. there are only 38 buttons, and there are 39 glyphs on the Stargate. Thinktank

Really interesting actually. Maybe the origin symbol isnt included. sometimes DHD dialing uses 6 symbols followed by the red button. -- Alfakim --  talk  23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not right. It the episode solitudes, cater clearly states that she is looking for the point of origin on the DHD. Once she finds it she points to it and says that that has to be the origin symbol. It's 38 gylphs + the unique orgin symbol on each gate. As to why there are 38 on the DHD, it's either a error in the show, or a miscount on your part. Tobyk777 03:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This very issue was raised over at Talk:Dial-Home Device a little over a week ago. :) Bryan 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought that the big shiny button in the center was the 'Origin Symbol', since they press it to activate the address, in the same fashion a Gate activates when you encode/lock the final chevron. Oh, that's cool. I only now read the DHD page you referenced, and found this theory verified (though I never knew that each gate had a different symbol on it! I almost thought it meant DHDs could only be used on one gate. Now, the strange part is; The puddle-jumper DHDs have 39. Or is the one in the middle, yet again, 'origin'? How Object Oriented! ;) Ayelis 09:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

SG-Miniatures

If I found a miniature model of the Stargate on the internet somewhere, say, on a website like this, where would be the best place to post it? Is such content even becoming of Wikipedia? I've noticed the [Pepakura] section, but this particular model seems specifically targeted to both stargate fans and fans of miniature game playing.

It is interesting to note that this stargate model has only 36 symbols(one beneath each chevron, and three between). The Eye of Horus is the prevalent symbol (active within the top chevron) upon the gate. It is accompanied by random heiroglyphs instead of the symbols we see in the Stargate series. The Earth gate origin symbol is not apparent, though it may be beneath one of the eight inactive chevrons. Perhaps this gate is from a different dimension, or galaxy? Did the movie feature different gate symbols? Ayelis 10:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable enough for inclusion I'm afraid. it's bordering off-topic. interesting though. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just a paper model that I'm assuming was made using the DVD box art as reference; box art that is highly errorneous and not accurate, lol.--Promus Kaa 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pic position

Why move it? -- Alfakim --  talk  02:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In the peer review, [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777] said, "In the intro, where the pic and table of contents are side by side the little narrow collum of text doesn't look good." So I made the picture smaller. Then I considered moving the picture down below the text into the big empty space next to the table of contents, and tried it. It's okay if you don't like it, I'm not really sure about it either. Armedblowfish 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Tobyk777 was referring to when the TOC was squashing the text - i reverted this so there should be no problem now. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Black hole power source

In the exceptions part of the article it says that Supergates use black holes as power sources. I may be wrong, but i think it's more likely to that a Supergate "piggy backs" on an existing wormhole (black hole) Thinktank

If I understand the use of the black hole, it was used merely because the presence of a nearby blackhole allows one to break the 38 minute barrier. Does anyone have the episode handy where this is discussed? JoshuaZ 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Beachhead (Stargate SG-1) See transcript starting from
"MARKS
The planet's diameter has now decreased by up to 50%, and it's accelerating rapidly."
Armedblowfish 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So it's a bit unclear, but I think it basically says that the black holes both a) serves to power such a large gate and b) helps them keep it open really long. Armedblowfish 21:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

split?

This article is very long. I suggest splitting the "Complexities of function" section back away into the seperate article Complexities of Stargate Function. The section in this article can then be reduced to one paragraph. -- Alfakim --  talk  09:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That would reduce the article from 60 to 48 kilobytes, and move 4 images to another article. (Test based on erasing everything except first paragraph.) I would personally reccomend having a 2 or 3 paragraph long summary here, to get the general idea across. Armedblowfish 12:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I think that although this article is long, it's fine. Nothing links to complexities of gate function, and it wont fit into any templates. People won't search for it either. I think that the ihnfo in it is vital to this article and should be kept in the main article. Tobyk777 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That's my idea (and answer to Tobyk777) - we move the main stuff across, link it from here (only, but so what), and summarise the main points in 1-3 paragraphs on this page. I'm just thinking the page IS long, and that may hinder any FACs. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is long but I prefer not splitting it. Otherwise we just get a series of incomplete articles. Do you think it has been improved to the point when it can be remominated again? --Tone 13:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No... there's certainly a lot I can see that I will be fixing in a few days. Just as soon as my exams are over... ugh. Cut a long story short, there's a lot of places this article is too long-winded and repeats itself. There's more rephrasing needed (in/out-universe, etc), and the removal or sourcing of certain fancruft or speculation. -- Alfakim --  talk  15:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not. This article has great potential, but for every 1000 good articles, there is only one featured article. So featured articles should strictly adhere to Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and most reccomendations. 60 kb is fine for a good article, but not for a featured article. If you want it to become a featured article, I suggest being very nitpicky about improving it, and patient. Armedblowfish 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get this ratio from? there are about 950 FAs and about 1000 Good Articles. Tobyk777 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he meant that the ratio of articles to featured is 1 in 1000. (+/-1000 featured in +/-1,000,000). Point is, it's tough getting featured. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. According to WP:FA, 1 in 1180 articles is featured. But getting featured is still very difficult. And anyways, if you only get your article on the front page once, don't you want it to be when it's the best Wikipedians can humanly make it? Armedblowfish 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird sentence

What is “Although typically 22 feet (6.7 m) in diameter and made of a fictional heavy mineral called "Naqahdah" (see also: actual constitution), the gates are almost always seen standing vertically” in the second paragraph trying to mean? -Ahruman 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, “…yet walking through a Stargate is superficially no different from stepping through a doorway” doesn’t really mesh with the special effects of gate travel. -Ahruman 22:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


It's saying that although they weigh so much and are so tall, and hence likely to fall over, they are nearly always seen upright. -- Alfakim --  talk  20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbols correct?

Compare: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Pegasus-gate2.jpg with Stargate (device)#Symbols at Atlantis - the numbering doesn't seem to match? On what authority was that list compiled? -- Alfakim --  talk  22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's correct 36 symbols on the Atlantis Stargate

--NeilEvans 14:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the reference for the Atlantis origin symbol? I'm not sure it's correct. Aporwitz

Gate Opening

As a side note I just wanted to reference something that has not been addressed in all this discussion. First stargates must know that they are being "dialed into" in order to activate. This must be done either by some unknown quantum mechanism which can act over the entire universe. Or some other mechanism however I think that quantum effects are the most likely. This actually isn't that strange there are quantum mechanisms which do act like that. This explanation would also alleviate the problem of the power consumption of opening all gates at once, since this mechanism could trigger all the DHD devices thereby allowing each gate to open using its own DHD.

We know from "Critical Mass" and other episodes that subspace communication is possible without a stargate. I'd assume the dialing gate just sends a subspace signal. I think they say in an SG-1 episode that the gates are all connected via subspace, but I could be wrong about that. Aporwitz

Multiple Gates

In reckoning, the stargate was modified so the stargate would dial multiple gates, allowing the dakara superweapon pulse spread throughout all of the gates simultaneously. Would this mean that the gate would have a similar effect on matter. i.e. if a person stepped through a stargate open to 3 gates simultaneously, would there be one person coming out of each gate, resulting in the original and two copies? AtlantisX 18:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that would violate the law of conservation of matter. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
At this point, we don't know. However, as said above, it would violate the law of conservetion of matter. But physics laws have been broken in SG before... American Patriot 1776 22:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The other thing I don't get about dialing multiple gates is the energy requirements. When they dialed an 8-symbol address it required a special power source, and Carter said it was drawing 10 times the usual power. Even assuming a DHD can produce more power than the SGC's power supply, it's not going to be able to produce enough power to dial 1000's of gates, is it? You would need a ZPM at least for that kind of power. (I'm assuming the energy requirement is proportional to the number of gates dialed, or at least close to it, which seems realistic, even if they can share wormholes for part of the way or something). --Tango 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, however, dialling multiple gates doesn't require a ZPM to power the operation. We saw them do it on the show without one. Therefore, IMO the "energy requirement is proportional to the number of gates dialed" theory is probably wrong. The only other possibility that comes to mind is that the Ancients rigged up the Dakara DHD with an extra powerful energy source, since they may have used the Dakara "superweapon" in a similar manner themselves. But I'd have expected this to be mentioned if it were the case considering how useful and unusual such a power source would be in its own right, so I think the more likely explanation is simply "yes, they can do that with a normal power supply, prior assumptions to the contrary notwithstanding." :) Bryan 00:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The energy requirement for in Galaxy gate travel is minimal. It was stated that a DHD can power a gate for 50 million years or more. The DHD is probably a long lasting power source, but has a lower generating capacity. The distance from one galaxy to another is 100s if not 1000s of times greater than intergalatic distances, thus a ZPM is needed. If the gate dialed 1000s of gates, by logic it would have to provide 1000s of times the power, but I don't think that's what is happening. In physics, a wormhole can only have one entry point and one exit point. I'm not sure wheather that was stated in Stargate. For one gate to dial 1000s, instead of the wormhole going from subspace to normal space at one point, it would go to many points. This simply could mean that the exit point distibutes matter throguhout various entry points in nromal space. This would not necisarly require any more power. Tobyk777 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I never knew you were a Wormhole Physics buff, Tobyk777! Let's not try to rationalise wormholes and gate travel. Accept from the beginning that it's a fiction, which doesn't make sense in real physics. We can rationalise within it's "laws of gate" but we can't really bring external, "real" physics into it. The whole multiple gate thing doesn't work, no - maybe one day they'll explain it, otherwise it's better treated as yet another inconsistency with gates - and there are many. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well said. As much as I hate it, there are things that don't make sense in Stargate. As a fanatic of the show, I pay close attention and notice when something isn't right. I could give you dozens of examples of inconsistencies and things that just don't make sense. Tobyk777 04:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The distance might be 100s of times greater for intergalatic travel, but Carter specifically says in "The Fifth Race" that the gate is drawing 10 times the usual power. It's possible that it keeps increasing after that point, but I would have expected someone to read it off as it increased with a proportional amount of tension in their voice. So the Earth power supply can't even manage 10 times the usual power. Assuming a DHD is a little better (if it was a lot better, they'd just dial Atlantis from offworld), it might be able to produce 5 times the usual power, which you wouldn't expect to be enough to dial 1000s of gates. I guess Bryan is right - gate power requirements aren't proportional to number of exits, or anywhere near it. (Yes, I know it's pointless to try and explain Wormhole Physics, but it's still fun! As for inconsitancies, the whole gate address/planetary shift/point of origin stuff makes no sense) --Tango 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: If you're interested in the gate address thing, I've just crunched some numbers. The volume of the galaxy is about 2x10^13 cubic light years (possibly a fair bit more, I'm ignoring the central bulge). Excluding the point of origin, there are about 2x10^9 gate addresses. That means each gate address corresponds to (on average) 10000 cubic light years, that's a cube over 20 light years on each side. Even assuming the addresses aren't evenly spread, so things like 2 gates in one solar system can still work, the idea of calculating a new address when the planet moves doesn't really hold water. There just aren't enough addresses. That's the problem with using a digital dialing system to describe an analogue value (position in space) - they need a higher bitrate. And to top it off, in "Avenger 2.0" they say the DHD's update themselves automatically, which involves redefining the definitions of the symbols, while on Earth they change which symbols they need to dial. That means the addresses would be different for dialing from Earth than from offworld. --Tango 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As I say. It doesn't make sense! If the producers want to address these issues they can; otherwise we, like them, must brush quietly over them and just enjoy the rest of the show. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I can enjoy the show and enjoy nitpicking at the same time! Twice the fun! --Tango 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Still to do?

What still needs to be done to get this ready for another stab at FA status? I'm guessing it's just reading through and making small improvements - if so, are there any sections still waiting? I'd rather not repeat work that's already been done. --Tango 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty much ready to me. I would say nominate it. Also, I have been putting massive effort into DNA Resequencer. I stopped with it about a month ago because I couldn't think of any way to improve it more. I think we should nominate that article too. I think it's finaly time to give the Stargate project some FAs with these two articles. Tobyk777 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Actualy, after going over this article again, I noticed a few things: There are no refs in the other uses section, and there are very few refs in the peagasus and ori gates sections. Obviously, there could be far more in those sections. Other than that it looks good. Tobyk777 18:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Would it be better to submit them both to peer review, rather than directly to FA? It might stop us looking like crazy fans that just want our article to be featured, rather than people seriously interested in the encyclopedia. If we get a glowing PR, we can go straight into FA and get it pretty much straight away. I'll go look at those refs now. --Tango 18:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"Other Uses" has lots of references, all the episode links are effectively references, they're just included in the text, rather than as footnotes. I think including them in the text is better anyway, it looks less in-universe. --Tango 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree in that it is better to have them embedded in the text. It gives it a more out-of-universe feel. However, what I did on DNA Resequencer was include them both ways. That aside, I think the ref issue is very minor if it even exisits. If this were nominated now I would say it would have a good chance of success. Also, Tango, what do you think of DNA Resequencer? Tobyk777 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look a the DNA article later - no time now. Some of the references are inconsitent. It seems {{sgcite}} has a different style to {{cite episode}} (compare ref 13 to the others). Also, some of the transcript links are missing. If no-one has fixed it by the time I get back, I'll do it. --Tango 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not renominate yet: okay.

  • {{sgcite}} is mostly a shorthand. It is identical to {{cite episode}} if the latter template has minimal information. However, {{cite episode}} should always be preferred on an article going to FA.
  • Lots of sections are highly under-revised. Particularly the Complexities, Atlantis and Ori sections. Also, lots needs to go. We should consider moving DHD and dialing information to the DHD article, and splitting complexities away into its own article (leaving a summary here).
  • More importantly, take a good look at our last peer review. We haven't really covered the topic properly in terms of breadth. There ARE writers out there who've looked at Stargate and the history of portals in science fiction, and they desperately need to be mentioned in this article. See also Stepping Through the Stargate.
  • Maybe I'm just a perfectionist, but the above point is quite important i think. Remember this is an encyclopedia. The current article is the best STARGATE reference you'll probably find anywhere, but as an encyclopedic article it pails, most significantly in the out-of-universe aspect, and I think FAC will hate that. I also fancy it will always be harder for things like this and DNA Resequencer to reach FA purely because they look like fancruft, so you really do have to persuade them otherwise.

So in short, other than the usual reworkings, we need to trim the article, move things around, organise the sections and add out-of-universe information. I reckon. -- Alfakim --  talk  22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted)Ok, I've fixed ref 13 (by simply changing it to the other template, seemed easier than working out if sgcite's show=ref parameter should be changed [I think it probably should, though]). I've taken a quick look at DNA Resequencer. There are a crazy amount of refs, but I think that's what the FA people like, so why not? I've looked at the failed FAC and it looks like you've fixed all the valid points. I'm going to ask User:BrianSmithson to take a look at both articles - he's put a lot of effort into working out how fictional articles should be written (I agree with most of his points), it would be good to get him on our side before trying for FAC. --Tango 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
After reading Alfakim's points: Moving the DHD stuff might be appropriate. Moving the complexities was discussed above, and it doesn't seem worthy of it's own article. If it's too long for this article, it should simply be cut down (I think it's fine). If you have more info to add, then great, but we can't include info for books we don't have. FA isn't the end of the road for articles - they can still be improved. Unless you can actually add the extra stuff, it's not worth holding the article back for. I agree that FAC will complain about fancruft, but there's nothing we can do about that. I'm going to get Brian's opinion on the in-universe/out-of-universe stuff, he should be able to point out anything that FAC will complain about. --Tango 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with some of the points here, but disagre with others. I agree that many members of the wikipedia community will view these articles as fancruft, and will reject them. However, if TARDIS can get in, being a fictional machine, This article and DNA Resequencer can get in. Aflakim gave some good ways as to how the article can be improved more, the most important of which I think is writing from an out-of-universe perspective. I went through DNA Resequencer sevral times, changing almost every sentence to sound more out-of-universe. I'm fine with putting some of this article into DHD, but I don't think we should plit the complexities section. That section is the most interesting section. Tobyk777 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nine chevrons??

The intro states that there are 9 chevrons - however there are only 7 + one of them, I think, is reused when dialing extragalactically. I'd have to rewatch a relevant ep to be sure of this. But there are certainly only 7 chevrons visible on the gate Stui 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The other 2 are under the ramp - they're visible when the gate is moved, or lying down. The 8th is for extragalactic. No-one knows what the 9th is for... How about extrauniversal? 9-symbol addresses take you to alternate realities (or whatever SG calls them). That's my guess. --Tango 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, the 9 chevrons are clearly visible on any Atlantis spacegate. -- DiegoTehMexican 03:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the other two chevrons are there as back-ups in case any of the other chevrons are damaged.

Well, you're at least partially wrong, sorry - the method of using a Stargate to travel to an address in a seperate galaxy requires an EIGHT symbol sequence - read: eight chevrons used. The ninth may or may not have a function, but the eighth definitely has a function. Runa27 23:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper episode referencing with {{xsgcite}}

The {{sgcite}} template is very useful for talking about episodes as inline text, but it is not recommended for use when referencing (i.e. in <ref> tags). In many places it is being used as a way to reference episodes (e.g. {{sgcite|Lost City|1|show=ref}}), but {{cite episode}} is much prefered. But there is an answer!

Calls to {{sgcite}} can be easily converted into calls to {{cite episode}} with the help of {{xsgcite}}. Simply do the following:

       {{sgcite|Lost City}}
{{subst:xsgcite|Lost City}}

and when you save, the use of {{sgcite}} will have converted to a use of {{cite episode}}. This will be useful in maintenance when references must be brought up to standard. {{xsgcite}} can also be used on its own to generate proper references to Stargate episodes quickly. Remember that it must always be substed.

See the {{xsgcite}} template page for further details. -- Alfakim --  talk  01:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Substing {{xsgcite}}

See also: above comment introducing the {{xsgcite}} template.

I discovered that template substitution doesn't work inside ref tags. This meant that to convert citations you'd have to remove the tags, save, and then put them back, and save again. I solved this. Now, all you need to do is remove the tags and save - the subtitution adds the tags back automatically.

       {{sgcite|Lost City|show=ref}}
{{subst:xsgcite|Lost City|show=ref}}

This converts an {{sgcite}} reference usage into a full {{cite episode}} usage including the surrounding <ref> tags. On saving, the above gives:

pre
<ref name="Lost City">{{cite episode|title=Lost City|episodelink=Lost City (Stargate SG-1)|series=Stargate SG-1|serieslink=Stargate SG-1}}</ref>

This does now make it tons easier to cite Stargate articles properly. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't have told me that 5 minutes earlier, could you? I just moved 4 sgcites to xsgcites the hard way and finished a minute after you posted this message... damn you! Thanks, though... --Tango 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Haha lol.. ah man, sorry bout that :P -- Alfakim --  talk  16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sort out references!

Arg. {{xsgcite}} won't parse unless the ref tags are removed first. I'm reeeeally tired now so I'm going to have to leave this to someone else. Have a look at the references section at the bottom and sort it out someone please. substs need to subst (by removing the ref tags, saving, then putting them back), and various other citations need to be converted to {{cite web}}. Episode citations also need transcipts attached. Thanks if anyone helps out. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Tango 13:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think they're fixed now. Some still need transcripts, though. It seems xsgcite only works with SG-1 eps - am I missing something, or haven't you added a series parameter yet? I tried to look at the code, but there were too many includeonlys floating around and I got confused... --Tango 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've worked it out - there's a StargateShow template I haven't seen before that handles all that bit, so the same abbrev. should work with xsgcite as with sgcite, ok. I'll make the talk page a little clearer. --Tango 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, xsgcite, as the name suggests, works exactly like sgcite but substs into a cite episode. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote about the kawoosh being "difficult to achieve" is referenced to "Stuart Bradley, special effects supervisor, SG-1." with no link to an interview or other explanation of when he said it. Does anyone know the details, or am I going to have to start googling? --Tango 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That was in a GateWorld interview. Probably the same interview has already been referenced in the article before.-- Alfakim --  talk  14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any gateworld interviews with Stuart Bradley. Google finds this site (and a duplicate of it) [1] which has the quote on. I'll cite that. --Tango 14:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Turns out we've already referenced that site, so I just changed the bradley reference to point to the previous one. --Tango 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

again on splitting

I've done loads of work on this article just now to rephrase stuff and so on, but i still feel strongly that we should split away that complexities section. It is very densely packed with plotlines and esoteric stuff, which would be interesting elsewhere, whilst here all we really need is:

"Gates cant get a wormhole if they're blocked. They send matter in discreet units. They are very durable. Sometimes there are backup gates. On occassions they've even been used to go back in time."

-- Alfakim --  talk  16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My vote is still for keeping them together. A lot of it is useful info for this article, so the summary would end up being most of it anyway. --Tango 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Review

There's a review of this article and DNA Resequencer on my talk page. Please feel free to discuss the suggestions there. --Tango 12:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points. I agree that a lot of "Other uses" is OR. and i STILL think we need to split off that complexities section SO badly. -- Alfakim --  talk  16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think a separate article would end up in AFD within a couple of weeks. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article. --Tango 17:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll - Split Complexities?

Ok, we clearly have a disagreement here, so let's have a quick poll (non-binding - once we have a feel of what people think, we can take the discussions from there). Do you think we should split the complexities section of this article into a separate article, leaving just a summary, or leave it as it is?

Trimming complexities

I've looked through, and I think we can trim the complexities section by:

  1. Severely cutting down, or possible removing completely, the 2ndary gates section
  2. Merging the essential parts of durability into the 2nd paragraph of the lead (if that makes the lead too long, that whole paragraph can be merged with "Making of the prop" under a new name)
  3. Merging "exceptions" into power supply, possibly cutting it down a bit

I think the rest should stay pretty much as it is. --Tango 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't mess up the lead. that lead is a work of art. it doesn't need anything else or anything less. -- Alfakim --  talk  14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the only place I could think to put the durability information in. We really don't need a whole section on it. Do you have a better place to put it? --Tango 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Terraforming

The 3rd paragraph says many of the planets with stargates on were terraformed. Does anyone have a citation for that? I don't remember terraforming being mentioned anywhere except in "Scorched Earth", which does mention anything about the ancients. --Tango 17:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe in an early episode, someone (Carter?) had theorized that the gates were placed on terraformed worlds. However, any mention of it would have been in a theorizing sense...and before we knew much, if anything, about the Ancients. --Tim4christ17 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In the tenth comandment, Teal'c stated that many worlds were terraformed by the goa'uld. Tobyk777 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
So he did, thanks. I've added the reference to the article. (BTW, it's first commandment, not tenth) --Tango 23:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Intergalectic Dialing

The "Addresses" section of the article states that:

  • "So far, only a ZPM (Zero Point Module) has been shown to have the power capable of initiating an intergalactic wormhole (see episodes "Letters from Pegasus", "Camelot" and "The Fifth Race" for exceptions)."

This is incorrect, as demonstrated in The Fifth Race (Stargate SG-1), when then-Colonel O'Neill created a device that worked as a one-time power source for his trip to the Asgard homeworld. --Tim4christ17 03:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of a contradiction in the show. In the fifth race Oniel created the device you spoke of, capable of going to the asgard galaxy. In the episode "Point of View", Carter and "Carter" were able to create a replica of it to signal the asgard for help. Based on the fact that carter could make one of these devices, it doesn't make sense that the SGC needs a ZPM to dial the gate. However, recently, in both SG-1 and Atlantis it has been stated, dozens of times at least, that a intergalactic worhole requires a ZPM. Despite the logical flaw, it is stated so often, that it is not incorrect to state that a wormhole requires a ZPM. However, because of this flaw, and because powerful Naquadah generators as well as Ori power sources are able to generate trasngalatic wormholes, I think that to satisfy logic, as well as recent information, the sentence should be changed to say: "So far, Only a ZPM, or a device of equal of greater power has been shown..." Tobyk777 05:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the general assumption is that Ida (the Asgard galaxy) is closer to us than Pegasus. This is supported by the comment by Thor in one of the replicator episodes that the Asgard fleet "is waiting in the void between our galaxies", implying our galaxies are next to eachother in some way, and quite close together. That bit of the article should be reworded - I'll go and do it now. --Tango 13:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The Asgard are in two galaxies. The Ida, and the Othalla, as I just refrenced. They have both been shown to be close since the asgrd can fly from them to the milky way in a matter of hours, whereas it takes weeks to go to the peasasus. Also, the stargates in the Ida look the same as the ones in the milky way, as shown in fifth race, meaning that the Ancients may have freqeuntly gone back and forth, whereas the peagasus ones and milky way ones almost never interacted. So, even though the galaxies are closer, it still took an extra power source. Perhaps it should say:

"Dialing other galaxies takes additional power to establish a wormhole. For local galxies, it only takes a small additonal power source. For more distant galaxies, such as the peagasus, it takes a ZPM. The Ori have a power soruce which can establish a permanet wormhole from their galaxy to the milky way through means of a backhole." Who likes it? Tobyk777 18:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Othalla a planet in Ida, rather than a different galaxy? I think we should keep it vague, as a lot of this is OR. No-one has said on the show that Ida is closer than Pegasus, and there are other explanations of the evidence (eg. the Asgard hyperdrive on the Deadalus is slower than the ones the Asgard use themselves). I think the Ori/blackhole thing was speculation by Carter, so should be expressed as such, rather than stated as fact. --Tango 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The two links I gave you are reliable sources that say that they are two diffrent galaxies. It was more than speculation by carter. In beachead, they actualy showed that the planet was turning into a black hole. Carter was proved to be right. Anyways if there are nno objections ini the next few hours i will add that little correction into thbe article. Tobyk777 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
After some research, I have found that in "New Order", they say Halla is in the galaxy of Othalla, but I think that's a mistake (picked the name of the planet, rather than the galaxy, from the line in Fifth Race). In "Unnatural Selection", the galaxy isn't named, but the planet is said to be the first planet they settled, so I'd assume that's in Ida. It doesn't make sense unless we assume the writer of New Order made a mistake. How do we deal with mistakes? If they said it, it's technically canon... However, you're right about the black hole, I'd forgotton that bit. --Tango 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It may have been a mistake, but may not have. They could have settled the Orthala first, then the Ida. Also, in season 9, an Asgard said said that "Thor was ocupied with busness in a distant galaxy." This indicates that they are in more than one. This whole "name of thier galaxy/galaxies" issue is yet another thing in stargate that doesn't make complete sense. (I know I hate to say it but despite stargate's overwhemling greatness sometimes it doesn't make sense.) I think that we should describe what diffrent sources say and explain the inconseistnccy, rather than try to make sense of it. But that should go on the asgard page, not here. Anayways I still think the problem rasied here could be sloved with the insetion of:

"Dialing other galaxies takes additional power to establish a wormhole. For local galxies, it only takes a small additonal power source. For more distant galaxies, such as the peagasus, it takes a ZPM. The Ori have a power soruce which can establish a permanet wormhole from their galaxy to the milky way through means of a backhole." Tobyk777 20:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still OR. They've never said that Ida is closer than Pegasus, we're just guessing. We can't state it in the article. I think the vague description I added earlier is as good as we can get without more information. Maybe Seasons 10 and 3 will explain it more, as it looks like there will be a little more travel between galaxies. --Tango 20:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What vauge desciption did you add? Tobyk777 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Quit with the OR guys. Why not just leave it with the more meagre but more backed-up statement that it currently is? and also: avoid treating it as fact remember. "dialing other galaxies" doesnt "take additional power" --- "dialing other galaxies is portrayed as requiring 'more power'." -- Alfakim --  talk  21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My vague description is the one added in this diff: [2] --Tango 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats a perfect way of putting it. Lets keep it like that. Tobyk777 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
No, wait a minute. 1. I distinctly remember the Asgard greeting O'Neill as having said "You have reached the planet Othala in the galaxy of Ida." Check the script. I'm virtually certain of it. 2. I always assumed that the thing O'Neill built was a jury-rigged ZPM--the lights, the crystal, the high power, and so on. Not as good as a real one, but it served the purpose. Lockesdonkey 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Got it, on the button! See this StargateWiki transcript--Asgard #1 says "This is the Asgard planet Othala, in the galaxy of Ida." I beleive I've settled that dispute. Lockesdoneky 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No you haven't. I still think there are two asgard galaxiesm Ida and Orthalla. Look at the gateworld links. Tobyk777 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked, transcripts trump fansites, even official ones. Othala is a planet in Ida, and I can't remember any episode describing a galaxy named Othala or Orthalla, or Othalla, or any variant on that name. There is an Orilla, but that's also a planet, the new Asgard homeworld from "New Order." Find one mention of "Othala" as a galaxy for me IN A TRANSCRIPT, and then you can gloat, but I'm pretty confident of my facts. Lockesdoneky 00:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I've already said it above - they talk about a galaxy of Othala in "New Order", go and read that transcript. And next time, read the completely discussion before trying to show off how well you can read... --Tango 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget that in the Stargate FILM, Abydos was NOT the closest world with a Stargate in regards to Earth; it was all the way in the Kalium Galaxy. :P -Promus Kaa 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Points of Origin

Does anyone have a list of and/or pics of the points of origin for various other planets? I know the Point of Origin has been shown for Abydos at least (in the Stargate movie) - don't know about others. If enough can be found, it might be worth adding them to the list of stargate "glyphs." --Tim4christ17 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure they actually exist for most planets. I imagine the DHD's are all the same prop, with the same glyphs, and the Point of Origin is meant to be unique to each DHD, I think (that's how they can dial out when they're on random planets and have no way to know the POO (lovely TLA, don't you think?) as seen with the atlantic DHD - although how that works with Daniel using Earth as a POO when on a mothership in the finale for one of the early seasons, I'm not sure.) --Tango 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The only one I can remember is in The Gamekeeper. THat twirly thing is also on the DHD. American Patriot 1776 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
There were two theories thrown around here a while back. Either they only have to dial 6 glyphs with a DHD and it's appended automatically, or the Point of Origin glyph was located at the same point on every DHD. You could verify if you have any episodes around that show them dialing. All you'd need is two from two different planets. Otherwise you'd have to be pretty familiar with the glyphs in order to point the odd man out. --GaidinBDJ 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The film made a big thing of working of the POO for Abydos, and there's a DHD there, so that theory doesn't work. In "Solitudes", Carter says "This must be the Point of Origin, I've never seen it before" (quoting from memory, I could be slightly wrong), which clearly shows you need a POO, and that they can generally tell which on it is by looking. --Tango 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
DHDs didn't appear in the film; they needed the PoO so they could dial home manually. —Andux␅ 18:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen the film for some time, does it actually show them dialing? How did they dial manually without all the equipment they used to dial the Earth gate? (Although this wasn't established until SG-1, they would have needed a power source to dial manually, and they didn't have one) --Tango 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I distinctly remember a DHD in the film. Give the Solitudes quote and that memory, I think we can safely say that DHDs have their own point of origin symbols, but, like the Stargate itself, the prop team is too lazy, toe busy, or too cheap to create new symbols for each planet, so they keep reusing the Earth ones. As I recall, we continued to see the Giza glyph on the Antarctic Stargate, resulting in two goofs, one of which I think happened in "Redemption". Lockesdonkey 02:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any DHD in the film, just the Dialing Computer. It doesn't show what is used to open the gate from Abydos. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Constellations

This comment was added to the Symbols at Giza section of the article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not defined by us. In the show the gate system was built by the Ancients, not by the people of earth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.178.205.210 (talk • contribs) .

Science of Stargate documentary

Did any of you guys saw the documantary that aired on sci-fi last night? It gave lots of real world info on the backround of the Stargate and wormhole physics. Perhaps we should add info from that and/or cite it as a ref. (I think someone might have already since a screenshot from the doc is one of the pics in this article.) Tobyk777 17:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Film's Stargate Operation

I would suggest a small addendum to the "Complexities of Function" entry found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_%28device%29#Complexities_of_function

I think we should specify that in the film, the Stargate WILL send something through, even if not all of it is in the buffer. Daniel Jackson puts his face alone in the gate, but is transported after three seconds of no action (in the book, it specifies that the stargate will "suck" the rest of you through, which explains why Daniel was sprawled out on the other side of the gate...as if he was pulled through and given kinetic energy in this manner).

I think we should either add this small addendum as a note to the end of "Complexities of Function" that is similar to the "side note" added to the Ra entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra_%28Stargate%29

Either that, or I would suggest that (because there are MANY other differences in form and function between the film's gate and the show's gate) we make a seperate, alternate Wikipedia entry devoted to the film's stargate, that would keep this entry as it is now. --Promus Kaa 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is another contradiction. In "The Torment of Tantalus", Ernest Littlefield goes through with a rope tied onto his diving suit, that should have stopped him going through until the whole rope was in, yet he went through and the gate shut off cutting the rope in two. Which, unless they waited 38 minutes (which it didn't look like they did), the gate shut down while something was going through, which doesn't fit with the rest of the series, either. --Tango 18:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The film version does not require its own article, that is totally insane. You would be stuck with "the gate exists and it transports to Abydos" since that is about all that the film descirbes (the books cannot be used in a Wikipedia article about the film. And since the film is vague as far as the way the gate works we cannot call it an inconsistancy. The shot of Daniel with his face in the gate was probably more for aesthetical value than actual explanation of gate physics. Do you have a quote from the movie stating that the gate will transport items that are not fully through the event horizon? As far as the Littlefield incident goes, season 1 had a lot of screw ups, just like all shows. Konman72 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a handful of the most notable differences be noted as "notes" in the article. The more "minor" discrepancies should be noted in the articles for the episodes in which the contradictions occur. --Tim4christ17 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the film mentions anything about descrete objects, but the Atlantis episode "Thirty-Eight Minutes" does. --Tango 22:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tim4christ echoes my original proposition; merely add a note to the end of the article. As for KonMan, if you don't like the idea of a seperate article, that's fine, that was merely a secondary suggestion in case the note idea was rejected. Also, I never said that we should use information from the book. Since the book and the film are the same story, they share many similarities (duh). The book "sucks" people that are halfway through the event horizon, if it detects three seconds on inaction. In the movie, since Daniel Jackson only had his face through, and yet was sucked through, we can safely assume that the film was visually explaining the same thing the book explained in type; that the StarGate "sucks" objects through if they don't continue their action of stepping through the event horizon.--Promus Kaa

None of that is stated in the film, thus it cannot be added to the article. It is both original research and speculation. Notes are fine but they must be obvious discrepancies and the sentence must be phrased in a neutral point of view. Konman72 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's at least eligible for a note. My point is that is IS stated in the film, only visually. It was a visual display of the fact that someone will get sucked through a 'gate in the film if they're only halfway through and stop their motion.--Promus Kaa 16:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All that the movie shows is Daniel sticking his face through, which is then desintegrated. You do not know whether or not only that part was and then he stepped through or he was "sucked" through. It is too vague to be included. Konman72 22:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's kinda obvious that he couldn't continue to step through if his face had already been transported off. The front of his brain would have been halfway across three galaxies by then, and he wouldn't have been able to step forward. It's obvious he was sucked through for the rest of his body to have come through, too.--Promus Kaa 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But it also never shows the rest of him being "sucked through". So basically half of his body was disintegrated and the rest sat there lol. Just kidding, but seriously unless we have a statement in the film we can't say anything because that would be a POV and original research. Besides, there are a few references in SG-1 about the gate pulling things through and then there are other instances where it seems to not do that, it is very vague and so we cannot say one way or the other. Konman72 02:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL okay, I get it. This is kinda off topic, but...I can see why personal opinions and points-of-view aren't allowed on Wikipedia, but what does Wikipedia's rules have against research? I mean, when you come right down to it, everything on Wikipedia is research. Half the topics in this entry itself was researched by people studying the DVD's and episodes. Same with any entry on Roman history, or otherwise...that's research, too. Doing research to find more about a point (using official materials besides a film) can't be that bad. Wikipedia's rules don't make any sense!! lol

Original research isn't really what you might think it is. Our purpose is to state facts or "respected" opinions. So if you watch the movie and it says, "anything that is partly through the event horizon will have the rest sucked through" then you can say that but if it just shows someone sticking their face through and then flashes to him coming through the other gate we can't say that it sucked him through since it was not objectively established in the movie. Also, you can use other sources but in this case the books would not be admissable since they are not considered canon by the copyright holder. Mostly though OR refers to someone trying to figure something out on their own, which is subjective. WP is only supposed to present objective fact, it is an encyclopedia after all lol. Konman72 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't the books considered canon?? Is it only the film books that are considered non-canon (because of SG-1), or are all books (SG-1 included) considered non-canon?--Promus Kaa 03:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All of the books are non-canon sources. With Stargate only the film and series are canon and information provided through the creators of those works can be added with citation. And the books aren't canon because the copyright holder does not think they are canon. Devlin has said that if he gets to make his movies they would not be the same, or even take into account the film novels, and SG-1 and Atlantis never take the novels into account. Konman72 03:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Man...I sure hope that Devlin makes his planned Stargate movies. That would properly continue the story of the film, which is something SG-1 did not do. It would also forever drive the stake between the universe in which the movie takes place, and the universe in which SG-1 takes place. Fans would no longer be able to group a glorious epic masterpiece film with a vulgar, poorly-researched, low-brow television show that does not do the film any justice whatsoever, lol.--Promus Kaa 04:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't trying to do the film justice, the film was a mediocre one at best whereas the show has broken the record for longest running US scifi show ever. SG-1 is Stargate and MGM knows it, which is why they haven't said anything about the movies besides the announcement of an SG-1 movie, Devlin is a psycho who has trashed the series that turned his good idea into something actually enjoyable and now he wants to cash in on their success. Anyway, we don't want to get into a fanboy argument on wikipedia lol, so we'll just wait and see. At least if the Devlin's films do get made we can split all film related articles away from the series articles. BTW, what exactly do you mean by "poorly researched"? I have noticed you call SG-1 that twice now. If you are referring to the inconsistancies between the film and series, realize that the series creators did those intentionally. It's not like the film did well enough to establish a big fan base, they were just taking the basic idea and turning it into a show, not really continuing the story (although they did in a small way, but that was just to provide a transition for people who saw the movie). Konman72 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the errors in SG-1 come from them not bothering to work things out in advance - presumably because they didn't realise they were going to need such detail (who would have thought it would go to 10 seasons? 13 aggregate). Although, there are some mistakes that are unacceptable - I watched "Point of View" a couple of days ago, and whoever wrote that needs to be fired. They clearly hadn't watched "The Fifth Race" before trying to use the power device from it - they wrote the episode as if the Asgard had designed it. And there were numerous plot holes - for example, why would Alternate Carter be suprised that O'Neill was alive if Alternate O'Neill had died in the Gou'ld attack on Alternate Earth that they knew hadn't happened on this Earth, which was why they came here? I don't know why I never noticed what a bad episode that was... --Tango 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if you read anything by the creators they usually say to forget anything that happened in season 1 since they hadn't worked out all the stuff since they had no idea it would be so popular. They make special mention of Hathor and her entire story about how Jaffa are made etc. They hate that story arc and want everyone to forget about it lol. Who can blame them though, who in their right mind thought this "little show that could" as Amanda Tapping called it, would become the longest running scif show in US history! It is insane! By the way, word is that scifi wants to pick it up for another season, it just needs to maintain 2 million viewers. The season opener wasn't too hot but I think it was still around 2 million. If anyone knows a Nielson viewer get them to watch SG-1 live!....sorry, had to do it ;-) Konman72 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my main point; I hope and pray that Devlin makes those films, because then we'll finally be able to split the film from the TV show. But if you yourself said that the show "isn't really continuing the story," then why is the film and TV show grouped together??

And to avoid a fanboy argument between StarGate and SG-1, I'm not even going to comment on the "film is mediocre" blurb, lol. ;) --Promus Kaa 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they still used it as a starting point, but they weren't taking it and trying to continue the story, they were taking it and using the basic idea of the universe. So I would agree that the show and film are seperate entities but we can't represent that here without some kind of citation froma reliable source. Konman72 23:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking, and I can't see how they can possibly do sequels to the film while still obeying SG-1 canon. The sequels, presumably, involve Abydos in some way, yes Abydos was destroyed by Anubis and the population ascended - the planet doesn't even have a stargate anymore! If they do the sequels without obeying SG-1 canon, they're going to anger their main fanbase, the SG-1 viewers. I can't see these films ever happening. I would, however, welcome a film based on SG-1 - Star Trek style. If it seeds a 3rd series, then even better (but I don't really want them to stop SG-1, I'd accept it if the main characters were in the new one, but I'd prefer SG-1 to remain). --Tango 00:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they won't make them. Devlin just wants to make them. MGM is really into SG-1 they still fund the whole thing themselves even though all their properties are now funded half and half with Sony. MGM feels that SG-1 is a part of their image that cannot be replaced (this isn't my opinion, they actually said all this). Basically Devlin sees how successful SG-1 has become and now he's all buddy buddy with them even though he has been trashing them for years now (as evidenced by the commentary which our good friend Promus seems so fond of lol). Also, it seems he talked about this a few years ago, I saw something dating back to season 6 where he said that he was producing two sequels to Stargate...never happened. Konman72 03:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good!! I'm glad that SOMEONE accepts the fact that the film and the show are seperate entities!! Konman, you've just made my week. :D As for Devlin...Devlin should just buy back his now bastardized idea (that he never should have sold) and make his sequels his way. If MGM doesn't like it, he should make it somewhere else. Heck, after I get my degree, maybe I'll try to contact him about making those sequels at long last, lol.--Promus Kaa 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Very few people actually think the series and the film are the same entity. But the series does use the story and characters from the movie so they still are connected in many ways. As far as Devlin getting the rights back...never gonna happen lol. Sorry, but why would MGM ever sell the rights to a property that has made them millions of dollars, all without Devlin's input. They even have plans for a third series! And an SG-1 movie! This franchise, as made by Wright and Glassner, is worth far too much for them to ever sell. Konman72 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything can happen, and a man can dream, right?? lol. As for the SG-1 movie idea, I would support an SG-1 version of the film. That would produce the same effect that making sequels of the film would; it would drive the stake in once and for all between the film's universe and the show's universe, and firmly establish this enough that we COULD actually make seperate entries for the StarGate film, at long last...--Promus Kaa 05:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an SG-1 version of the movie, and SG-1 movie. So it would take place now, with the Ori and Ancients and maybe Atlantis etc. By the way, how many episodes of the show have you seen and which season if you know? I'm just curious. Konman72 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the series and the film are quite closely linked - Jack's relationship for Skarra was the basis for several scenes in SG1, and it provides a background for the Stargate project and several characters within Stargate (Jack, Daniel, Kawalski, etc.) The series has made it quite clear that it considers itself to be a continuation from the movie, even if it doesn't consider the novels to be canon and has retconned a few details from the movie. --Tim4christ17 06:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The film and series are both part of the same entity - the stargate universe. The differences between the film and the series aren't much greater than some of the continuity errors within the series itself.

I think Devlin still owns the rights to the film - MGM just own a license to use it to make a series. From what I read about it yesterday, I don't think Devlin needs MGM's permission to make the sequels. Well, he does if he tries to follow SG-1 canon, since MGM owns to rights to all that, but it doesn't sound like he wants to anyway.

This discussion is happening here because it's a tangent from a discussion that was appropriate to this article - we should probably move it to the wikiproject page, a fanboy debate won't look good when the article goes to FAC.

--Tango 14:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, MGM owns the rights, which is why Devlin and Emmerich didn't make their sequels right after the first film, MGM decided to do the series instead. We can archive this whole discussion though, it got off topic a while ago. Konman72 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tango, brother, if you think the differences between the Stargate film and SG-1 are just trivial matters comparible to the inconsistencies found within a television show, then you are like most SG-1 fans, who have no idea what the story and backround of the film are, and can't possibly begin to understand the differences between the film and the show. To answer Konman's question, my sister has the 2nd and 3rd seasons of SG-1 on DVD, and I have watched many other assorted episodes from the 1st season and the later ones. I also watched the entire first season of Atlantis, but was unable to watch the others. :(--Promus Kaa 02:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen every episode of SG-1 and Atlantis, most of them 2 or 3 times at least, and the film multiple times. I know what the differences are, and there are big differences, but that doesn't stop them being part of the same storyline. The series is a continuation of the story of the film, with various changes made to make it more suitable for a TV-series, but those changes don't make it a different universe, just a modified one. --Tango 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A heavily modified one...as heavily modified as the stargates are from the film 'gate. The show isn't a very well-done (or imo valid) continuation of the film. The film wasn't "undeveloped" that the show expanded on; the film was fully developed and had its own backround. The reason for lack of Jaffa in the film wasn't due to the fact that it just wasn't developed yet; there are no Jaffa because the Royal Guards in the film have their own, fully developed backround. Same with Ra and his people. The show tries to make people think that the film was undeveloped, and the show expanded on it, when this isn't true. The show took fully-developed elements from the film's universe and twisted it to suit its own foolish, and poorly-researched nature for some weird reason. The show is okay, as long as it doesn't try to connect itself to the film. That's as fulite an attempt as an maggot reaching up from the dung to try to soar like a majestic eagle. Since there is no way the show can raise itself to the level of the film, all it does (when it attempts to link itself to the film) is drag the film down to its level, which I think is insulting. As long as the show stays by itself it's okay, but certainly not when it tries to say that it's a continuation of the film. It is not. Konman is smart enough to see this, he's an intellegent fan of SG-1. I really don't want to get into this arguement any further, so let's drop this.--Promus Kaa 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this to a rational debate, shall we? Getting all emotional about it just makes you look like a fanboy... --Tango 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet...we call a truce and not debate/argue at all, LOL!! That would certainly be my preference.

As for the actual article...does anyone else think that alternate ways of dialing gates should be mentioned?? The entry on DHD's says that there are other ways, but it doesn't detail how. I've always wondered that, and if it's ever been shown/detailed in the show, I think it would be cool if it was mentioned in the article, or a seperate one on "Alternate Means of Dialing," lol.--Promus Kaa 23:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternate means of dialing

There isn't much information on alternate dialing, so we can mention it briefly. There's DHD, manual, alternate DHD (eg. puddle jumper), cool wrist device thing and cool mind powers. There isn't much more than one sentence to say on each. --Tango 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to include those sentences, even if they are brief. It could be set up like this:

  • Alternate Means of Dialing - Other than a DHD, there are other means of dialing a stargate. Some of these include:
    • Alternative 1
    • Alternative 2
    • Alternative 3
    • Etc

I think it would make the article richer and more informative. Not to mention it's something I've always been curious about...how do you manually dial a gate?? You spin it yourself, I assume, but how do the chevrons work?? Do you reach up and tap each one so it locks and engages?? That would be hard...and I haven't heard of the wrist thing. But bottom line, I definately think that that info should be included.--Promus Kaa 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To manually dial you power the gate using any number of power sources like a naqadah generator or ZPM. Then you manually spin the inner track until you reach the desired symbol and, I believe it locks it in by itself once you pause on the symbol. I might check a few episodes to verify though. Konman72 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The season 3 finale Nemesis (Stargate SG-1) has Teal'c doing it manually. --Grey Knight 02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Also "The Torment of Tantalus" and "Prisoners" show manual dialing and alternate power sources. --82.46.154.93 04:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Gate Size

Is it really 22 ft tall? Is that its biggest height as measured from very bottom to highest top, or is that just of the inside section? Just wanted to confirm it. I've looked high and low for Stargate dimensions, but I've never been able to find any.--Promus Kaa 01:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

See the rdanderson.com page -- they are 22ft in diameter outside edge.--Alfakim-- talk 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What kind of refrence is this?

Refrnece 12 says: "Chevron 7, locked"; multiple episodes including the original film.

Who made this ref. We need to say the episode names, not just say "multiple episodes". Also since when is "chevron 7 locked" part of a citation. What is this ref supposed to be? Tobyk777 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

orbital series

I was thinking of placing the following indented after the explanation of the orbital stargates in Pegasus galaxy:

In "Irresistible"[1], a plan was put into action where stargates would be "harvested" from uninhabited worlds and be put into place as a series of orbital stargates (if they weren't already) in the void between the Milky Way and Pegasus galaxies. This would alleviate the need for the dialing the Atlantean stargate and all of its power consumption.

Input? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "space gates" not "orbital gates", as they won't be orbitting anything in the void. Otherwise, I think it is probably worth mentioning, and that's a good, short summary.
Thanks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion point, not worth mentioning in the article: The whole idea makes the issue of addresses even more complicated - how do you work out the address of a gate that's in the void between two galaxies? If the current address system works for gates outside galaxies, the addresses must be even more spread out than I though before, and I calculated an average density of 1 gate address per 20ly cubed if memory serves... This new information indicateds it must be orders of magnitude less than that, or a far more complicated system.
--Tango 15:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's also only a plan at this point. They've yet to implement it; I'm sure there'll be problems with its implementation. I'd imagine an episode's worth.  :^) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I imagine that it will be more than an episode or two. There are other issues that they've dealt with that have taken several episodes to resolve, such as getting to Pegasus by starship. The first time, the ship was captured to be used in a local war. Then what about the issue when the Wraith (I watch the broadcasts on Fox, so don't tell me if they've been defeated) discover the trail of gates back to the Milky Way and start using them. Then they'll have to start putting automatic irises (iri?) on each and every one of them. They'll have problems that we haven't even though of yet. Val42 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We can insert it, then if it comes up more, we can expand it. Tobyk777 02:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, they've dealt with programming the stargate in the past - all they'd have to do is re-program the Atlantis, Earth, and "in-between" stargates with a set of coordinates. They could use an un-used "address" and just reprogram that sequence of symbols to point at the series of gates rather than its normal location. I suppose the programming would be difficult, but with the ingenuity of Carter/McKay and the knowledge of the Asgard and the Atlantis database, I'm sure they could figure it out. --Tim4christ17 11:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Irises" is right; although I think "iri" sounds cooler. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I have another issue here with the use of the orbital gates for the intergalactic bridge.

The problem being is that a Stargate is meant to be used within a galaxy without using up extra power, therefore, they would need a LOT of gates (30 or more) to make a bridge between galaxies, this figure is based on the fact that there is a Pegasus galaxy 3 Mil L/Y away from Earth and the fact that the milky way Galaxy is 100000 LY in size therefore without using up extra power, they'd need at least 30 to bridge a distance of 100000 L/Y if not more, how do they expect to find 30 planets with unused gates? It was stated in numerous eps that in Pegasus the only planets that aren't inhabited are ones that are so for good reason (IE: Things like the Iratus bug and such) so how do they ever expect to get enough? Unless, they are going to take Milky Way gates as well as there seem to be a lot of planets in the Milky Way that are uninhabited.

--Faris b 22:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus glyph names?

In last night's ep "Sateda", it is confirmed that the Pegasus galaxy glyphs DO have names. They are visible in the scene where McKay shows Sheppard the runners in the Pegasus galaxy on his laptop, when they show Sateda's address, there are names under the glyphs, it's about 20 mins into the ep. I have a few names so far but is there any way to get all 36 glyph names for the Pegasus ones? Are they on any website? How were the Milky Way glyph names obtained at first? I don't recall any ep giving the names except for "The Torment of Tantalus" but they only gave 2 names there so I'm hoping the same way can be used to obtain the Pegasus glyph names.

--Faris b 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok, update, here are the names I could make out from my recording from "Sateda", I do not guarantee that they are correct as it's a little fuzzy but maybe someone else has a better copy. These are the names of the glyphs to Sateda,

1. Arami
2. Alura
3. Edruring
4. Salma or Kalma
5. Odehi
6. Silltin
7. Sudrig (although not above, that is what it I could make out onscreen)

Does anybody have any info on the glyph names? I used this screenshot http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s3/304/html/sateda0407.html for reference. Also, I can't guarantee that the correct glyphs are up there because the Atlantis glyphs are tough for me and I had to draw them quick, however, if I missed any, please feel free to correct them.

--Faris b 06:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me to be:

NOTE: Several glyphs are rotated 90 or 180 degrees, and I can't find the fifth glyph anywhere... (It's definitely not #15).
The names (with numbers beneath them) appear to be:

  1. Arami (12)
  2. Alura (3)
  3. Ecruimo (8)
  4. Salma (20)
  5. Pochi (25)
  6. Gillten (32)
  7. Sub-- (18)

- SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Any idea how to get the remaining glyph names? I know it sounds impossible but it's worth investigating.

Faris b 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You could buy the episode off of iTunes. You would then have full-screen view of McKay's laptop in your above link. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Be careful of all this. You're walking a fine line that has original research either side of it. --Alfakim-- talk 12:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That screencap is too low-resolution to read clearly, it might be best to wait for a better source. Bryan 14:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting making the names up, I was intending more along the lines of a way to contact someone from the show about their names.

Faris b 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Antarctic DHD

I changed it from being "no longer having a functioning DHD" to being "no longer having a connected DHD" as the Antarctic DHD originally worked but was somehow disconnected from the gate by being inside a glacier. The DHD didn't run out of power until sometime in Season 2 when they were testing it at area 51.

Faris b 06:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hense it no longer works... American Patriot 1776 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know but I meant it worked originally when uncovered back in 1998, it's not like it didn't work then was my point which was what the article was reflecting.

Faris b 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The glacier didn't disconnect it, they just couldn't get a connection because they were already on Earth (why they didn't try another address, I don't know...). It then ran out of power after being used a few times by the NID. --Tango 03:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well anyhow, the glacier did prevent any connection before which was why even though it would have been the dominant gate with the DHD, the gate was completely blocked in the ice which prevented it from connecting before; the equivalent of burying a gate.

Faris b 07:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_%28device%29&curid=757130&diff=70609406&oldid=70606162

I dont think this information is needed here or relevent. It's the lead section, and it describes something relatively tangential about the planets Stargates might reach. --Alfakim-- talk 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the information should stay, but you're right about it not being appropriate for the lead. I'm not sure that whole paragraph is. How about moving the whole paragraph to a new section, "History" or "Creation" or something? The lead is rather long, and this would make it a better length. --Tango 23:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of Origin of Atlantis

Does anyone know the Point of Origin of Atlantis? Like, when they dial Earth to send their Data Bursts. The first 7 symbols of the pegasus earth address are listed at List_of_Stargate_planets, but the point of origin is nowhere mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.100.110 (talk • contribs)

What is the Point of Origin of Atlantis? The simbol 19 or the 33? Alberto14 13:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According to http://www.chevron26.com/atlantis/planet/edhd.html it's 19. I've corrected that, and the last symbol (less origin) for the Earth-to-Atlantis address (confirmed by a re-watching of the pre-credits sequence to "Rising, Part 1"). --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

whats going on

in the section on the milky way there are two sets of calculations. one needs to go obviusly, but which is correct? --Alfakim-- talk 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One is with point of origin, one is without - both are correct, they're just different calculations. I'm not sure either is needed in that much detail, though... --Tango 23:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier episodes/Movie vs Newer episodes

I distinctly recall in the movie and in the earlier episodes that when the characters went through the stargate they came out of the corresponding stargate 'chilled' and almost frozen in nature. What was the reasoning behind this? How did they correct it? Or was it a discontinued subplotline? Godloveslamb 07:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the specific episode it is said in, but I'm pretty sure they mentioned that they fixed it. It was supposedly a problem with their drift calculations, so once they made new, better ones they didn't come out all frozen and crap. It was a total cop-out, but I was getting annoyed with the whole ice thing anyway ;) Konman72 07:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It was mentioned in the pilot. In the second or third ep, they fixed it by saying that they modified the programing in the dialing computer based on the programing in the DHD. Tobyk777 08:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I remember something in "Red Sky" (or whatever it was called, the one with the asgard protected planet where they mess up the sun), Carter said "Inaccuracies in the drift calculations used to cause the rough ride", or words to that effect. --Tango 11:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks a bunch peeps. Thats been buggin the shit out of me for awhile, worth mentioning in the article at all? Godloveslamb 18:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not unless you also want to mention how the film and the show are in totally different universes and can't possibly be related. :P --Promus Kaa 22:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That of course is, as I and several other people have pointed out to you many times, your opinion, and one with very little, if any support in an objective sense. Also it seems totally irrelevent to the discussion at hand since the first few episodes adhered to the "chill" effect of the Stargate, so, if we take your assertion as truth, did the universes split some time after that? No. So it has nothing to do with this conversation. (Sorry to be so abrupt but you seem to throw that around whenever you can, and you act like it is objective fact when it most certainly isn't, so I thought I would take this opportunity to point that out) Konman72 04:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No, they're not "in totally different universes". There've been several retcons to the movie (the nature of the Goa'uld symbiote, some character names, etc), but the bulk of the movie is still very much part of the TV series' canon. 71.203.209.0 23:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seventh Chevron

Recently I had added a picture of the seventh chevron that was on the Stargate in the film. I think that this article is somewhat one-sided, and is not an equal-opportunity page. If it is ONLY about the Stargate that is in SG-1's universe, then it should say so, and another page should be created for the film's Stargate. If it covers both the film's Stargate and the show's Stargate, then it should represent both 'Gates, not just one and totally exclude the other. Excluding either 'Gate is an act of bias, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I thought that my picture gave the article just a LITTLE bit of equality, not to mention that it enriched the value of the article by giving interesting bits of information that could be valuable to anyone just wanting to gain information on the Stargate. Let's be fair an informative, fellow Wikipedians!! :D --Promus Kaa 22:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this article says more about the SG-1 gate than the film gate simply because there is more to say. We know very little about the gate from the film. It was used twice and virtually none of the technical details were explained. If there is anything about the film gate that you feel is relevant, please add it. I think some pics from the film is a great idea, and I suggest you put it back (it was removed by an anonymous user, so we can't really discuss the matter with them). Is it possible to get a slightly better quality picture? Also, a picture with the 7th chevron alongside one of the others would be good - for comparison. --Tango 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree - 2 hrs vs 200+ hrs makes a big difference in how much information is available about the device. If we have anything that differs in the movie, then lets include it if it makes sense too. Morphh (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To ask for seperate information for each presupposes that they are different entities. Are there minor differences? Yes, but there are also minor differences between the way the gate functioned in the pilot to how it functions today. Should they each get their own article? No. The gate in the show is the exact same gate as in the movie, just with a few tweaks made here and there. Now, I will concede that the film is more important than a single episode, thus difference can and should be mentioned (if it is warranted), but anything beyond that would be overkill. Besides, we have provided all the information from the film in that all we learned was that there was a ring shaped device made from a foreign substance that created wormholes between two points by "dialing" 7 of 39 symbols. That is all that we learned in the film, so that is all that should be said about the film, and it is contained within the informationg given about the show, so a seperation is unnecessary. Also it should be noted that when a certain aspect is left vague in the film, but explained in the series the series takes precedent as the official continuation of the movie. For example we would not say that the gate was made of an unknown quartz-like substance because that substance is revealed to be naqadah, whether we feel that that applies to the film or not is irrelevent since the show has the approval of the copyright owner MGM, and they decide what is true and what is not. Konman72 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tango thought that some pictures of the Stargate from the film would be a great idea, and suggested that I put it back in. I'm sorry about the quality of the pic, but that's the only one I can put up until I'm able to take a screenshot of the Seventh Chevron from the much clearer, Ultimate Edition DVD, lol!! The only problem is, thanks to that anonymous idiot, I can't find the picture that I uploaded, and I'll probably have to upload it again. >:( As for Morphh's statement of "If we have anything that differs in the movie, then lets include it," I did add an entry about the differences between the film's 'Gate and the show's 'gate at the very bottom of the page. If anyone thinks that the small entry should be moved higher up in the article, I'm all for moving it. :D --Promus Kaa 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to find your pic in one of the Wikipedia caching sites like http://www.answers.com Morphh (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! I was able to find it by remembering what I had titled it, and simply putting the image link back in. I've already re-added the pic!! :D --Promus Kaa 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Gate bridge system

At first, I thought it was stupid idea until I saw "The Return, pt. 1". I thought that they were going to dial the gates one by one, meaning remembering or at least having a reference of 34 addresses being required. I like the whole gate marco idea but has anyone else realized that if someone is kept in energy form and just sent over 34 gates that they will be adding 30 minutes to their lives every time they traverse the bridge? Not exactly a bad thing but that would mess up watches and sensitive computers I imagine.

Faris b 15:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Did they say it takes 30 minutes in the wormholes? I think the average is about 3 seconds for a gate journey (Carter said so, but I don't remember when). That's less than 2 minutes for the whole 34 gates. I think the 30 minutes estimate probably included getting in and out of the jumper at each end and the mid-station crossover point. --Tango 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They didn't say, but there is also dialing time between gates, if what was stated on the show is correct, then you only come out of 1 gate, meaning the gates dial each other, trasmit the matter stream, shut down and do it again meaning there is also dialing time in addition to the 2 minutes travel time. Still, even if it was only 2 mins, that would screw up watches.

Faris b 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they have those watches that automatically correct themselves from a radio signal. --Tango 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The time gap is unxaplained. You said they would have to get in and out of the jumper at the midstation. That's incorrect. The whole point of the station is so there's no need for a jumper, so people can just walk across the station to the next leg of the journey. they used a jumper because the station was incomplete. There is no good explanation for the time being 30 min, it should be like 2 or 3. I thought the same thing while watching the show before even seeing this discussion. Tobyk777 04:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Remember though, there are 34 gates...all of which have to be dialed. It may be done by computer but it is still being done. Basically you will walk in one gate it sends you to the next, once you get there, stored in the gate of course, the next gate dials the one after it and so on. And as far as I know dialing takes at least 15-20 seconds, this coupled with the stopover at the midway station plus the few seconds you mentioned and you get around 30 minutes total. And yes, this would add minutes to your life, but not any significant amount so there isn't anything to worry about. Konman72 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it will take longer once the station is complete - you'll have to walk through the station, probably prove you're not a wraith by walking through an airport-style scanner. I imagine they'll be a fair bit of burocracy. --Tango 09:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Kawoosh on both sides....

'Additionally, the gate is invariably entered from the same side as the "kawoosh"' is in error. In the episode "Prisoners" (as an example, I'm reasonably sure I've seen this elsewhere but this is the one that comes to mind) one of the prisoners jumps into the incoming 'kawoosh' in an effort to escape; he is destroyed in the process, leftover boots and all. (moved cause I forgot the subhead, like a goof....) Ogredrew 12:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the sentence. Nobody's saying that entering a "kawoosh" isn't deadly. It's that if an outgoing gate is entered, it's entered from the side of the gate that produces the "kawoosh". The "kawoosh" happens on both ends when a wormhole is formed between the sending and receiving gates. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you enter the wormhole from the back of the gate? Godloveslamb 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Never been tried or mentioned on the show, as far as I know. Bryan 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenplays vs Transcripts

While using official sources is generally good, firstly, the transcripts don't seem to be from an official source, so are we sure they're official? And secondly, they're purely dialogue, they don't even say where each scene takes place, or where the breaks between scenes are. I think the fan made transcripts are better references. --Tango 10:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)