Talk:Technology in Stargate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FLC Technology in Stargate is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Contents

[edit] Human Technology

Need to add Explosives and Pyrotechnic Devices. Veritas Panther 09:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The description of M.A.L.P.s is incorrect. They do not have caterpillar tracks, they have six wheels, as can be seen in this image: [1] --Generationj 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's a UNIVERSE

Many of the technologies found in the movie, Stargate SG-1 show, and Stargate Atlantis overlap. It's because together, they form a universe.

For example, Go'auld are not exclusive to SG-1-- e.g. the Trust infiltrates Atlantis and the Daedalus. Likewise, lots of technology from SG-1 (such as MALPS, all of the firearms, the spaceships such as the Daedalus-class battlecruisers) are also in Atlantis. Ancient technology is in both shows-- all of the Ancient technology in Stargate Atlantis also exists in Stargate SG-1 in Antarctica.

As a result, categorizations under a TV show were eliminated and instead grouped by alien race.

[edit] Spelling of Naquadah?

A while ago I "corrected" the spelling of the word "Naquadah" in some places, only to come to realise now the original form was actually correct. Sorry for any confusion I may have added myself with that. Judging from the offical sites it is spelled "Naquadah" (with an optional last H). The same goes for "Naquadriah", which also includes the U right after the Q, like in most (all?) Earth languages. At least... I think... I am still confused. At the moment there are still multiple spellings used, a link to Naqahdah goes to the relevant page, another link Naqada an unrelated page, and there are redirects followed to get there as well. We should figure out the actual, official spelling, fix all instances, including links, and (assuming the U variant is indeed correct), remove all pages without the U variant, because it's unlikely people will type that anyway, since the U is pretty regular here on Earth.

[edit] furlings?

what about furling tech? the little that we've seen... -hexhunter 21:49 21/9/05

Add it if you want. I forgot, but i think that they only have maybe 1 or 2 technologies on the series and are classified as a minor technology race. Eg. if another planet has a different kind of gun as the only new tech, they are not featured.--Zxcvbnm 20:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article still needs a lot of work

I just read this article, and as a big Stargate fan, I know that this is far from complete. There is a lot of stuff still left out. Tobyk777 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Now looking at it again, months later, I think that this is very close to complete. I might nominate it for featured article. Tobyk777 03:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like too much of a good thing right now; the table of contents is enormous, with lots and lots of one-line sections that should probably be combined. I've done a few already and will do more when I've got time. Also, dividing the list by series seems a big awkward considering how much is shared between SG-1 and Altantis (and the movie, to a lesser extent). I'll ponder alternative ways of organizing things to see if I can come up with something better. Bryan 01:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Movie vs series technology

Under the heading Stargate movie technology, there are several references to the series.

Examples: Fabrique Nationale P90 PDW - Submachine gun used by SG-1 and the Atlantis expedition. Uses 5.7 x 28 mm ammunition that has greater stopping power than 9mm ammmunition.

Sarcophagus

Used to revive the dead and heal the wounded. It also serves to extend the life of the Goa'uld. In un-blended humans, it can affect judgement and create addiction after repeated use, like a drug, as seen in the episode "Need". Also in the episode, it cured Daniel Jackson's eyesight and extended the lifespace of the king of that planet for at least 100 yrs.

The Tok'ra don't use it because they believe it is what makes the Goa'uld evil. PrometheusX303 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Switch to MP7

I have seen screen captures of the Stargate guys with Heckler & Koch MP7 machine pistols ang G36 rifles. This should probably be included in human technologies.

We could always take the weapons list from my website... There are a lot of guns not in the article. Though only showing the common ones is a good idea. I can work on entries for the MP7 and G36K easily enough. Alyeska 21:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article size

This article is 48KB in size. What about breaking it up by civilization? Val42 20:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. See discussions at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Breaking it up would ruin the article. personally i see nothing wrong with the article now. 48k isnt that big. it loads faster than i can scroll down, and i dont have that great a connection.-- Alfakim --  talk  21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Two months later it's now grown to 82 kilobytes, and the table of contents alone takes up more than four screen-heights on my browser. I've read the discussion you referred to regarding the list of episodes and I don't see how it applies here. IMO the article is in serious need of either splitting or condensing somehow, it's become unweildy. Please be more specific about how you think breaking it up by civilization would "ruin" the article. Bryan 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly favor. The article is too long. (table of contents is 3.5 screen heights on mine). The only issue with splitting that I can see is that some internal elements will need to be wikified. JoshuaZ 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now split off the three biggest racial sections bringing the page back down to a manageable 33 kilobytes. Anyone think I should do the other major races too, for consistency, or should we wait until this article grows larger again before splitting off more? Bryan 06:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

We need to split it up by race, however, in order for various templates to work, we need this page to still exisit. I say that under each section titled "(This race) Technology" we keep the paragrpah directly under it. This will give a general summary of that races tech. We then move the individual techs to that races page. Here is what it would look like:

[edit] Human technology

Main article: Tau'ri#Technology

The Tau'ri, or humans of Earth, have developed many technologies based on what SG teams have brought back from trips to other planets via the use of the Stargate on Earth. Whilst Earth's level of technology prior even to Stargate travel far supersedes the level found on most planets throughout the galaxy (and indeed others), Earth's technology still remains crude compared to the larger races that they do not surpass.

[edit] Ancient technology

Main article: Ancient (Stargate)#Technology

The Ancients—also known as the "Alterans"—were the most advanced race ever to live that has yet been discovered by the SGC. Among their many achievements, their transportational methods deserve a lot of praise, having built extremely advanced ships, flying cities, and the entire Stargate Network. Much of the Ancients' weapons technology was used or designed for use in the centuries-long war with the Wraith in the Pegasus Galaxy. In the areas of healing, power generation, and biology they were the best in the universe as well.

[edit] etc.

[edit] Who agrees?

Well I do, although each of the summary paragraphs will also need to be in each of the sub pages presumably. But other than that, seems good. JoshuaZ 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another proposal

I'm thinking some of those technology sections are still a bit too hefty to splice directly into the main articles on each species. My expectation was that they'd be split out into standalone articles in their own right, so that we'd have on this page:

[edit] Ancient technology

Main article: Ancient technology in the Stargate universe

The Ancients—also known as the "Alterans"—were the most advanced race ever to live that has yet been discovered by the SGC. Among their many achievements, etc.

And then on the Ancient (Stargate) page we'd have the exact same thing, a stub section with a {{main}} leading to the article on Ancient technology. That way we avoid excessive bloat both here and in the Ancient's article.

[edit] Asgard Technology

I have to ask that when the article says that Asgard technology is not as advanced as the Ancients, is it referring to the Ancients after or before they ascended. If it is referring to after they ascended well then I would think that is obvious; but if they are referring to the Ancients before they ascended, I think that Asgard technology rivals that of the Ancients.

Saying all Ancient technology is more advanced in Asgard technology would be wrong. Asgard ships of all shapes and sizes have intergalactic hyperdrives when Ancient ships most often had much slower Galaxy wide drives that took weeks to move about. Some Asgard technology is superior, but the Ancients apparently have a much broader base. The Asgard have the entire contents of the Ancients library, and they can't even comprehend most of it. Alyeska 06:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where you found the info that ancient ships are slower. It says that nowhere in stargate. The ancient ships might be faster. Also, the gates are way faster than ships. that shows that the ancients are better at transportation. The ancients are better in almost every area. ZPMs are the ultamte power source. The DNA resquecer is better than asgard stuff. The healing device is as sofistcated as healers could possibly get. The asgard can't even comprehend the ancients library of knowlage. And the replicator disruptor was ancient tech, not asgard. The asgard were about to be destroyed by the replicatos. The Ancients wer way more advanced. Tobyk777 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets see. Ancient warships have hyperdrives sufficently slow that the Wraith don't consider them useful in getting from one Galaxy to another. The Aurora had a sufficently slow hyperdrive that the captain was willing to spend days trying to modify it to go faster. The Daedalus can cross a Galaxy in 2 days. Asgard ships can do it in minutes. Asgard ships clearly have faster hyperdrives. Alyeska 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, stargate seems to not have a very hierarchial level of technology (example - the Tauri are able to stop the Ori's plague with some assistance and it seems the Ancient's were unable to do so.) (A related issue which I have been wondering about, why haven't the Asgard and the Nox ascended?) JoshuaZ 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The asgard and nox are not human and might not be physicaly compatable with ascension, or may not have advanced far enough. the Anceints were more advanced than them. The ancients were not able to stop the pleague before they ascended. Orlin made the cure. Not the Tauri. Orlin was an ascended ancient, so he had more knowlage. Tobyk777 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Orlin didn't make the cure by himself, and there are other examples, possibly most explicitly when Thor uses Carter's ideas since she thinks in a way that the Asgard don't/can't (makes comments about how they would never have thought of using the O'Niell as a trap or of using projectile weapons). Of course, this is really for plot/fan reasons, the show would be less interesting if the humans never won ever and never did anything clever technologically. In that regard, it seems to be a fairly standard conceit, also used in Star Trek. JoshuaZ 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There have been so many of these debates about who's more technologically advanced, the Asgard or the Ancients. I think that with the final conclusion of Stargate SG-1 and witnessing Asgard technology at its height, I think it's safe to say that each of the two races have their advantages and disadvantages. We can't possibly say that a ZPM is the ultimate power source because in Unending both the Asgard power source and the ZPM were depleted, and I believe they were both relatively "full". I will say that Drone Weapons appear to be the most powerful but the beam weapons that the Asgard gave the Tau'ri are capable of completely destroying an Ori mothership in about 5 shots, which an entire fleet of Ha'taks couldn't do. At this time, I don't think there's enough information given from the series to debate about shields as both seem incredibly powerful; the Ancient shields that we've actually seen are either on 10,000 year old ships or Atlantis and the Asgard shields are basically seen on the relatively underpowered Tau'ri vessels. As for transportation, the Stargate would appear to be a very good form of personal transport but when you have an armada of massive battleships, a stargate isn't going to be to helpful. Asgard hyperdrives do appear to be more advanced than Ancient hyperdrives as they are indeed capable of traversing intergalactic distances in minutes (on Asgard ships at least). Another advantage the Asgard have over the Ancients is their transporter systems. The Ancients have not demonstrated a technology that affords them almost instantaneous transport from "anywhere-to-anywhere" as the Asgard beam transporter does. So far, it appears that the Ancients were limited to using the Ring Transporter or Puddle Jumper or Stargates. As also stated in Unending, the Asgard could not ascend not because they weren't human (which would be a somewhat racist concept that only humans could achieve a level of physiological advancement sufficient to ascend) but because they had chosen millennia ago to extend their life through science and technology which removed the necessary physiological evolution required for ascension out of the picture. Ultimately, I agree with the concept of JoshuaZ's statement that one race isn't definitively more advanced than the other, they are more advanced in certain fields but not all-around. Rajrajmarley 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You did forget the room-to-room technology in Atlantas. It's not as good as the Asgard transporter technology, but it's still one that wasn't on your list. — Val42 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
True, sorry about that. But again, that's limited to transportation within Atlantis. Rajrajmarley 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nox Tech

Why doesn't the article have anything on the nox. They have technolgy better than the Goa'uld, like their cloaks, or cities which float. Tobyk777 05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We lack underlying knowledge about the Nox technology. For example, their cloaking/illusion abilities- are they mental or more technological? ok, so we saw a floating city- what does that tell us? Anything substantial about their technology would be at this point merely fannish speculation. JoshuaZ 05:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goa'uld memory device

In season 3 of SG-1 a Goa'uld device was found which displays whatever a subject is thinking visualy. Why isn't this here? Tobyk777 20:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ori Starships

Everyone who thinks the Ori Starships look an awful lot like Bentusi Tradeships from Homeworld (including the main gun), raise your hand.Alyeska 05:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't watch homeworld so i don't know. But... everyone who thinks that michaels approach to Atlantis was a duplication of the land at cloud city from the empire strikes back raise your hand. Tobyk777 06:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark IX Gate-buster - tactical or no?

The revision by User:Bryan Derksen removed the information regarding the Mark IX gate-buster as a tactical nuclear weapon, citing that a weapon of such destructive force could not be designated a "tactical" weapon. I wanted to querry others on the fact. I thought the name "tactical" was applied to weapons used to destroy specific, albeit large, targets, wheras other large-scale nuclear/chemical/EMP weapons simply exist for mass destruction. Since the Mark IX exists to destroy a single target - namely, a Stargate - would that purpose not designate it a tactical weapon despite its destructive yield? --Keno 04:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What are tactical nuclear weapons? has some information suggesting that the term is not clearly defined. In any event, though, we shouldn't be the ones who are deciding whether this bomb should be called "tactical." What do they call it on-screen? I've got "Beachhead" downloaded somewhere (just until the DVDs are available for purchase, of course :) so if I've got time later tonight I'll take a look through it to see if anyone calls it that. Bryan 04:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Found it! Look here for a briefing concerning the nuclear proliferation project between the US and Russia. I was incorrect in my assumptions. The requirements for a tactical weapon are generally a small-scale (not necessarily low yield) nuclear weapon that can come in many different styles and be deployed in a wide manner of theatre settings. The Mark IX falls under the category of "strategic" nuclear weapons, being designed to take out a enemy's strategic resource, be it a city, a base, or - in our case - a Stargate. --Keno 06:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well what really matters still is what they call it in the show, so let's wait for Bryan to let us know. Still, nice to know what the actual classifications are. (if they do call it tactical in the show it may make sense to note that thats a misnomer under standard classification) JoshuaZ 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Just finished rewatching. At the 21 minute mark the bomb is described as a "Mark 9 naqadria-enhanced nuclear warhead." Neither "strategic" or "tactical" was used at any point. Also, the figures in the article are wrong; at the same point in the episode Mitchel said it'd vaporize everything within a hundred mile radius, not kilometer. Also, for completeness, Sam is the one who described it as a "multi-gigaton detonation" at the 28-minute mark. I'll go update the section and add references. Oh, there's also a transcript here: [2]. Should have thought to look for that earlier, but oh well. Good episode to watch again anyway. Bryan 07:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major reworking

As per above discussions about splitting the article, and the final outcome.

Let's remember that this page is one of the first links on the main StargateTopics template. People are going to come ehre wanting to know about stargate technology. And the first thing we have on the list is an "Asgard autodialer"?

If this page were perfect, it would do this:

  • List all of the major technologies (Stargate, Cruisers and main ships, and other significant artifacts that make up the show's identity)
  • Read well from top to bottom, giving a reader an idea of how the races' technologies are different.
  • Not require prior understanding of previous technologies or things within the show, or, if so, those things are explained ABOVE, not below.

I think this is what needs to be done. This page should list all the main technologies, and the more boring and minor ones should be relegated to seperate pages. So the asgard section would certainly have a subheader called Time Dilation Device, but wouldn't have a subheader called Auto-Dialer. The Auto-Dialer would be removed into a seperate article at Asgard technology (Stargate).

That way this article can again be more of an article, rather than an exhaustingly exhaustive list. -- Alfakim --  talk  13:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good way of doing it.Suggested other major artifacts- Goauld hand devices and ZPG. JoshuaZ 14:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I went ahead with this reworking and I think things are better now. The TOC is just under a page high on my little 768 screen, and lists the major prominent techs for each race. All of the detail and other techs have been split into seperate articles. This article now works as a good overview of what stargate technology is about.-- Alfakim --  talk  18:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Very impressive, one minor nitpick-no spoiler warnings. It isn't precisely clear to me where to put the warnings though, minor spoilers are scattered throughout? Possibly right before the Tauri tech? JoshuaZ 19:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Now that it is reworked, we need links to each races techpage on the tech tempalte

This template orginialy let users access any stargate tech page. We need to add links to each race's tech page somehow. Also, each race's page must have a link to their tech page. Tobyk777 05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e
Technology in Stargate
Technology Image:StargateGlyph01.svg
Starships
Technology by race
Alteran • Asgard • Asuran • Goa'uld • Ori • Tau'ri • Tok'ra • Wraith • Other

Dude, that template looks awful now. I'm going to change that back for now. I dont think we need to go that far. We just need links to their tech on each of the race pages. the StargateTech template only needs to link back to the main article, from where everything can be found and where everything important is. And furthermore, that other races section is "other races" precisely due to those races improminence, so its not a sin to not link them.-- Alfakim --  talk  13:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Why is there no section for the Replicators? They are a prominent race and in Atlantis Finale, they created a satelite/stargate weapons platform.

[edit] Major formatting errors

Now that the article is reworked, the pics make huge gaps in the text. No one ever went thorugh to format it again without the extra entries. This looks bad and is messy to read. We need to do a reformatting. Tobyk777 05:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. There weren't many options. We either could:
  • Make all images smaller. But they were already at the threshold.
  • Put some images to the left. Yuck. Ugly.
  • Do what I've done.
I've arrange all of the images into flowing columns that start at the top of each race and flow down the side. This still looks okay and avoids 99% of spacing errors (apart from on really huge screens). -- Alfakim --  talk  13:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to fix the page so that "[edit][edit]" doesnt' appear right in the middle of a paragraph? at the time of this post, it is in the paragraph about the Ha'tak motherships.--Cong06 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Move

We need to delete the "List of" in this article's title. It's no longer a list. It's more like a general page. Tobyk777 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Following this, I suggest we add "List of"'s to the pages that are lists, like Tau'ri technology and Alien races in the Stargate universe.-- Alfakim --  talk  06:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Tobyk777. The article is still a list of the major races' major technologies, so the name is fine. I don't have an opinion on Alfakim's suggestion. -- CWesling 04:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iris / GDO

Under the Iris section, it says:

"Can be deactivated by a GDO."

Is that technically accurate, or am I arguing semantics? I know that GDO = Garage Door Opener, but I thought that the GDO passed a signal to the Iris control operator, who then had to manually open the iris. A number of episodes seem to confirm this, with the tech (usually Walter) claiming "It's SG-1's iris code!" and Hammond or others ordering the Iris opened. Kythri 04:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. Although, there have been some inconsistencies. In some episodes you just need the GDO, but the majority of the depiction has the operator guy open the iris.

[edit] Holy Grail / Sangraal

we should also mention stuff about the holy grail, the device merlin made to defeat the ori.

See Ancient technology in Stargate#Holy Grail. TerraFrost 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M18 Claymores

Since when were M18A1s used in Stargate?
I've also seen M134 "Minigun" listed on some sites, but I personally have not seen any in the Stargate universe. I guess we can add M2HB HMGs found mounted on some HMMWVs parked outside SGC. AH-6 "Little Bird" and Tasers have been claimed to have appeared too. If anyone knows anything about the missiles that were meant to be mounted on fighter jets, and launched through the Stargate to kill a Goa'uld System Lord, please post. The missiles were laser guided missiles, and attracted to an infrared point from a laser designator on the System Lord's chest. They could not have been Hellfire AGMs, but may have been Mavericks or another AGM. I do not know much about missiles.

The M134 was never shown. The M2 is shown in the gateroom frequently. Its been spotted at the Alpha site. Its also be used on FREDs. Claymores were first used in the pilot episode. The tasers have been shown in both season 1 and season 2 of Atlantis. Alyeska 04:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Claymores are mentioned in the pilot episode and, IIRC, seen later on. I can look for screen caps if you like. Deathbunny 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the missiles mounted in the ceiling of the SGC and fired through the gate are lasert guided GGM-65 Mavericks and I do remember seeing the Miniguns somewhere.

[edit] Jaffa Helmets

Should the retractible helmets worn by the Jaffa be mentioned??--Promus Kaa 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They are in the Goa'uld tech article. They are not mainstream enough for this one. Tobyk777 23:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M1 Garand?

Anyone have a link to screenshots of said weapon? Deathbunny 07:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carrier/Battlecruiser

" It should be noted that the Daedalus class has NOT actually been called a 'Battlecruiser', rather it is officially called a 'Deep Space Carrier'. Neither has the designation BC-304 actually been seen or heard on Stargate. Rather, it is a fan assumption."

It has been called a Battlecruiser, identified as such by Col. Dillon Everett in The Siege (Part II). It has also been referred to as a 304 in dialogue, Gen. Landry (I think) quite clearly said that Russia was getting the next 304 in exhange for continued use of their Stargate. JBK405 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Daedalus-class Earth ship is officially titled, as a 'Deep Space Carrier' as seen on the background monitor in the conference room aboard the Odyssey in the season 9 episode, 'Off the Grid'. As such, all Daedalus class ships are 'Deep Space Carriers' despite a mid-coversation slip by a character on either incarnation of stargate. It could be that the creators of the show were going to go with 'Battlecruiser' at first, but it is obvious that they have since decided to go with the 'Deep Space Carrier' designation. --Seastallion on 21 August 2006

That doesn't mean a thing. We have only seen it on a SINGLE ship. It hasn't been seen on the Daedalus or the Korelov. Military personal have called the ship a Battlecruiser. See the Daedalus page for further discussion. FYI, I will revert any attempt at removing Battlecruiser in the mean time. Alyeska 19:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Of COURSE it means a thing. There are ONLY two ships to be seen. Just because it hasn't been seen on the Daedalus as yet, doesn't inherently mean that it isn't so. I wouldn't expect to see it on the Korolev, as it only lasted for one episode and then was destroyed. I KNOW I'm not the only one with this view point, as there is a wiki-page SPECIFICALLY about the ships being designated as a 'Deep Space Carrier'. You can't hijack the main GENERAL article on Stargate technology, and simply eliminate a reference you don't like. There is enough support that it has EVERY right to be included in the article. If you like, you can make a note on the page specifically about the Daedalus that you don't consider it to be a 'DSC', but on the main article it SHOULD be included, your opinion on the matter not withstanding. Seastallion 03:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Designation of 'BC' has NEVER been seen for either the Prometheus or any of the Daedalus class ships. If anyone has information stating otherwise, please give a reference episode. 304 has indeed been used as a reference to the Daedalus class, but then I've never disputed that fact. Seastallion 09:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it a rest, you already tried and failed on the issue. Alyeska 15:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already finished this debate, but here's a recap:

1) The Daedalus has been called a Battlecruiser in dialogue, which is superior to props.
2) The Daedalus has been called a 304 in dialogue.
3) The Prometheus was specifically referred to by the BC prefix in the episode Enemy Mine. Now, I can't specifically recall if the BC designation was used to refer to the Daedalus class, but I'm pretty sure that it was.

So, it's been called a Battlecruiser in dialogue, a 304 in dialogue, and its sister ship (And maybe itself) has been called a BC. Seriously, what's the problem here? JBK405 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was just getting ready to modify my last comment. I was discussing it over at Gateworld and FINALLY someone had already given me an actual example of where the BC prefix was used. (Not you.) It was pointed out that it was said in 'Enemy Mine' by Gen. Vidrine. I watched again, just to be sure, and it was indeed correct. I agree with your points 2 and 3. I also agree, with point 1, but I'd hesitate (at least in this case) to assume that the dialogue reference for one ship also applies to the 'prop' reference of another. As to the edit at the end of point 3, I'm reasonably sure that the BC prefix has NOT been used in reference to the Daedalus class. I'm not intractable when given specific evidence. I am more willing to go with the BC prefix, even for the 304's, although I remain suspicious of it. Seastallion 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asgard cloning technology

"Since the Asgard are unable to reproduce sexually, they have perfected cloning technology" Wasn't it the other way around? Because they clone themselves with imperfect technology and degrade genetically with every generation they can't reproduce sexually anymore. I thought this was the case.
Codegrinder 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, they lost the ability to reproduce because of their cloning practices, but not because they degrade gentically. While it's true that they degrade genetically (Which has actually presented serious problems in recent times), it's never been stated that it's because of such degredation that they lost the ability to reproduce. JBK405 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that they cloned because they had lost the ability to reproduce. And.. I would not say they have perfected cloning and hence their continuing effort. They are not able to make perfect copies and are reaching their "copy" limits. Thus the struggle of the Asgard to remain in existence. They can not reproduce and they are at the limits of cloning themselves. Morphh 17:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they only lost their sexual abilities after the cloning began; they began cloning as a way of gaining a sort of immortality. By cloning themselves they can transfer their minds from one body to the next, essentially living past death. The degradation is only a (relatively) recent problem, since their clones are as close to perfect as they can get; virtually indistinguishable from one to the next and without any detectable defects or errors. Unfortunately, after several thousand clones, even the originally undetectable can grow to be a problem. JBK405 18:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, there was a civilization of humans that had reproduced by cloning and been isolated so long that they had lost genetic diversity. What they and the Stargate writers have both forgotten is that genes are digital; they have one of four chemical connectors. Admittedly, there are about 3 billion such connectors in the human genome, but it is still digital. Even today, we can decode and record each and every one of the digital values; that's what the Human Genome Project was about, decoding the genes of one person. We can even assemble short (several hundred) sections of DNA from a record of these digital values. I would believe that a civilization that has advanced to the point of being able to successfully clone higher-level organisms would also have advanced in these other related fields to be able to go back to a previously-recorded version that had not been corrupted by copying. I guess that they just use it as a plot device. Val42 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well since they've been cloning themselves for almost 30 millennia, defects in their genetics that wouldn't be a problem for a life span of maybe a century begin to appear. Cloning a clone several thousand times will cause the genetic information to degrade and eventually become "unreadable". Maybe they haven't perfected cloning technology per se, but it's much more advanced than anything else in the universe. Rajrajmarley 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAMAS

i'm sure that in episodes of Stargate: Atlantis, I've seen some of the soldiers and main cast-members carrying FAMAS Assault Rifles. sure, they're french, but they're quite distinctive. am i wrong, hallucinating, or onto something here?

[edit] Control crystals

Shouldn't there be something about control crystals, like an article detailing their use by various races (the Ancients, the Goa'uld, etc) -- SFH 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kel'tacs/Al'kesh (Mid-ranged bomber) and Cargo Ships

There should be something about these in the Goa'uld technology section. I also found what looks like a Goa'uld transport in the Episode "Full Circle"

[edit] Matter producing technology

I have seen this technology earlier than described: it was first seen in the episode where Samantha Carter was transferred to the Asgard homeworld to come up with a defense against the replicators. This episode was also the first appearance of the O'neill class starship. The device can be seen producing small blocks of food for Thor.
Codegrinder 10:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True, Thor first used it in Small Victories to produce food blocks for Carter.Rajrajmarley (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Goauldhatak.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Moebiuszpm.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wraith dart.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:StargateIris.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SGBC303ship.jpg

Image:SGBC303ship.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Tech?

how come the ancient battleship class wasnt included in ancient tech? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azncolonel (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Tok'ra (Part 1).jpg

Image:The Tok'ra (Part 1).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Thor's Hammer.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hiveships.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: new article Starships in Stargate plus merger of Wraith Hive-Ship, Wraith Dart, and Ori mothership

I propose to create a new type of article called Starships in Stargate, independent from a general technology article (Technology in Stargate currently redirects to Races in Stargate to avoid redundance, but I guess it can be recreated again with real-world information about e.g. effects from the VisFX department, props from the prop department, reception like awards for best VisFX etc.) Anyway, what I have in mind is something like this, where I have so far only sloppy-merged the starship sections of the races' technology lists (linking to Asgard starships in Stargate, Goa'uld starships in Stargate, Tau'ri starships in Stargate, and potentially Ancient starships in Stargate), and I have also sloppy-merged the full articles of starships of races where there are only one or two types of starships (i.e. the Wraith and the Ori). This serves to better meet WP:Notability (fiction), and would also help as a parent article for the starship articles, and all starship articles are taken care of now. What do people think? – sgeureka t•c 12:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No it is easier to read if they are seperate. If you see a huge article you might not want to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.12.215 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles fail notability criteria and will be deleted if they don't get improved (unlikely due to the lack of sources) or merged. Some of the unnecessary information will be trimmed so that the article won't be too big. – sgeureka t•c 11:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be better to do a Wraith Ship in Stargate? Terryrayc (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought about it, but there are only two ships (and I doubt we will see more types). And a list of two elements doesn't make sense (to me). – sgeureka t•c 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)