Talk:The Road Not Taken (Stargate SG-1)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Stargate SG-1 Episode Style Sheet

Episode Style Sheet Following the plot summary, several (optional) sections may follow. These include:

   * "Quotes" section
   * "Trivia" section
         o Significance, discussing the episode's overall contribution to the Stargate mythology (character developments, shifts of power)
         o Trivia, adding some interesting facts about the episode that would not be appropriate for the introduction or summary
         o Controversy, if the episode is particularly divisive among fans or introduces an element that has met with a harsh fan reaction or that violates continuity (this could apply to Sam's boyfriend Pete Shanahan, for example).
         o This would also be a good place to mention if fans generally loved or hated the episode (use GEOS or Gateworld for this, don't decide yourself!) and why.

This policy applies to other tv shows as well, so please stop deleting trivia or note sections. And if you personally believe information to be trivial, unverifiable, or indiscriminate information then say so and ask the information be removed or integrated into the article if possible. Mwhope 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That means nothing as a) It's not policy or guideline, b) Nor does it apply to other shows. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

its applies to other shows in as much as some other shows have such guides, and these guides are based upon the tv show episode guide page. There is concensus that this guide is to be followed. I seriously hope general concensus means nothing to you. Mwhope 17:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Given what's been going on(and also to make sure I've got my facts straight), I figured I'd put this here first: During the party, the Stargate theme was being played on the piano. To my knowledge, this is the second time it's been slipped into an episode in this manner(the previous time being when Carter hummed it in the elevator). Sehvekah 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the page for 200, the wedding theme in one scene is a mix of the traditional "here comes the bride" music and the Stargate theme. Since it's a modified version of the song it might be dismissed, but I thought I'd mention it.
Additionally, what follows is the news clips that Sam scrolls through after her aborted interview. I like such little details, so if anybody feels like they should be added to the article please feel free to do so. I'd do it myself, but I'm torn on whether or not they're relevant - so hopefully somebody with a better sense of such things can offer an opinion. Likewise, there may be some sort of hidden joke in here that I've missed.
Inside Access With Julia Donovan
Julia Donovan interviews the countries(sic) most interesting personalities 3 nights a week
Major Samantha Carter Visits With President Landry
Major Carter discusses fashion and art with President Landry. President Landry confesses to loving Carter's stylish haircut.
Joe Carter Gets Access Inside the New York Library System
Famed author, Joe Carter, gets exclusive access to rare tomes and archives from the New York Library System's secret catalogue.
Inside Access Fan Site
Fan site dedicated to the talk show, Inside Access, hosted by Julia Donovan. Site created by fan club president, Mary Carter.
Julia Donovan - Interview Transcripts
Transcripts from Inside Access, hosted by Julia Donovan. Includes her compelling interview with author, Joe Carter.
Inside The New York Library System - The New Book By Joe Carter
In this gripping tale of tomes and card catalogues, controvercial(sic) author, Joe Carter, takes us deep into the underbelly of the New York Library System
Annabelle Carter - A Memorial
Annabelle Carter passed suddenly on the evening of July 9th. She will be missed by her husband of 40 years - the only man to gain access inside her heart.
Major Samantha Carter Falls Ill
Major Carter falls ill and cuts short an appearance on Inside Access with (the rest is cut off) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Mink Ermine Fox (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
Whoops, that was me up there. The Mink Ermine Fox 23:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is considered a reliable source Mwhope 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

please show me the discussion where imdb was stated as unreliable.

WP:RS. Look, it's rather simple: IMDb IS authoritative on credits for Hollywood productions, because they get those from official sources. Everything else, foreign credits, trivia, goofs, etc. is user-submitted - i.e. not reliable source. --129.241.210.38 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is also user submitted, so (according to your strict interpretation) by its own guideline then it is not reliable. Obviously some discretion should be used. Mwhope 19:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I should be saying "Hallelujah! You get it!" around now, unfortunately I'm still trying to teach you the basics. Also, Wikipedia:General disclaimer "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", you, (naturally) didn't read this. IMDb is not a reliable source on anything, the fact it accepts information at all nullifies it as a valid. I point you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source." - at best IMDb is a tertiary source for its film credits, the rest is all original research. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Types of source material: "Summarized material drawn from secondary sources, as in general encyclopaedias. These sources generally lack adequate coverage of the topic to be considered comprehensive where arguments are subtle and nuanced. They generally do not discuss and evaluate alternative interpretations. Tertiary sources can be used for names, spellings, locations, dates and dimensions. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. [...]" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot expansion

There is a temporary version of the article here: Talk:The Road Not Taken (Stargate SG-1)/Temp

Please provide a short summary. See WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE WP:FICTION WP:WAF and Wikipedia:Fair use. Proposed length: The summary in Pilot (House episode), balanced with at least as much-out-of-universe information. --GunnarRene 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While i agree this article needed work, particularly in the non-synopsis areas, the episode itself aired for the first time less than a month ago. Editors must have time for sources to become available. Please take this into consideration.

Mwhope 05:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already told him he's wrong (didn't appear to listen) and thus he decided to make a point. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 05:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT before accusing people of breaking it. I used the appropriate process for copyright concerns. --GunnarRene 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


What's everybody getting so butt hurt over trivia for? It's trivia for fucks sake! Quote IMDb and be done with it!!! None of the other 210 episodes have this problem. --204.213.79.143 08:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fenton, you have stooped to a new low, just because you didn't get what you want with the removal of the trivia section on this episode the first time you had a part in imposing a copyright infringement. Well like the guy above me said if this “copyright stuff is true” then do it for the other 200+ episodes, then edit Atlantis, then edit every other TV show that has a trivia section since all of them are bound to have an infringement. Your ice skating up a hill.--WarDragon 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to button your mouth young man, before making heinous, unfounded accusations like that. You ought to check the article's history and you may realise it was GunnarRene who tagged this article as a "copy vio". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Young man!? Not everyone on this site is a 12 year old egotiscal child so stop being sterotypical. If you read my post again you would have noticed i said "you had a part in", I never said you put it up. I implied you had a hand in making this infringment happen, whether it was formal or informal esspsically with your past history with this page. Also that a good point why this page? Other pages are riddled with infringment, so why this. And now answer my second half question, what about the other episodes?--WarDragon 23:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I played no part, I did not write the plot section. Also no where did I mention the number twelve (or call you a child, for that matter). Also questions like "Why do one but not the rest" are called an argumentum ad ignorantiam, and to put you straight it certainly isn't just this one. I'm also wondering as to why you are rambling about "infringment [sic]", because I'm not interested if it infringes or not, my qualm about the introduction of trivia is that it is non-encyclopaedic (see WP:AVTRIV). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you wrote the plot section, but you commented on the trivia section, see the very first discussion for this page. The word "young" implies immaturity in both mind and age which links to child connotation. The actual infringement is because of the trivia which "you" were not happy about, the plot could have easily been redone, all this without the main article being touched with copyright infringement. It is pathetic that all this infringement is over one little imdb link, hell just be glad the person actually linked it otherwise you would have never have had known.

Also i will have you know "Infringement" is spelt with an "e" the oxford english dictionary says i am right and even the main article that has the notice even has an "e", does this mean wikipedia is wrong?

I am tired of being bullied by a person who believes himself to be right. So you know what....--WarDragon 00:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the above discussion, but regarding the plot pruning, the summary might still need some work, and until the inclusion of more context, reception and commentary it might still seem a bit long. But since the plot is rather complicated, the current length is at least defensible and not a violation, in my view. Thanks to whoever condensed it.--GunnarRene 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. And as i have told you, the episode has recently aired. Critical commentary is therefore minimal and/or nonexistent. Once the dvd is release there will be commentaries that are easily cited. By the way, why are you so insistent on 'reception' as a section. The second episode of House, nor any episode other than the pilot that i came across contains a reception. why the 13th episode of season 10? Finally, since the episode has recently aired what kind of sources other than personal opinions discuss the quality of the show? Mwhope 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

there seems to be debate on this point. so i am moving it to here. Mwhope

Would tv.com be considered offical stuff, as they have it in there inormation section http://www.tv.com/stargate-sg-1/the-road-not-taken/episode/843963/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;14 --WarDragon 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this interesting. The tv.com citation links to a page that says 'this is the 200th appearance of amanda tapping on stargate sg-1'. The imdb link lists her complete filmography including every episode of sg-1. tv.com says this episode is her 200th, imdb shows that it is...that is interesting

also of interest, amandatapping.com lists bounty as her 200th episode. the episodes were aired in an order different from the production order, thus the discrepancy. Mwhope 15:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i think we should go with her site as that is a bit more offical that other sites--WarDragon 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I did the math myself and found it to be the episode following this one. To simplify:

214 total episodes

-208 Carter appears (Prometheus Unbound, Avalon 2, Origin, Ties That Bind, Powers That Be, Bad Guys - she does not appear)

  6 episodes not appearing

20 episodes this season

- 6 episodes not appearing

14 is The Shroud

Tapping does infact appear in Avalon 1. She appears in the video speaking with Mitchell at SGC, and in Mitchell's flashback sequence in the hospital. Mattathias 01:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed duplicated information

I have just removed 3 items from the notes section (about alternate Mckay, instrumental sg-1 theme, and Major Lorne) that was already in the production notes section. I figured we don't need to have the same information twice and if I removed it from the production notes section, it may make the section appear too small to be required, in which case it would be integrated with the notes section which I believe would make that notes section appear bloated. Doctoroxenbriery 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)