Talk:Stargate SG-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Stargate SG-1 has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review

I have started an episode review for all remaining SG-1 episode articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review, and ask for input from other interested editors (there, not here). As the current arbcom case only restricts the (un)redirection and (un)deletion of episode articles but not discussion, this review is perfectly fine. I expect the review to last for one or two months, and hope that the currently disputed wikipedia policies and guidelines will have confirmed their old consensus or have found new consensus. Should the policies and guidelines change to allow episode articles regardless of (established) notability or real-world content, this episode review will of course be moot, but I don't expect this to happen, so I seize the day (month). – sgeureka t•c 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] someone is unilaterally deleting images

[1]

someone has deleted just about all the images from the goa'uld technology in stargate article and now those images are about to be deleted from wikipedia.org for good. for example,

Image:Stargate_teleball.jpg

if the consensus, here, is that these images should be deleted, i'll be content, however, if this is just one rogue editor who thinks his opinions trump all and are the only one that matters, then i do care a great deal. it's vandalism of the worst kind. a vandal defaces a wikipedia article and it's reverted. it may take months for it to get reverted, but it does, all the same.

if a vandal orphans an image, then, after two weeks of that images being orphaned, it's essentially impossible to revert. hence my claim that if this is just one rogue editor, he is the worst kind of vandal. i'd rather have ten people adding goatse.cx pictures to articles then one person deleting images, because atleast goatse.cx is reversable. Autoswung (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor. Calling an experienced editor a rogue vandal is against assuming good faith and might get you blocked. As mentioned in the edit summary, the consensus has already formed and can be found at WP:NFC, which says to use as few nonfree images as possible (e.g. consensus for Featured Articles is no more than five nonfree images per article). The article has been tagged for {{nonfree}} use of images for two weeks, and there was a note on the article's talkpage to which no-one responded. I see no violation in the process. – sgeureka t•c 09:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean refactor (not refractor), and perhaps Autoswing already did. However, as I read it now Autos is not calling any editor anything. He/she starts their remarks with, "if the consensus, here, is that these images should be deleted, i'll be content" and then goes on to describe a particular type of disruptive vandalism. Please assume good faith youself. Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Typo, sorry, fixed. And as I am the editor in question, I felt the need to defend my edits to references or comparisons to "one rogue editor who thinks his opinions trump all [...] it's vandalism of the worst kind. a vandal defaces a wikipedia article [...] hence my claim that if this is just one rogue editor, he is the worst kind of vandal" and the preference of "ten people adding goatse.cx pictures". I was never contacted by this editor in private, I clearly stated the policy and my intent weeks before I took action, and I believe my reply here was as AGFy and personally detached as possible. Comparing transparent cleanup to a particular type of disruptive vandalism is jumping the gun a lot. – sgeureka t•c 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
my goal was to make the people with the most vested interest in that article aware of your edits and their long-term consequences. discussing your edits with you on your talk page wouldn't have accomplished that Autoswung (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Most wikipedians are reasonable people, willing to discuss and/or explain their edits. My edit summary already linked to the relevant policy/guideline, and like I almost always do, I left notes on the talkpage where my edits will have longtime consequences, before and after my edit. I can see how you missed that or did not understand that at the time, but the way you presented your concern was *not good*. Please be more careful in the future. No offense taken if you genuinely just tried to save wikipedia from vandalism. – sgeureka t•c 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walkie-Talkie (2-way-radios) used on SG-1

My very first Wikipedia post, go easy on me and let me know if I've done this incorrectly.

Does anyone know what type of walkie talkie units they use on SG-1? They make a very distinctive staticy/click sound when pressing and depressing the button. So other than the obvious sometime exaggeration of the distance between which each of the characters are able to reach each other (ie. after a person is ringed to another part of a planet that may be close enough but probably isn't to send/receive) is there any actual brand/model of walkie-talkies that are small like they are and make that static/click sound? Thanks.--MATTblah24 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend going to the reference desk for future questions like this (this page is for improving the article, not questions about the subject). But to answer your question, I believe that was a special effect added in post-production. If you'll notice, there are several times where they missed adding the click and other times added when the character didn't need it. Minor errors that didn't affect the storyline, but still... Hope that helps. — BQZip01 — talk 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Where is the reference desk? I'm still learning the ropes. --MATTblah24 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk. Wikipedia:Community Portal and WP:HELP are also great resources. — BQZip01 — talk 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Reason for canceling the show

I'm very much interested why did SciFi put an end to the show. This article claims it had nothing to do with ratings. What did it have to do with? If it's secret, nevertheless a note should be put up explaining why. -- J7n

I believe some of it had to do with the cost of production. After a while, the costs of the actors go up (they are being held back from other projects to do this show, so a little monetary incentive is in order). Additionally, Sci-Fi apparently felt it was time to move on/the story was getting stale. While I disagree, it wasn't picked up. Nothing acn be done about it. If anyone has additional info, please post. — BQZip01 — talk 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I think it may have had to do something with the similarities between the Ori, and the Christian religion. A lot of people probably didn't like the Ori being portrayed as evil. They probably got a lot of "Stop Insulting my Religion" letters. 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems unlikely - the crusades are generally considered to be a low point in the history of Christianity, so I can't see too many people complaining about something similar to them being portrayed as evil (I expect some did, of course). --Tango (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amelius- Creator of the Stargate?

The Ark of Truth very clearly suggests Amelius as the designer of the Stargate through a flashback. Would it be appropriate to include this? Should it be just under the SG1 provenance since it clearly doesn't pertain to the original movie? Under the section on the gate itself? I'd propose a paragraph such as:

"The Stargate concept was first proposed by Amelius, an Alteran in the first migration to Earth. His conceptual drawings depict the premise of a 6 symbol coordinate system to describe points in three dimensional space using constellations, and a circular frame to generate a stable wormhole event horizon."

Thoughts anyone?

Paul Roberton Proberton (talk) 04:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Just because Amelius had a sketch of a Stargate in his notebook doesn't necessarily mean that he was the first to come up with the idea, or that it was well-developed enough to construct a working prototype. Although I think it still deserves a mention. - Sikon (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right... its much more an implication than anything else and the drawings are nothing more than conceptual. I would like to give it a mention, Sikon... how do you think we can best do it?Proberton (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I watched AoT yesterday, and I didn't even notice his sketchbook. Anyway, what matters is whether Dean Devlin or Roland Emmerich designed the Stargate concept, not some fictional one-off character. – sgeureka t•c 08:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note the scene where Amelius is programming the Ark just prior to the moment Alterans' ship bursts out of the mountain. He's halfway out the door and the goes to the table,where the notebook is sitting just next to the Ark after which he says "I had a wonderful idea last night"

As for your reference to Devlin or Emmerich, I'm referring to the 'in-universe' aspect of its creation. Further, I made a very clear distinction between the original movie and SG1 canon in my original post.Proberton (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the in-universe aspect, although I'd argue that when it only takes a replacement of the name of a fictional character with a real person, the sentence is not written from a real-world perspective as WP:WAF says. Anyway, we're entering synthesis territory here. You can say how his conceptual drawings look, but for the conclusion that the character invented the Stargate, you need a direct reference in plot dialog or a confirmation from a producer. – sgeureka t•c 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)