Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 4

It's worth to say, that they haven't used no deity currently being worshiped, so far, only the extinct religions have been exploited. I feel it as a safe way of political correctness - only living people (i.e. worshipers) can object (i.e. make problems). -- Bohusz, 2003-12-06

I guess that depends whether you consider Satan to be a worshipped deity. Sokar was a key villain for a time, remember. User:Xanzzibar

The hindu and chinese deities shown as Goa'uld are also still worshipped. Ausir

Also there is some cult that actually still follows the old nordic religion... In any event, it seems there are few enough alien races that all of them could be mentioned. Gadmeer, Reetou, Foothold Aliens, Spirits, Entity, Energy Life forms of M4C-862, though I think only those aliens seen in more than one episode should be listed. So I suppose only the Reetou. And then refer to the lack of info on the Furling under the great races. Even though we all know they are like like Furbies and Zerglings crossed into one smart alien. Tatarize

Moved some of the stuff around, switched some of the information to other pages. Using the same disabig tag as Jaffa (Stargate-SG-1) I'll leave the main page alone for a while. Though the great human tech stuff from x-101 to BC-103 should perhaps be shifted into the Human Tech section. My goal is to make the show pages at least half as good as Star Trek.Tatarize

Why take off the period from "Dr."?

Rank of Jack O'Neill

I thought Jack O'Neill was a colonel, not a brig. gen. When did the character get promoted?

--69.19.180.244 17:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i think that in season 8 he is promoted to general.. (so i read..) - --Cyprus2k1 19:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After the first two-parter episode of Season 8, he is promoted to Brigadier General and assumes command of the SGC (filling the void left by Dr. Weir). The fourth episode of season 8, "Zero Hour", confirms this new promotion. This was in part to compensate for Richard Dean Anderson's reduced shooting schedule (making him commands means he gets as much/little screentime as Don Davis's character used to).

Parenthetical disambiguation in titles

I've noticed that a lot of Stargate-related articles have "(Stargate-SG-1)" in their titles, and I thought I should mention here before I do it that I plan to go on a page-moving rampage soon to move them to titles with "(Stargate)" instead (or without a parenthetical entirely when there's nothing else in Wikipedia with that name). Two reasons; firstly, the series title only has one hyphen in it rather than two, and secondly because most of these articles are relevant to Stargate the movie, Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and even in some cases Stargate Infinity - not just the current Stargate SG-1 series. This is how Star Trek handles things with their multiple series and movies, so I think it's the correct approach here too. I'll do all the work necessary to fix links an redirects, just thought I should give a heads-up so that the rest of you wouldn't be caught by surprise. Bryan 19:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(Stargate)

Yeah, I only stuck with (Stargate-SG-1) because it was on the jaffa disambig. I realized at the time the extra dash between Stargate and SG was wrong. Now, with Atlantis starting soon, the SG-1 is also out of place. I also created a few categories and weaved them in right... the base category is rightly "Stargate" and everything else goes off it. Yeah, I'll start moving some of the stuff too. Thankfully wiki makes it pretty easy.

O'Neill's rank

Also Sam's rank is altered. I try to avoid spoilers... I can only assume they get promoted and somebody went and pushed up the ranks early. Tisk. I guess there is a spoiler warning still caught me by suprise.

I'm starting to move them...

Fixing the redirects as a bulk edit will be easier this way... Search for "(Stargate-SG-1)" ect

I'll move some too, wouldn't want to make work for other people without picking up some of the effort myself. :) Bryan 01:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's one I'm not sure about: Spirits (Stargate SG-1). The article could be about a specific episode of the series Stargate SG-1, so in this case the "SG-1" seems appropriate. If on the other hand it's not about the specific episode but about the "Sprits" that were portrayed in it, then it should be singular; Spirit (Stargate). Any ideas? Bryan 01:51, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's my fault. The page was about the alien race, but for some reason I stuck in the "is a second-season episode". the page should probably stay on the race, until/unless we get pages for each episode. As for singular vs. plural, all the other alien pages are plural too, though for some it's not obvious (e.g. Goa'uld, Asgard). This seems right to me, since the pages are about the cultures/races collectively. Specific individual characters should have their own pages.
--wwoods 03:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia naming convention to use singular titles wherever possible; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization). I think it'll be best to move these over to the singular forms. In the case of races like the Asgard, Unas, Tok'ra, Goa'uld, etc. the singular and plural forms are the same, though, so those would stay where they are. I should also note that in the specific case of alien race articles for other science fiction settings, singular forms are used there too; see Category:Fictional alien species for many examples. Bryan 03:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I hope I'm not coming across as nitpicky. I'm just a long-time fan of Stargate and a long-time editor of Wikipedia, so I'm naturally obsessing over details here. :) Bryan 03:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, not at all. I'd grumbled to myself sometimes at the "_(Stargate-SG-1)" suffix, but hadn't gotten around to doing anything. But now we need a new phrase for the generic intro, to replace,

Foo is a/the Bar "on the SF television show Stargate SG-1."

"... in the Stargate universe."? Stargate franchise?
--wwoods 04:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like "in the Stargate universe", personally. I see that form get used a lot in other fictional universe articles around here. Bryan 05:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now that we've done The Move, someone's going to have shift some content around. Currently, Stargate is just a disambiguation page. Following the Star Trek model, a lot of the stuff on Stargate SG-1 should go there, leaving the stuff that's specific to that series.
--wwoods 19:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense. The remaining meanings are all sufficiently minor that they can be shuffled off onto Stargate (disambiguation), IMO. I'll get to work on it in about an hour if nobody beats me to it - I'm just headed off to vote in the 2004 Canadian federal election right now. :)

There, just got started by moving some chunks of this article's "Summary" section over to Stargate. I left the SG-1-specific bits of summary here. Now the question is how much of the "races", "technology", etc. sections to move over. We should mention the Goa'uld and Ancients in the main Stargate article, at least, since those two species have been involved directly or indirectly in every Stargate movie and show so far. Some of the more minor races and technologies, on the other hand, will probably only be seen in SG-1 and aren't all that relevant to the overall setting. Any ideas? Bryan 02:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It'll depend on what happens with Atlantis - how much overlap in aliens and planets and plots. I'd guess a lot of the info will be relevant to the whole universe. We'll probably wind up pushing a lot off onto 'races/gadgets/planets of Stargate ' pages.
--wwoods 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, the structure of the page is still iffy, I guess we will see in a short while after Atlantis comes out how much stuff actually has to be moved to show neutral pages. It won't be too hard to toss the technology into a "list of stargate technologies" and provide some indepth information where applicable. Some of the stuff like the weapons disabler is pretty much one line information and hardly warrent a different page. Also, there are huge lists of stray planets like P3R-233 (trans-dimentional mirror (hmmm, that's something worthly of noting somewhere), P3X-666 (the planet on which Dr. Frasier died (I wonder if the mark of the beast is a fluke), P3X-888 Goa'uld origin world, P4X-234 world SG-1 gated to while Thor's ship burnt up in the atmo of earth. Beyond the 1 line about them and a hundreds of other crappy planets there's no real information. Some planets like Kheb Oma Desala guarded shifu there, give the standard information about isis and osirus and seth and how they found the planet and how in "the warrior" it was used as "heaven" for Imhotep's cult like following. Just saying, it's not really going to get in the way, because no definitions should refer to that many crappy planets if they are really that crappy. The stuff should be added to independant lists and moved to the stargate page, and ref'ed from both the show and the main pages. - tatarize 30 Jun 2004

Something like List of planets in the Stargate universe would be the best place for a huge list of one-liners about the various P3Xes and whatnot, with the handful of "special" planets like Chulak getting links but the rest without. The list would probably be too long to include in a general article like this one. Bryan 04:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cast list

[was==POV in time==]
It seems to me that the fate of Colonel Simmons can be left to his (as yet hypothetical) page. It's kind of a spoiler to put it up front like that. But when I was making the table, I wondered about the changing ranks. E.g., should Carter be listed as Capt, Lt Col, or Capt–Lt Col? And while going through the pages yesterday I noticed that some present the material in the past tense, and some in the present. Should we be viewing events from a particular time: "as of the end of Season N", or put it all in the past?
--wwoods 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that characters whose ranks have varied should have all ranks listed, with the seasons during which they held the rank specified. Material should be written in the past tense.

Acegikmo1 19:34, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I can see it now. -

Capt. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (101-303)
Maj. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (303-80...something)
Lt. Col. Samantha Carter - Amanda Tapping (80... onward)

Actually not that ugly, though it does seem redundant. - Tatarize 7-3-2004

Hmmm, that's not what I was thinking of. Actually, I'm not really sure what I imagined. In any case, I like it. What do you think of:

Capt. (101-303)	Samantha Carter -	Amanda Tapping
Maj. (303-80?)
Lt. Col. (80?-???)

Acegikmo1 17:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	Major Characters
•	Maj Gen	George Hammond	– Don S. Davis
•	Brig Gen	Jack O'Neill	– Richard Dean Anderson
•	Col	(101-80?)
•	Lt Col	Samantha Carter	– Amanda Tapping
•	Maj	(303-80?)
•	Capt	(101-303)
•	Dr.	Daniel Jackson	– Michael Shanks
•		Teal'c	– Christopher Judge
•		Jonas Quinn	– Corin Nemec
•	Dr.	Janet Fraiser	– Teryl Rothery

Even seeing it like that doesn't make me sure, still looks sorta odd. I dunno, up to you folks. My rule of checking what Star Trek does and stealing their formatting and hoping its fine. Several members of the crew in TNG were promoted. Lt. Cmd. Data for example, was listed with his final rank. Though, if listing all the ranks they held, that's pretty much the way you'd have to do it. Although I wonder about adding Carter's Dr. title, she preferred her millitary rank so maybe just calling her Lt Col Samantha Carter, PhD... nah that's way worse. ... totally wish I knew how to do that automatic sign... - Tatarize 7-7-04

Perhaps if it makes the table too messy we could just leave the ranks out entirely, leaving it up to the individual articles themselves to explain what their ranks have been over the history of the show. Alternately, just go with the most recent rank; these characters have presumably passed through a whole lot of other ranks on their way to where they are now, the only reason we're considering listing the ones you mention above is because they happened to pass through them on-camera. :) (PS: to do the signature thing type three tildes to just add your name and four to add your name plus the current time and date; ~~~~) Bryan 15:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plus if ranks were skipped there wouldn't be a need to change Thor's rank to "Supreme Commander of the Asgard Fleet" which would mess up the table. Tatarize 23:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What do you think of this:

Rank	Character	Actor
Brig. Gen. (80?-???)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Col. (101-80?)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Capt. (101-303)	Samantha Carter	Amanda Tapping
Maj. (303-80?)
Lt. Col. (80?-???)

Or even

Rank	Character	Actor
Brig. Gen. (80?-???) Col. (101-80?)	Jack O'Neill	Richard Dean Anderson
Capt. (101-303) Maj. (303-80?) Lt. Col. (80?-???)	Samantha Carter	Amanda Tapping

Acegikmo1 18:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edward Tufte would probably object to putting the info behind bars. I think it's just a cast list; all that's required is

<CharacterName> -- <ActorName>

Prefacing a name with a title or salutation is conventional but the character's CV should go on his own page. Or alternately we should have a list of characters like the lists of races:

CharacterName -- (played by ActorName)
- Got involved with the Stargate program somehow. Did thus and such. ~~Was eaten by a giant snake.~~ (Sorry, I've been watching Buffy recently, while waiting for Stargate, Season 7)

--wwoods 19:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Description of the Show and Star Trek Franchise

I don't know the actual article in question, but a while back star trek reference was changed to franchise, which might actually not be correct. Franchise-wise I think Star Trek has leaps and bounds more fans base. I think it might have been primariy referring to TOS. Though, I am not sure. I think think that in a few days that info will be too old to use anyhow, as S8 is starting on 9th, and Atlantis is starting on the 16th. In any event that information is old and probally should be scratched. First air date, reference perhaps the seasons list, not sure what else, but those boring dates hardly kick off a blanket introduction before the premise paragraph is set. That and perhaps a reference to the francise page. - Tatarize

Odd duplication

This article has some wierd duplication of information problems. I think something went wonky and copied the article on top of itself or something... -- EmperorBMA|話す 22:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Episodes?

I've noticed that Stargate Atlantis has articles for each episode that has aired. Would it be appropriate to begin to do that for Stargate SG-1? -KorbenDirewolf 20:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The idea is good, but take a look at this. I'm doing work on episodes of X-Files, check here, and it's not easy. SG-1 has aired 7.5 seasons, so this would be some hard work to do. Solver 20:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you're right.. I'll have a look at that and at how the Atlantis episodes were organized. Maybe I should check out some other longer running series and see what they've done.KorbenDirewolf 20:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Generally, the Atlantis episode articles don't contain much. Maybe it's a better idea then to have one page for the entire season, as with X-Files above. Makes it for less articles that are very small. Also, makes the big season page look good even if only a couple episodes are filled in. Solver

The general convention that has been applied to several other TV series is that once an article on an episode is written, it is linked from the episode list. For example, if you look at List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, you'll see that only one episode has an article about it ("Wormhole X-Treme!"). If someone writes an article about, say, "Exodus", then it will be linked from the episode list page (and possibly the main article page). This format has been used successfully on Star Trek: Enterprise.

Acegikmo1 20:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I started doing with X-Files, creating a separate article for each ep and filling it with some details. More than a paragraph or two, actually. But then it was suggested that the whole thing is made on one big season page, as is now. Solver

I prefer the separate article format myself, especially if the content is more than just a brief summary. If there is significant information about a single episode, I think that episode deserves its own page. Usually, fans write about episodes that are very popular or very important to the series, and using separate pages for separate episodes has worked on series like Star Trek: The Next Generation and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Acegikmo1 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see that there may be some problem with that method. "Thor's Hammer" and "Prometheus" are episode titles as well as technologies that are used more than once. I think I'll wait a while and see what some more people have to say about this. I do have around 15 episode articles I wrote for other purposes, but would have to seriously rewrite then before they would be appropriate here.KorbenDirewolf

That's a reasonable concern, but Wikipedia's disambiguation policies take care of it. For example, there is an episode of Star Trek: Enterprise called "Azati Prime". However, Azati Prime is also the name of a significant planet in Enterprise fiction. As such, the page Azati Prime describes the planet, while the page Azati Prime (ENT episode) describes the episode. Such a method could be applied to Stargate SG-1 as well (e.g. "Prometheus (Stargate SG-1 episode)" and Prometheus (ship). Acegikmo1 22:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess that would probably work. I'll just create the episode (or maybe season) articles for what I have once I get them rewritten. Thanks to everyone for the input.KorbenDirewolf

Okay, I've posted one of my rewritten articles on my User page. I still think it may be a bit long and probably still POV. Any ideas on what I could do to make it better?KorbenDirewolf 00:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I can't spot any significant POV at first glance. You did misspell O'Neill's name throughout, however. :) Bryan 08:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugh..I almost always do first time through somethine. "I" before "E" and all that stuff.KorbenDirewolf

I've taken the liberty of adding links back into the episode list using the (Stargate SG-1) suffix, after copying the nomenclature from Stargate Atlantis. I've also built a db that allows the generation of the text for episode entries a la Atlantis and plan to begin inputing the text. I'll include the airdate data from KorbenDirewolf as I couldn't find it elsewhere. Journeyman 6 Oct 2004

Misc. questions for general edit

FACTUAL ERROR: The article says that jaffa incubate gould larva for 100 years, when in fact the incubation period for an individial gould in larval form is 7-8 years.

So, I'm going through, fixing typos, sprucing up grammar, and generally improving readability, and I have questions. Quite a lot of them, actually.

From the first paragraph:

"The show has undeniable popularity, in part because—unlike other sci-fi franchises such as Star Trek or Babylon 5 — it is set in the present day."

Is this really necessary, or even necessarily true? The sentence is awkward, I don't know how to fix it, and it sounds an awfully lot like someone's opinion. Can anyone vouch for this as a motivation of a sizable portion of the fan base?

Moving to the summary:

"The Stargate's very existence and all of its activities are operated as SCI-classified ("Sensitive Compartmented Information"), utilizing a covert top secret cover."

Obviously the fact that the whole thing is classified is significant, but does the official term matter? Do they even mention it in the series? (Again, an awkward sentence. It'd be easiest to just take out the SCI bit, but of course I don't want to remove relevant information.) And, is there some military significance to "covert top secret cover," because to me it just sounds redundant.

Can anyone think of a reason why the second paragraph shouldn't be written "Led by Brigadier General Jack O'Neill..." with susquent changes? I know it's hard to think of the Stargate Command without Hammond in charge, but the change is well-established at this point. Since there's a spoiler warning, I can't think of any reason why the article shouldn't be completely up-to-date.

The first line of the Summary section was originally this: "See Stargate for a more general summary of the universe this series is set within." I'm keeping it here because I haven't figured out how it make it sound right, yet.

And... actually, that's as far as I got before getting distracted by another article.

The folks who've worked on this article have done great work, by the way.

-Salli 20:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the US Government 'Top Secret' is a specific term covering information that would cause exceptionally grave damage to national security. See classified information for more detail. Also 'covert' is generally used for an operation that only those directly involved with have access to, usually something that very few at even highest levels know about. Not sure really if it would be better or worse if changed. KorbenDirewolf 21:27, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That first questionable line can simply be like "Unlike several other popular sci-fi shows, such as Star Trek or Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1 is set in present day". That sounds less like opinion and doesn't say that it's the reason for popularity.

I also support saying that it's led by BGen O'Neill, but only if a mention of Hammond comes up at once - this is not a fansite, so we need not only the current, but also the former status. Solver 18:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ancients Homeworld being Earth?

I was under the impression that the Ancients colonised Earth, left, and then came back through the Atlantis Stargate to live out the rest of their days, not that they were actually FROM Earth (as Earth was never attacked by the Wraith, and thus if they were from Earth then Earth would be a thriving Ancient colony even now, which obviously its not). So, could someone point me to the SG1 or Atlantis episode where they say the Ancients are from Earth? Comrade Tassadar 18:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they are actually from Earth. Spinboy 20:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But then why isn't Earth a hyperadvanced society? Why aren't there great ancient devices like there are on other planets? If Earth was the homeworld, then it would have a huge ancient population and assuming the Wraith didn't wipe them out, would still be here. But we can't assume that the Wraith wiped them out, because then humanity wouldn't be here either. Plus, the Ancients only had an outpost (like on Taonas) here but if it were their homeworld, they would likely have a much more powerful defense system. Unless theres an episode that explicitly says it...? Comrade Tassadar 05:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was explained that that's why Humans and Acients look so alike is that they evolved on the same planet. I can't seem to remember what (if any) episode says this. -- elykyllek 20:53, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I thought this was because the Ancients colonised Earth, but didn't actually come from Earth. Comrade Tassadar 10:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even gateworld doesn't know for sure [1] -- elykyllek 23:16, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Since Gateworld is seemingly unsure, I'll go back to my last edit. Comrade Tassadar 20:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, according to the story they evolved here on Earth. A few million years before we did. Then they left and went to Pegasus and then went back to Earth. The main question you folks have is the evolved on Earth one, check season 6 episode 4, Frozen. Ayiana was an ancient they found frozen after several million years. Then for the leaving Earth, check Stargate Atlantis pilot. It opens with the city taking off "several million years ago". However the pilot episode of Atlantis makes it clear in the opening that not all of them left. Still they are earthlings like us (sortof). Tat 19:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There has never been a reference, in either series or by any producers, that indicates that the ancients evolved on Earth. They apparently lived on Earth for a time, but left after 'seeding' the planet with life that would evolve into humans. The series seems to indicate that the ancients were a galactic civilization that had colonies all over the Milky Way Galaxy. Then a plague struck them, and their population was decimated. The remaining ancients set out to repopulate their kind by 'seeding' worlds that could support life. Earth was the last of these worlds in the Milky Way galaxy that was 'seeded' before the ancients left for the Pegasus galaxy to continue their work.

This would seem to be contradicted by the fact that Earth humans are called Tau'ri, which literally means "the first ones" - Earth has been established as the planet where all humans in the Milky Way originally came from. Lacking evidence to suggest otherwise I think the most reasonable assumption is that humans evolved here, especially considering the ample real-world paleontological evidence for it. Bryan 18:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're only called the Tauri by the Goa'uld and Jaffa. -Jarnin

Yes, I think the previous poster is mostly right, however the series so far seems to indicate the only planet seeded with human life in the Milky Way was Earth. They did seed many planets in Pegasus of course. I imagine it was a new technology for them and this is why Earth was the only planet seeded in Milky Way. The other (terraformed) planets in Milky Way were populated by Ancients who died during the plague AFAIK (ie, before the remaining Ancients left for Pegasus). As for Earth being the original world of the Ancients, I believe it has been stated that the Earth was the centre of Ancient civilisation in Milky Way and suggested by the characters that the Ancients evolved on Earth (eg, Sam Carter may well believe this) but it has not be clearly stated. Thus the producers are free to eventually reveal that the Ancients came from somewhere else (which I think they will do at some point, possibly to start a 2nd spin off). Robertbrockway 18:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is alot of evidence that the Ancients seeded other worlds with life. The "weapon" at Dekara (Reckoning Pt 1&2, Threads) was supposed to originally have been used to repopulate life in the Milky Way galaxy after the plague nearly wiped it all out. That was it's purpose. It did this by connecting to a planet with a Stargate (in Reckoning they were able to connect to all the gates in the galaxy at once). My point is, if the Plague forced the ancients to repopulate the galaxy with life, not just humans, but life, then all life in the Milky Way right now is the direct result of that experiment, not just Earth.

Here are some lines from the episode "Frozen":

   FRAISER
   Well, Sir, we could be looking at evidence that human beings evolved long before we thought
 they did.

   MICHAELS
   And maybe not even originally on this planet.

   TEAL'C
   Then she may indeed be not of this world.

   CARTER
   As far as we knew up until now, all human life in the galaxy was transplanted to other planets
   from Earth by the Goa'uld. Now, the odds of a totally alien life form evolving
 to look exactly like us are…are astronomical.

Astronomical indeed. Even looking remotely like us is unlikely. The Nox look like short humans with grass in their hair. The Asgard look humanoid now, but back 30,000 years ago (Revelations), they looked like bald humans with bluish skin. The Unas and Serrakin look like reptilian humans. My point is that all current alien life is a direct result of the ancients 'seeding' experiment, not just Earth. Earth was just the last stop on their way to Pegasus.

The page at least needs to be changed to reflect that we simply don't know where the ancients are from, but we do know they inhabited Earth about 5-10 million years ago for an unspecified amount of time.

-Jarnin

Your first paragraph contains a speculation that as far as I know is completely unsupported; if every intelligent species in the Milky Way is Ancient-derived I think there'd have been some evidence of that by now, and there's also counterevidence to your "everyone's humanoid" point (Re'tu and Goa'uld spring to mind - and also bear in mind that this is a TV show that has to rely on human actors in latex for most of its aliens :). However, your second paragraph is IMO spot on; we should only be reporting factual things, and currently the only facts in this regard are speculations by fictional characters who could be wrong. I'll try tweaking the wording to reflect that in a little bit. Bryan 18:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Spoiler

It's official! The ancients are not from Earth.

"Atlantis was about where the Ancients went after they left this galaxy," Cooper said. "The big revelation at the beginning of Season Nine is that they didn't start here -- they came from somewhere else. And we find a piece of Ancient technology, and use it in conjunction with some other Ancient technology that we had lying around, and are able to discover where they came from. And in going there we get ourselves into some trouble!"
Found here: http://www.gateworld.net/news/2005/04/cooperandwrightonisg-1isav.shtml

-Jarnin

Just checked the entry. Both Ayiana and the Ancient seen staying on the planet are played by the same actress Ona Grauer. Tat 19:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Guest Stars

I think that might be noteworthy to list all their guest stars. Especially, when some of them come from other Scifi channel shows. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And other well known Science Fiction shows. You know, the only surprise that MacGyver fans would die to see is to have Dana Elcar show up on Stargate SG-1. Even better, I wish they would cast Michael Des Barres as some minor Goa'uld. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to name a few:

Robert Picardo as NID Agent Richard Woolsey
Marina Sirtis
John de Lancie

Reference:

http://allstargate.television-series.com/sg1/guests/

"Dead Characters"

Do we really need to identify characters who've died on the show as a special category? It seems spoilerish, and perhaps ghoulish. —wwoods 19:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of odd. Not to mention that several characters who've died in the past have come back to life, which complicates things unnecessarily IMO. And what do we do when a regular character dies and stays dead? He'd fit into two sections then. Bryan 00:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"I am 100% sure... 99% sure Apophis is dead."

—wwoods 02:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Help Editing"

Hi I was wondering if someone could please move the page "Time Dialation Device" to "Time Dilation Device" The link to the page is under Asgard technology. I created the page only to later realize that Dialation is really spelt Dilation. I tried moving the page but for some reason it wouldn't let me move it. (note that the link name to the page will have to be changed as well). Help in this matter would be much apreciated. --Lightamplification 02:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the text to "Time Dilation Device (Stargate SG-1). --24.1.36.254 03:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help --Lightamplification 04:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Richard Dean Anderson isn't in ninth season?

Perhaps he will make a guest appearance or two but according to imdb he's not a returning main character for the ninth season. How should we handle this in the info box and in the article? zen master T 23:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

No need to change the infobox--he's the major character of the series, if not of one season (the last season?). The changing make-up of SG-1 and the command of the SGC need to be laid out, but that can wait until we know what it's going to be.

—wwoods 00:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

i think you're wrong, the trailer shows him, it does not show Carter, who seems to have been replaced.

Stargate Information

I think it would be nice to get some information on the actual stargate on this page or on some other page seeing as how the stargate relates to basically the movie, all the spinoffs, etc.

Things like how it works, how it calculates locations, the error messages, different symbols, what happeneds when theres two worlds on one planet, when one is shut down, etc. In the episode where Teal'c gets stuck in the gate they noted when their gate is disconnected the other becomes active, etc.