Talk:List of Earth starships in Stargate/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Similar Design to a Battlestar?

Has anyone noticed that the general design of the ship is similar to that of a Battlestar from Battlestar Galactica? I mean it has flight pods either side of the ship and as a large command module at the front. It also makes use of projectile weaponry and nukes much like the new series of BSG. In my opinion the producers should have stuck with the Prometheus design and just added to it. The Daedalus just feels like a rip-off quite frankly.

The only similarity is in the hangar bays on either side of the ship. The rest of Deadelus' shape is fairly different from that of Galactica's (it's also alot smaller). As the majority here also point out, Deadelus' primary defence is not her fighters and unlike the Galactica, is completley capable of destroying ships many times her size without using her fighters. So the ships and their combat abilities are actually quite different, and you are looking for debate. No Way Back 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

same picture, 2 ships

why is the same picture used twice but is called the daedalus in one and the odyssey in the other? -Xornok 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to having that pic, I asked MatthewFenton, who canged it, but the reason I got is that it's a "better" pic, but they are actually from 2 different episodes. I'll change it back and see what happens.

Faris b 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I took that picture of the Daedalus in ep. 8 (SGA) when Daedalus was over Earth and about to leave for Atlantis, fariusb insists overwise. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rail Guns

Currently the weapons section links to the Rail Gun article, which makes sense, but there's also a Railguns in science fiction article that includes a section specifically on Stargate. Should we switch the link to the article, or leave it to the generic Rail Gun page? JBK405 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Deha Vu, :-P thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gateworld an acceptable source?

On the main Daedalus page the Gateworld web-site is listed as a source for the classifying the Odyssey as a "PB3865 Deep Space Carrier", but is Gateworld a "legal" source? How official is its information? I'm not contradicting its info, but simply curious as to whether another source needs to be found. JBK405 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not an ideal source, but it will do. If you can find a more official one, then please replace it, but until then, it's better than nothing. --Tango 12:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The only other references to that number and designation are from the mission patches and the like that are seen in the background of various Odyssey centric episodes. - 59.167.42.43 04:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

O'Neill class

That is and isn't an O'Neill class. Its the same model, but its size is horribly mixed up. When the Prometheus encountered an O'Neill, it was dwarfed. In this episode, the O'Neill was the same size as the Daedalus class ships. Alyeska 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you tell relative sizes without any way to tell distance? The battle was in space, there were no landmarks. Anyway, when did the Prometheus meet an O'Neill Class? --Tango 11:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I take that last bit back, it appears the ship in "Prometheus" was O'Neill class, I had my timings confused. --Tango 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You can tell bassed on its relative position to other ships and orientation of weapons fire. If the O'Neill was farther off (it would have to be a great deal farther out to appear the size it did with the Oddessey), then when the O'Neill fired, its weapons should have angled towards they camera as they approach the Ori ships. Instead the Asgard weapon shot traveled in a straight path right on the Ori ships. Similar results appear when the Ori fire on the O'Neill. Basicaly they messed up the scaling completely. The O'Neill is noticably larger then a Hattak and the Daedalus is noticably smaller then a Hattak. In the episode, all ships were relative in size. Alyeska

Yes, the producers admitted the SFX studio had made a mistake with their scaling in Camelot, it is an O'neill class. - 59.167.42.43 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? A link to an interview, or something? It would be useful information to include in the article. --Tango 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was on gateworld a while ago, troll through their news, you should run into it eventually. Something to do with interviews regarding CAmelot and Flesh & Blood. - 59.167.26.44 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

speculation on apollo

why is the apollo listed as a 304? there is no evidence suggesting that it too will be a 304. until more information is released, i think we should take it off the list... -Xornok 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree - the only information we have is a short spoiler about an episode that won't be aired (or even filmed) for months. It's not very reliable. --Tango 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The only information on Apollo is that it's a new battleship, we dont know that means a 304, for all we know, it could be a 303 or a 305 specifically outfitted to kick the Asuran's asses. It should not be on the 304 page. - 59.167.26.44 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And if the USAF is following naval standards (quite possible given the previous ships have been called Battlecruisers or Carriers), the new ship could also be the 307 (304 is Daedalus, 305 is Oddessey, and 306 being the Korelov). When you get down to it, the Apollo is unknown. However, there is a solution. We can create a new page called Tauri ships. This page can go into some detail about each SG ship. That would let us prune this page of some information (it doesn't have to go into detail about every ship of the class). Tauri ships would spend more time talking about the history of the ship then the technical specifications. Alyeska 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska, where did you get that the 304 is Daedalus, 305 is Odyssey, and so forth? If i remember Flesh and Blood, Landry tells Woolsey that the Ori ships cut through two 304s (meaning the Odyssey and Korolev). You're confusing hull codes and hull numbers. Jordan.Kreiger 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am using traditional US Navy naming conventions. The class of ship is designated by both the first ship of the class and its hull number. An example of the 688 Los Angeles class submarines. They are known as both LA and 688. The Los Angeles was hull number 688, and yet the entire series of boats is often called 688 even when the newer ships are actualy higher in number. The Sea Wolf class wasn't 689, it was a much higher number because it followed the previous 688 boats. If the Tauri ships are following a traditional naming and designation, the Apollo is going to be 307 since we already have 304-306. Alyeska 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think its American? I mean come on if it stands a cat in hells chance of taking on Asurans its likely British :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out both references and they provide exactly two pieces of information, the ship's name and the commander's name, so IMO there's no basis for putting anything here about it. Since it's likely to be a Daedalus it may warrant a mention in the article, but we should make sure to fully qualify its ambiguous status and we should definitely not be making up hull numbers or other such details. I've removed it from the table and added mention that we don't know it's a Daedalus class to its section. Bryan 22:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Faris, it could be an Apollo class for all we know. Alyeska 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, while I don't agree with you on that, it would probably be prudent to wait. I mean, the way I see it, there were 2 phases of Earth ships,
The Prometheus phase - Which was making a ship under trial and error/jerryrigging

and
The Daedalus phase - Which was making a ship exactly the way they wanted it

While I'd love to see a 305 have Asgard generators in order to run at 100% (The Daedalus runs Asgard systems at 25% evidenced by the ZPM giving them a huge boost; long story) and the Naqahdah generators giving a lower power output, actual energy weapons and such, but I don't see it happening. While the big wigs in DC (The Ties that Bind, I believe) said that they wanted to build more 304's, they said the same about the 303's but this time I think they mean it.

Faris b 01:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Its definately prudent to wait. The theories behind the Daedalus proved to be largely wrong. Everyone thought that was going to be a BC303 Prometheus class, it most definately was not. Alyeska 02:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The ships follow the USAF standard, not the Navy, the Air Force are building these things. They classify their craft types by number. They're a class of 304, just like a fighter class is F/A-18 or F-14. If they were navy, then each ship commissioned would have a different number - 59.167.46.179 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I have another concern, the Apollo isn't going to be destroyed early on is it? Or the Daedalus for that matter. It seems the shows have a 1 ship limit, does this mean that either ship will end up destroyed when they decide to face the Asurans? I hope not, the show has evolved enough to the point where 2 ships woudln't mean too powerful, esp. when fighting Ancients. It mentions that Abe Ellis is possibly a recurring character for S4 so hopefully that will mean the Apollo is going to stay, but lets hope the same stays true for the Daedalus.

Faris b 12:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all the other editors who have stated that any information about the Apollo being Daedalus-class is speculation and shouldn't appear on this page. CovenantD 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've stated it multiple times, Apollo should not be mentioned anywhere in this article. It is complete speculation that it will be a 304, and until the ship is shown on screen it shouldn't even be mentioned at all. Now, I am about 90% sure it will be a 304, but until that is shown on screen we need to wait. Konman72 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And just where should the Apollo be listed? Do you see many of us actualy saying the Apollo is a 304? No, you don't. We don't know what class of ship the Apollo is and there is too little information to warrant a new page. And yet, the information exists and should go somewhere. Given the possibility that the Apollo is going to be a 304 makes mentioning it in this article sufficent until more information exists. Saying we can't mention it because its not a 304 is a BS excuse. Should we remove all mentions of the Prometheus as well? Alyeska 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat. There is no other place that the Apollo might be listed. There is no Stargate ships article. There are only the two main class articles and where else is the Apollo going to be listed? Whats more, precedence allows the Apollo to be listed. Before we know what class the Daedalus was, it was listed in the Prometheus article. Why? Because there was no other location for the article. A stub for a 3 line article would get deleted so fast, or what do you know, it would get merged into another article. Instead of just deleting the information outright, why not actualy try considering the options? The Apollo is NOT being listed as a 304 and is specificaly stating what is and isn't known. Alyeska 22:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So we present false information because there is no place to present correct information? THAT is BS reasoning. And I see 4 people who definitively say that the Apollo should not be presented in this article, whether they phrase it as "304 page" or "this article." CovenantD 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that incorrect information is being presented. The Apollo is specificaly stated as to be of an unknown class. Alyeska 23:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And I quote Very little other information on the Apollo is availible so far, including whether it is or is not indeed a Daedalus class ship or a new class of ship. Well what do you know, there is no false information since that sentence clearly states the facts. Alyeska 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in saying that the only information we have about this ship is what is in a single spoiler? Spoilers have been known to be wrong, or plots change prior to airing - we shouldn't be writing multiple paragraphs about a ship that may not even exist. A single sentence mentioning the ship is plenty - "A spoiler has been released describing a new ship called the Apollo, commanded by [whoever it is]. No other details of the ship are known at this time, including its class." (Ok, so that's two sentences, nevermind). --Tango 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As new information is released, we can update or alter as necessary. Alyeska 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that we must include the information just because it is out there. That is wrong. There should be no mentioning of Apollo for the many reasons stated. Until it is seen on screen anything about it is subject to change (including its very existance). Just wait the few months it takes for the episode to air and then slap it wherever you want to. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the information is not a present thing then it is not to be included. If we include the fact that a new ship is coming then we will need to also mention that at any time, in any episode, a new ship could be revealed. This is why there is a policy against crystal balling. This isn't about false or true information, it is about what should or should not be included in an encyclopedia entry. And speculative information based on spoilers that have shown their fallibility should not be included. Konman72 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apollo Continued

Funny, I made much the same argument nearly a year ago over the issue of the Oddessy or Korelov being destroyed, and ultimately I was threatened with being blocked from Wiki for wanting to keep spoilers out of the page. Alyeska 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you argued against speculation before then why argue for it now? I would have whole-heartedly supported you back then had I had the opportunity. It is speculation about something that not only might not be a 304, but also might not even exist! I am reverting it again because as I stated there are more people against its inclusion than for it. The people that want it must give reasons for its inclusion. So far you have given none, while those against have given many reasons including the fact that we have a policy against crystal balling. I ask that you refrain from readding the information until you can provide proper reasons why we should go against policy, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konman72 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I assumed you were replying to Alyeska and not me, so I moved your line to the correct location. -Huntster

There has been absolutely no speculation on Apollo. All that has been said is the cold hard facts. How many times do I have to make this clear? There is no speculation, merely a statement of what we know and what that could mean. Either the Apollo is or is not a 304. Thats not speculation, thats fact. Speculation would be saying "The Apollo is a BC304B FlightII designed for the sole purpose of killing Replicators". However, such things haven't been said. If you want to make a point, it would help if you actualy bothered to understand the situation. Alyeska 09:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some major differences between the Oddessey/Korolev destruction issue and the Apollo class issue. First and foremost, Oddessey and Korolev are known to be Daedalus class ships and were already the subject of this article. If anyone can find references saying that Apollo will be a Daedalus too, then we might include it. Until then there's no evidence to indicate that Apollo is encompassed in the topic of this article at all. The issue of whether it's a "spoiler" or not is completely irrelevant. Bryan 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried reading the material above, and I still do not understand why some people want to keep Apollo on this page, when there is no proof of any kind that it will be a 304. I mean, this page *is* for Daedalus-class starships, is it not? Create a stub article for Apollo in the interum (simply Apollo (Stargate)), and place a link under a "See also" heading on the Prometheus and Daedalus pages.... If it turns out to be a 304, do a redirect back to this page. For the time being, though, I am of the belief that including Apollo here falls under WP:NOR. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something? I've stated half a dozen times now that we don't know what class of ship the Apollo is. I quoted the last sentence in the Apollo section and bolded it. I will do it again for your benefit. Very little other information on the Apollo is availible so far, including whether it is or is not indeed a Daedalus class ship or a new class of ship. See? How the hell is that calling it a 304? The statement clearly says WE DON'T KNOW. Creating a stub for something unknown is likely going to get it deleted or merged right back in here. In the mean time PRECEDENT already sides with me. The Daedalus was put on the Prometheus page. Alyeska 09:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Alyeska, please calm down, this is *not* a big deal. Just because Daedalus was included on Prometheus' page doesn't make it right, and in my opinion, should probably have not been done. And no, I somewhat doubt that an Apollo stub would be redirected here or elsewhere, if a simple case was made to keep it until such a time as it can be properly classified elsewhere (which cannot be done currently). Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(to Alyeska) I know you aren't saying it is a 304, however all of your additions do. Even if you say in the article that we don't know what class it will be this is the 304 article. We are giving a whole section to a ship that you even admit might not be a 304...on the 304 article. Would you expect a regular encyclopedia to include a section on World War III in the World War II article? No. And you can quit citing precedent since precedent means nothing (even in your specific example, I would have opposed it just as much as this), it has never been nor will it ever be a sufficient reason for anything on Wikipedia. What does matter though is policy, and I have cited multiple policies that are being violated with this addition crystal balling and no original research to name a few. I am even opposed to creating a stub at the moment (but would not do anything if it was actually done). Why do you all feel it absolutely necessary to include this bit of information before it is shown on screen? Do you think somebody will be researching future Stargate ships and be disappointed? There is no reason to include this ship because we don't know anything about it yet. All that we do "know" is subject to change in an instant and is not suitable for Wikipedia since it does not come from a reliable source. Now, I don't want this edit war to continue any further so I won't revert at the moment, but I hope that you all can look beyond your evident desire to include this information and see the multitude of reasons why it should not be included. BTW, I think that a straw poll should be taken to make a final decision on this matter. Anyone else agree? Konman72 09:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apollo should definately NOT have it's own article, it's completely non-notable and well get deleted straight away. (I'll put it up for AfD myself if it gets created.) There is no speculation or original research involved in mentioning Apollo, as long as it's mentioned in the form of "A spoiler says...". An entire section on Apollo isn't appropriate because we don't know if Apollo even exists. We do, however, know that the spoiler exists, so we can mention the spoiler, which is all the mention Apollo needs. --Tango 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

this is funny, everyone is talking about what wikipedia is and isnt. it isnt a crystal ball, blah blah blah, but we still make articles about episodes that havent aired and whose content comes from the same source as the apollo information. i agree with alyeska that the apollo should be mentioned for the time being, as it has no other place to be and because creating a page for "Tau'ri space crafts" would serve no other use except to rehash everything thats been said on the promy and deddy-class pages and just adding the apollo information... -Xornok 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Other than for major episodes like finales, I don't think we should have more than a mention on the episodes list for unaired eps. Finales, the 200th ep, etc. often have enough info about them to be notable before airing, but others aren't. --Tango 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I'm not understanding in this current kerfuffle is why there's such an all-consuming rush to have some sort of information about Apollo in either this article or a stand-alone one on Apollo itself. Wikipedia can survive without it for a few months until information about the ship's class comes out. Or why not create First Strike (Atlantis) already and put the information there? There is certainly precedent for having articles on individual episodes and that's the one all the information's from currently. Bryan 17:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly Bryan Derksen. Look, I can understand the desire to include information, but it should be done properly, and having Apollo on here is not proper. You can cite all the precedent you want, it won't change anything because chances are I disagree with the instant you are citing (like Daedalus being on the Prometheus page). Just let this little tiny piece of information go, no one is looking for it since it isn't even known beyond the hardcore fanbase that read spoilers (and if people don't read those then they probably don't want to know anyway). If the information is trimmed down to a mentioning, as opposed to a whole section, then I will not revert it. I will still argue against it and think that it is wrong, but it isn't anything to get into an edit war over. I also think that creating First Strike (Atlantis) would be a fantastic idea since it is notable enough (as all episodes are) and can be changed to a redirect if the title changes. Konman72 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways to get in a mention of Apollo without the assumption that it is a 304. Until such time as a citation can be provided that states it is Daedalus class, it is speculation to include in an article that is entitled "Daedalus class battlecruiser." Until such time as a citation can be provided, such speculation is subject to removal under Wikipedia:Verifiability. CovenantD 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Still using tired arguments already proven wrong I see. We aren't assuming it is a 304 and the actual wording of the entry explicitly states this. Try reading up on your english comprehension skills a little. Alyeska 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that the article isn't about Daedalus class battlecruisers? CovenantD 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You know very well what I did and didn't say. Alyeska 05:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And you know very well what he said. This article is entitled "Daedalus class battlecruiser" not Ships in Stargate. All entries in here (when not just a simple reference, such as Prometheus) are only to be about Daedalus class battlecruisers. You can say all you want that the Apollo may not be a 304 but if you slap it in the article about the 304 then the assumption is being made, or at least the subject of the article is being expanded/broken beyond its constraints. Konman72 08:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apollo's a 304, this discussion can be archived now. - 59.167.10.58 01:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Solution

There, I've created First Strike (Atlantis) with a copy of the "Apollo" section from here. If it does turn out to be a Daedalus class ship the information can be easily copied back here when confirmation shows up, and until then it can be edited and expanded freely over there. Solution for everyone, hopefully? Bryan 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That takes it out of the realm of speculation, which is what policy and common sense dictate. CovenantD 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. Works for me! (Personal note: Sorry if I came off harsh or like an ass, the internet does not carry tone of voice very well. I was not angry or upset in any way, and if I upset anyone then I am sorry) Konman72 08:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny how its a solution only when one side openly agreed with it. Alyeska 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

how come none of you are fighting over the Tria in the aurora class ship article? -Xornok 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're making the assumption that we were aware of it. With over 1.4 million articles on Wikipedia it's impossible to know about all of them. CovenantD 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I've got this particular article watchlisted because it's historically attracted a lot of speculative edits and original research, I don't have the Aurora class article watchlisted. I do now, and I agree that the Tria may have the same problem over there too (though not as much as Apollo, Tria was "said by Dr. McKay to possibly be Aurora class" so at least there's some evidence to work with). But far be it for me to spread a lame edit war to other articles, so I think I'll wait until this situation is resolved before taking that one up myself. If my attempt at resolving it by putting the information in the "First Strike" article hasn't worked, all I can think of doing next is starting an RfC to see if anyone else has ideas. And also requesting protection if the edit-warring continues in the meantime. Could someone explain what's wrong with the "First Strike" article solution? Bryan 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there, but there is ALREADY a page for First Strike (Atlantis) as First Strike (Stargate Atlantis) and seeing as how the latter is more detailed, I think that the former should be deleted/become a redirect.

Faris b 19:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I changed First Strike (Atlantis) to a redirect since all others are (Stargate Atlantis). Alyeska, if this doesn't satisfy you then please explain why. We have shown multiple times how this information violates Wikipedia policy and all you have come up with is "precedent" which has never been sufficient reason to do anything on Wikipedia. So, please explain why this is not satisfactory and we can discuss further. Konman72 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You should notice that I have had ample time to make a comment or make changes to the main article and have done neither. That is your answer. Alyeska 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the whole "Funny how its a solution only when one side openly agreed with it" comment threw me off. Glad we could reach this compromise. Konman72 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I was a tad irritated how people were dismissing my comments by using incorrect statements as to what I was doing. I was also not pleased that people declared a solution reached when no one from the opposition had yet to say anything. I neither like or dislike the solution. It just is and it works, and that is sufficent in my opinion. Alyeska 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From watching the SGA epp "First Strike" online, the Apollo is a 304. --Heruur 20:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Crusade pt1 Issues

After looking over my copy of Crusades again, I've spotted something that seems to contradict areas of this article, and I wanted to discuss it before starting an edit war :)

There are a few sentences in this article that indicate the Korolev was unfinished when it went to battle in the season nine finale, now I'd assume that came from this scene in pt1:

   LANDRY
   Colonel Chekov's had his eye on (a 304) for a while. The latest was about to roll out.

   DANIEL
   I thought the next Daedalus class ship wasn't due out of the pipeline for over a year?

   LANDRY
   It was a huge concession, but we didn't have much choice.

It seems to me that the Korolev was complete at the time of Camelot, and Daniel was talking about the next 304 after that, as in there were two under construction; the Korolev (which was more or less complete) and another 304 (possibly Apollo, since it will arrive nearly a year since that episode). Daniel was talking about Apollo being over a year away because he recognised the problems with the Russians and US having equal ability to project power in the Milky Way.

Landry's two lines seem to back up my claims, i.e, 'The latest one was about to roll out' (why would he say that if it was unfinished?) and 'It was a huge concession' (Why would he say that if it was a partially constructed ship? Surley a partially finished ship means fewer resources spent on it before handing it over to the Russians?).

I may be halucinating, but thats how it reads to me No Way Back 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that means that, I'm assuming it means only 1 ship was nearly ready.

While it does seem confusing if you overthink it, I doubt it means there were 2.

"Latest was about to Roll out" and "the next one due in a year" could be interpreded as there being 2 I doubt that is the case.

Faris b 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They say in Camelot that Korolev was rushed into service, that means it wasn't finished and shaken down at the time. I doubt that this means they had one finished and another ready to go. It just means the US had to give the next one they built (Korolev) to the Russians before they built another one of their own. If the Ori invasion hadn't occured, the Korolev probably would have been properly finished and given to the Russians on completion - 59.167.46.179 05:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Rings

Ok, probably a stupid question but does the Daedalus have rings or just the Odyssey/Korolev, the reason I ask is because why would rings be useful for a ship that's going to where they don't exist? It seems the Ancients supplemented the rings in exchange for the booth transporters so I doubt there'll be any in Pegasus, also rings used to be in Atlantis, at least in theory, back when they left Earth as Earth's Ancient outpost had them but Atlantis does not, they were probably removed after a bit.

Also, can rings and the booth transporters exchange matter streams or are they not compatible? And are the booths a security threat to Atlantis? I mean, what if the Asurans or someone else with an Ancient warship (assuming they have booths as well) managed to booth into Atlantis via one?

Anyone have any thoughts?

Faris b 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of those questions have been answered in the show. The Daedalus has Asgard transporters, so might not have rings... It's possible the booths could be used as a point of access, but I expect the shield blocks them. I've always wondered why the Gou'ld don't guard their ring rooms, or at least have alarms... --Tango 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The Daedalus most certainly has rings. Why assume one ship has them when others don't? If we did that we can assume that Oddessey doesn't carry the same number of weapon systems or fighters. Alyeska 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible but I think the real story behind the rings is that the ships weren't meant to have them until it was convenient to the story to have them in "Flesh and Blood", plus, as far as we know, the SGC can't make rings so they probably have to extract them from some old Goa'uld planet and maybe they didn't have any ready to take for the Daedalus, either way, I doubt we'll see rings in Atlantis.

Faris b 03:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

SGC Rings are visibly different from Goa'uld rings. And they have other differences as well such as lockouts to prevent foreign access of the rings. They are home built. Notice that Carter even stated the Prometheus was built using purely native Earth construction. They built their own rings. We have seen rings on the Korelov and have no reason to think they aren't on other ships until proven otherwise. It was a standard feature on the Prometheus and they have proven useful in enviroments hostile to Asgard transporters. Alyeska 04:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why are they using the Goa'uld style keypad instead of an SGC style one? The Ancient keypad is also different, having 8 keys instead of 6.

And another thing, why is Hermoid pronounced HERMIAD?

Faris b 21:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the pronounciation not just how Americans say "o"? --Tango 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What? I don't think so, I never heard of "o" being pronounced "a".

Faris b 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Faris, I want to remind you that this talk page is the place to discuss changes to the article, and not a forum to discuss the Stargate shows. CovenantD 00:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if it was just a typo, but to clarify, it's "Hermiod," not "Hermoid". And GateWorld proves this (you'll need to search for Hermiod in the list on the right side of the screen). The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 01:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Korolev or Odessey absorbing fire

Could people stop changing the blurb on this picture to the Odessey absords fire? It's not. Check the episode, when the Korolev drops out of hyperspace (from the POV of looking AT the supergate) the Korolev takes up position to the right of Odessey. Thus, in that screen cap we have displayed, it's the Korolev, NOT the Odessey in the foregroud. 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I watched the episode and took that cap, Odyssey is to the left, Korolev to the right, and as you can see.. the Korolev is to the right. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/the_timmsv2/korolevtotheleft.jpg

In your description, your changing your reference point of view, so we'll use the position this cap is taken from. As I've pointed out, Korolev is off to the camera's left and the super gate is behind us. When your cap was taken, the gate is off to the right of the screen so the camera has basically traveled 90 degrees left of where it was in the cap I have above. So in your cap, it's the Korolev in the fore, because that is the one closest to the left. No Way Back 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tangos edit seems to be a good solution. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Warheads

In the article, you wrote that the MarK VIII warheads were "tactical". But, tactical warheads are small warheads, not as powerful as the strategical warheads. We mesures their explosive energy in Kilotons.

In Stargate Atlantis, Mark VIII warheads are supposed to have a destructive power of several gigatons, maybe more, because they are Naquadah warheads. So, I think that you should maybe delete the word "tactical" in the article, for Mark VIII.

Caldwell called them tactial nukes. Deus (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Shield color debate

Ok, here is why [I think] that shield color is evidence of shield strength:

It's kind of like the way that different colors of fire equals greater heat if you know what I mean.

Red: Weakest but prevent slow moving objects from entering (Seen in "Deadman Switch" and "Window of Opportunity") Orange: Weak but do not prevent against slow moving objects (Ha'tak mothership shields) Yellow: Strong but not the strongest (Seen on the Prometheus in multiple episodes) Blue/Green: Very strong (Atlantis's shield but it is powered by a ZPM so it can go on forever) Blue: Very, very strong (Asgard ship shields and Daedalus class ship shields, demonstrated by the fact that the Prothemeus couldn't take one Ori beam hit but Daedalus class ships could) White: Almost perfect (The Ori shields)

Does this make sense now? I may have talked about this before and it may be in the archives for this page.

Faris b 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is some great analysis and evidence. Sadly though it is original research by its very definition, so it can't be in the article. Konman72 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

While it makes sense as far as energy levels and visual spectrum go, it also looks uncomfortably like original research to me. We shouldn't be trying to "figure things out" here on Wikipedia, just reporting on what other sources have said about them. Bryan 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say it again but it is flawed speculation. (No Man's Land) Matthew Fenton (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's original research in it's purest form. It's not even reliable - we have no idea how those shields are meant to work, so we can't even begin to speculate about a relationship between their colours and strengths. --Tango 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Yes, I know it's OR but I'm just explaining what that other person probably was thinking as well. And here is my analysis if the Orion's shields. Basically, even if you're using a weak shield with a very good power source, it could probably last much longer as seen with Atlantis's blue/green shield being powered by a ZPM. The Ancients probably used something a whole lot better than Naqahdah for power unlike the Goa'uld do.

Faris b 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Faris, again, this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Unless your comments are about editing the article, please take your discussions to a more appropriate venue. CovenantD 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The systems of the ships DO run at 25% without a ZPM!

How is this OR? The figures are given in the episodes. The trip takes 4 days with a ZPM and 18 without one, that's 4.2x longer therefore, even with multiple Naqahdah generators, they can only achieve 25% of the total potential power since the Asgard use Neutrino Ion generators which must have a simmilar power output to a ZPM. Why else do the shields last such a short time without a ZPM and the hyperdrive so slow? It was even stated in "Misbegotten" of Atlantis by Weir that with an Asgard ship, they could get to Atlantis 2 weeks earlier? 18 days minus 14 days = 4 days!

Does it have to SPECIFICALLY be stated in the ep "Our systems are at 25% of possible power without the ZPM!" for it to be not considered OR? If so, this is really stupid because we're omitting some pretty juicy info here.

Thanks,

Faris b 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All we can really say from this is that "the trip between Milky Way and Pegasus takes 4.2 times longer without a ZPM". You're trying to generalize that to other systems and situations, that's where the original research comes in. If I've got a car that gets twice the mileage when running on ethanol rather than gasoline, does that mean that the headlights will be twice as bright too? It doesn't necessarily follow. Bryan 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We know the hyperdrive is about 25% as fast, and we know the "shield strength [is] severely diminished" (I looked up that quote). We don't have a quantitative assessment of the shield strength, and we don't have any assessment of any other systems. --Tango 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I guess systems like life support and transporters don't use much power but the shields and hyperdrive function far less efficiently.

Here is a screenshot from "The Siege, pt. 3" http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s2/201/linz/html/stargate12925.html

Make of it what you like but to me, it looks like the shield strength is at 75% without the ZPM but it's also possible that the screens were updated to include the non-ZPM'ed shield strength.

Faris b 17:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to know what a full bar means. It could mean maximum possible strength for those shields, or if could mean maximum strength possible with the current power source. It may be 75% because they've lost the ZPM, or it could be 75% because they've taken a few hits. All we can know is from what Kovak said about the shields being "severely diminished" - we have no way to know what "severely" means. --Tango 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What it actually means is that the Daedalus systems run 4 times more efficiently when the ZPM is tied in, not that the loss of a ZPM cuts their already operating rate. Daedalus was NOT designed to run with a ZPM, they only installed it later on so the 400% increase in efficiency was just a bonus, not a design implementation. Saying they run at 25% is saying that the ship was built to use a ZPM for operating at full capacity which is not true. - 121.44.251.28 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Asgard Hyperdrive

How is than with an asgard hiperdrive powered by a ZPM the Daedalus arrived to Atlantis in 4 days but the asgard ships can go from the ida galaxy to earth in minutes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDeus01 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Maybe Pegasus is exceedingly far in the Stargate Universe? Who knows.. ;-) (Retcon?) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's probably because the hyperdrive of the Daedalus is Asgard-designed, not specifically an exact copy of Asgard hyperdrives. There could be size related issues to why the Daedalus-class hyperdrive isn't the same (as the O'Neill is a fair degree larger than Earth ships). I doubt it's a galactic distance issue, cause the Ida galaxy is said to be someodd 4 million light years away, when the Pegasus is only about 3 million.

Please keep in mind this Talk page is for discussion of the article, not the ship itself. Check out Gateworld Forums if you'd like to continue this discussion. Jordan.Kreiger 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does that 4 million figure come from? Most speculation I've read has Ida being very close to the Milky Way (possibly one of the Magellanic clouds). --Tango 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The exact episode reference escapes me. But it is the episode where they destroy the sun, in an attempt to destroy one of the Goa'uld fleets. The SGC and their Ha'tak, along with the fleet flagship, end up in another galaxy, that Jacob tells is 4 million light years from the Milky Way. They later fight the Replicators in that galaxy. Circumstantial evidence for sure, but I think that suggests they are in the Ida Galaxy.Jordan.Kreiger 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, I think the Ida galaxy is about a few hundred thousand LY away. Remember, using an Asgard ship in "Misbegotten" of Atlantis, Weir mentions that it would shave 2 weeks off of travel time (18-14=4) 4 being 4 days! Meaning that even with an Asgard vessel it still takes 4 days, this evidence supports the fact that the Ida is a few hundred thousand LY from the Milky Way, not 4 mil. Also, who's to say the replicators didn't exist in other galaxies as well?

Faris b 06:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about Daedalus class ships. If your comment is NOT about editing the article, find a forum for your discussion. CovenantD 12:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does someone always get really mad when this happens? Look, I'm just trying to clear this up so it will end, not drag it on. Call this page what you want, but sooner or later, people WILL use it as a forum.

Faris b 16:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is we are supposed to be a community.. we all watch this page.. it actually does more good then harm to have light conversations.. I see no actual problem with having discussions here as long as they don't turn into flame wars.. or detract from the article subject.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is outside the bounds of what Wikipedia talk pages are for; see WP:TPG. I would be within the guidelines to just remove such conversations rather than just try to keep people on track. Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal. When fictional events are being discussed as real world situations with no reference to the article in question, that crosses into fan discussion and not editing the encyclopedia. CovenantD 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok people, i kwon than this is not a forum buy so what, what we talk here could be included in the article, after all some of the information on they is from our own conclusions, for example who say than the drones can past through any shield? yes we listen Her'ak saying Our shields are of no use!, but so what, ori's main weapon and tollan's ion cannons can past too. Have anybody considered than the drones are just advance enough for passing through the weakest shield in the series. JDeus01 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's an idea we've come up with from scratch here on talk it's not allowed in the article per our policy of Wikipedia:No original research. And I also have to echo CovenantD's comment that talk pages are not for general forum discussion, either. This has been coming up increasingly often on some of the pages I frequent, I think from now on I'm going to start actively deleting any new discussion threads that are founded solely in general speculation about the show. Please bear in mind that this place is a part of Wikipedia, not an independant Stargate wiki, so Wikipedia's policies and customs come first. Bryan 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad for ask that, it wont happen again. JDeus01 03:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Daedalus uses Earth power systems to run it when it's not using a ZPM (most likely nuclear based), so the drive can only take the power that the reactors can give it. The reason asgard ships go so fast is because their own power systems provide massive amounts of energy compared to a nuclear reactor (See SG-1: Small Victories). When the Daedalus made it to the Pegasus galaxy in 4 days doesn't mean the drives are restricted, it just means thats how fast the drive could draw energy from the ZPM without overloading the ship's power conduits. You cant run 10,000 volts through a standard copper wire so it stands to reason that the daedalus on technical design restraints keep the asgard drive from ever running at full capacity. - 121.44.251.28 01:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Beaming Technology

All the Daedalus-class vessels use Asgard beaming technology, and the Daedalus herself can use it offensively because of Hermiod. The Korolev attempted to transfer nuclear warheads using their Ring Transports, but not via Asgard beams. The Odyssey has used Asgard beams to destroy a Wraith hive ship (in Pegasus Project), with no mention of an Asgard engineer. I think this means the Asgard have modified the ships (Odyssey at least, with possibility of the Daedalus) to use the beaming technology offensive without the safeguards. Would it be possible to add this to the article? I.e. is it something that isn't original research? Jordan.Kreiger 16:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Once the safeguards had been deactivated once, they can probably just repeat whatever Hermiod did - it's their ship, so I doubt Hermiod can keep much secret from them. However, that is OR. We don't even know for sure that the Odyssey doesn't have an Asgard onboard. --Tango 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Odyssey doesn't have one, they have shown the engineering room where Hermoid would be on the Daedalus and it was always empty except in "Flesh and Blood".

Faris b 01:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But the engineering room is not shown in Pegasus Project, or at least I don't recall they did. And in any case, there is never any specific dialog that there are only humans aboard at that time. So what can we do with this information? Jordan.Kreiger 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can be done with this information. It is OR to assume that the Odyssey does not have an Asgard engineer; because it has not been explicitly stated that it does or does not. His station could be located elsewhere, or possibly just not aboard the ship that that moment, or any other reason. You cannot pick and choose when OR will be applied...if it isn't stated, it probably should not be used without a *very* good reason. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Asgard was attending to a call of nature. Never dismiss the simple solutions. --Tango 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly but I don't see any orrifices on them other than the ears, nose and mouth. We do know they eat though.

Faris b 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is why the Asgard complain so much you know.. :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section Removal

After a dispute with user MatthewFenton, it has become necessary to create a discussion here to deal with the situation. Read WP:AVTRIV if you wish to contribute.

Here is what Wiki says about trivia, the only action described to be undertaken in instances of trivia section on pages:

Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with.

Once a trivia section is empty, it should be removed, but where such a section is re-added with new content, the integration process should begin again.

The Trivia section is neither empty and contains raw facts to work with, unless it violates Wiki policy:

Keep in mind, however, that "Trivia" content is not exempt from our rules and style guidelines. It is not a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, hearsay, invented "facts", or libel — continue to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite your sources, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. If you have doubts about whether your fact is suitable for inclusion, place it on the talk page instead where other interested contributors can help consider its inclusion and locate suitable references.

which it does not, it should not be deleted. - 59.167.10.58 15:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay if you wish you may integrate (which I highly doubt you could) integrate it into the article bear in mind it must be cited and brought up to encyclopaedic language. If not or no other editor takes on this possibly impossible challenge I will remove the section per WP:AVTRIV in twenty-four hours. Bear in mind trivia sections are not a dumping ground and are only kept if it's possible to "encyclopaedically" integrate the information. Tagged as such to alert other editors it requires "integration" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove anything "per WP:AVTRIV", the policy doesn't say anything about removing information from trivia sections, it talks about moving the information to the main article (and removing the section once it is empty). You can remove the information under WP:NOT, WP:OR, etc. if it fits those policies, but WP:AVTRIV is not relevant to any such removal. --Tango 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to be anal or anything but yes I may. WP:AVTRIV#Other_policies_apply sub-cites NOR, NOT etc. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already listed in this discussion ALL relevent courses of action that AVTRIV suggests in case of a trivia section, if i have missed the section that says "delete th trivia section on each page" please tell me and providie a quotation. - 59.167.10.58 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, something needs to be done with the trivia section about the ship coloring, it's interesting and doesn't deserve to be left out, it seems people didn't like it being in the "Ships of the line" section so what do you all want to do?

Faris b 03:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it shouldn't be in the "Ships of the Line" section; its a list-item like the rest of it, and plays a part in uniquely identifying a specific ship. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I put it in Ships of the Line, Xornok didn't like it. We're supposed to try to integrate Trivia into the main article, but we dont _HAVE_ to if it doesn't fit, and we don't _HAVE_ to delete it like MatthewFenton believes. Wiki just wants to try and discourage large trivia sections. - 59.167.10.58 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The colours should either be in the Ships of the Line section, or deleted as OR. I'm not sure which is best, but I think those are the only two options. --Tango 12:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've integrated with SotL, however imo it should be removed. Could somebody please add the citations for me? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

the lights thing seems too detailed for wikipedia, if this was a wiki for stargate, i wouldnt mind it, but for wikipedia, it doesnt add anything to the article; if it was the only way to tell the ships apart, then perhaps it could be in the article, but it isnt... -Xornok 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The last bit of trivia has been removed. It was pure speculation. If everybody is in agreement we can excise the "colour" bit from SotL as well. It's an insignificant component to the ship. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it under the Ships of the line section. I'm going to add the citations next.

Thanks, Faris b 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i think the light citations should link to a picture showing that the lights are different, not to the episodes pages since even the episode page has not mention of the lights... -Xornok 19:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i will attempt to provide images for the lighting of each ship, originally i was the one who created the portion in the trivia section, as stated, i thought it would be useful as it does provide each ship with a unique identity. Dar-zero 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Conventional missiles

Ellis asked could he get a nuke past the shields, that's no indication he fired conventional missiles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What about when he fired 3 missiles at the shielded satellite? That's too small to be a nuke.Faris b 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quoting the dialogue from then, the Apollo fired 3 missiles (that seem relative in size to those fired in Odyssey), McKay states how the shield takes the power from his beam then Ellis states "Could I get a nuke past it?" - which could easily be construed to mean multiple things and in my opinion is not enough basis to mean it fired conventional ordnance. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think there is an instance where the Daedalus fired regular missiles. We know the Prometheus had regular missiles when they destroyed the Al'kesh in "Full Alert", I think it would be stupid to not carry any regular missiles.

Also, in "Camelot" when the Odyssey/Korolev fired at the Ori ships, the impact from the missiles seemed to be too small to be a nuke. I think they carry regular missiles as well.Faris b 19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. I agree it would be stupid not to carry regular missiles, and I can pretty much say from my opinion it does. We do have to remember however we are writing for Wikipedia and so we can't put 1 and 1 together here. It's always best not tread the fine line and just state what we can explicitly cite as verifiable information. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Camelot" scene? That didn't look like nukes to me. Faris b 19:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True the problem is however, while they may not look like nukes we don't actually truly know, the only solution I can see is when discussing any scenes which could be potentially wrong we just call them "missiles". thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one instance where compelling visual evidence can override the OR rule. I've not seen the episode, so I'll trust others' judgement, but just because it wasn't specifically spoken in dialogue doesn't mean it cannot be mentioned. If it looks conventional, acts conventions, and explodes, err, conventionally, then it is safe to state that, based on the visual evidence, that it is conventional. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. To the best of my knowledge modern day weapons have variable yields. The fact also remains they are different things and so the effect could be variable. Also you have to remember it's fiction and well.. err.. a space battle, there are hundreds of things to factor before saying xyz must be x based on y evidence :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fenton, you have an uncanny habit of trying to argue that 1 + 1 != 2. They were standard weapons, if Ellis had used nukes on the thing in the first place, why would he ask if he could use nukes against it later on? Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy does not mean that we need a mathematical proof internationally ratified and studied for 10 years before we can write that it does equal 2 - Count23 06:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't attack me, it's very rude ^_^ -- the answer is very simple and is why Ellis' comment can easily be construed to mean a multitude of things, for example, firstly: "My conventional war heads failed, could I get a nuke through it?", secondly: "My nuclear missiles failed, would I be able to get a nuke passed their shields?" - Just two examples, equally proving my point imo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack, it was an example of how you seem to be overly cautious as to what material goes on a page and what doesn't. I was using the 1+1=2 example because it's as simple as that, and i've noticed a lot of other situations where similar events have occured on this page, like the Horizon platform deployed to asuras. We know the replicators have a homeworld called asuras, the Apollo commander identified that they were flying over the replicator homeworld. 1 + 1 must = 2, the world they hit was Asuras.

Likewise, with this situation, We've seen nukes and conventional missles deployed from Daedalus in the past, nuclear blasts, even against shields delivered a _MASSIVE_ explosion, Seige Part 3, No Man's Land, etc... We can see from the VFX alone that they were not nuclear blasts or they would have been considerably more impressive, and logically, they would not want to irradiate their own ship by firing nuclear missles at point blank range, in this case, they were conventional missles, even if it was not explicitly stated, and WP:OR does allow for this. - Count23 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You are interpreting this from what you have seen. That is OR unless indication is given, and no I'm not overly cautious I just stay within our citation/verifiability guidelines, we state in articles what is definite not what is speculated by fans. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bomb Bay

What evidence do we have that every 304 has a bomb bay?Faris b 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we have any, all we know is the Apollo has one. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Then shouldn't there be a note that says "This was only shown on the "Apollo"? Faris b 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

High resolution screenshots of the Daedalus model on the site alecm.com (The modeller of the Daedalus class), shows no bomb bay, merely a smattering of random greebles and nurnies. However, the Apollo may have been a modified version for the bomb bay in the story plot. We know Apollo has one, we don't know that hte other ships do. -Count23 06:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where at on www.alecm.com? I'm terrible with searching can someone point me to a direct link? Thanks, Faris b 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They are located under "Gallery", at http://www.alecm.com/gallery.htm. There are many beautiful (and official) renders on the page. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Odyssey and Apollo?

Are the ships referred on screen as USS Shipname? I recall on SG1 when the Prometheus was identified as the United States Air Force Ship Promethus, which would lend itself to an unweildly USAFS prefix rather than USS (used by vessels of the United States Navy). --Raguleader 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Apollo is USS, Eliss' suit says so, not sure about Odyssey tbh. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Odysseys mission patch also says USS. Unfortunately, Daedaluss patch does not include USS, which leads to a continuity issue, as they are all crewed primarily by USAF personnel. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The old portrait shot of Colonel Emmerson showed the mission patch quite clearly, throughout "Off The Grid" you can see the mission patch in the background of several shots too clearly identified as "USS". In the opening minutes of "first strike", Abe Ellis mission patch says "USS Apollo" in very, very large letters. Unusual size for mission patches as well - Count23 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We can call them USS, it may be unrealistic, but it is TV. The Daedalus patches are different from the rest, and we can not tell what the Korolev patches said, so we assume that it is USS. PS. Why were the Daedalus patches different. Generally, air force uniforms all pretty much the same as they appeared on the Odyssey but the Daedalus crew, especially Col. Caldwell have different ones. Also, has anyone noticed that on Atlantis, the team memebers never wear F-302 flight suits as they do on SG-1? What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockintheface (talk • contribs)

No, we cannot call them USS unless it is specifically presented on-screen. To make this assumption is called Original Research, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. As for the Daedalus' patch, we can call it crew preference or anything else...it really isn't relevant. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, we cannot assume USS for the Korolev because USS is an American prefix. If anything is to be assumed for Korolev, it should be whatever prefix Russian carriers and destroyers use. -- [[User:Annorax|Annorax]

Ships of the Line infobox

I've changed it back to a version that shows all of the commanders of the various ships. My reasoning is as follows:

From the Wikipedia Guide to writing better articles;
Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" when read. They exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense.

From Manual of Style (writing about fiction);
The [in-universe perspective] treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe. Topics covered may include:

• the birth and death dates of fictional characters;
• a plot synopsis framed as biography;
• performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices;
• an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations; and
• fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

This is often referred to as an in-universe perspective. Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic.

I contend that the two of these taken together necessitate that the infobox list the four commanders that have been shown, regardless of their current status within the series. The text of the article can expand on the timeline of the plot, but for something as prominent as the infobox, it needs to conform to out-of-universe perspective. CovenantD 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

a) It's a wikitable, not an infobox. b) Your points rationalise as to why the wikitable is "current eventish" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction; I'll be sure to add that distinction to my Wikinerd vocabulary. You know what I'm referring to. I'm not sure of the point of your second sentence. CovenantD 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are going, but this applies more to alternate histories, past/future settings, etc, and the writings styles of those articles in general. However, time continuity within the given universe can be maintained (you cannot use present tense for everything), just make sure the article itself isn't trying to present itself as actual history. "He is killed" sounds more than a little odd when referring to an event that happened in-universe 'two years' ago. You also have to consider that something such as the term "deceased" is not necessarily referring to an in-universe perspective; rather, it is a statement of fact. To me, omitting Emerson from the list is simply a furtherance of that fact. It is a tricky situation, certainly. I submit that having on the current commander does not break any guidelines and actually helps with the clarification of the article; but, if it is decided to keep Emerson in there, a <small>(Deceased)</small> needs to be added to clarify which commander is presently in command, and in either case, the currently included statement of when Davidson assumed command is unnecessary. We only need to know that he is the current commander; the article can handle the details. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a tricky situation, but one way I have of maintaining perspective is to think about the viewer who is seeing Stargate for the very first time. To that observer, Emerson IS the commander. For that matter, every time somebody watches "Off the Grid" on DVD, Emerson is in command. That's what the line about "coming alive" is meant to convey. Counter-intuitive, I know. But these events don't happen in the real world, so there never is a past or a future; it's always now. (The exception being flashback and flashforward scenes (and time-travel), where the relative time is part of the storyline.) One way to mitigate this is to place the year an episode originally aired as part of the reference. There's even a field for it in the {{Template:Cite episode}}, it's just not being used. That keeps it in out-of-universe perspective yet shows the linear progression of time within the franchise. CovenantD 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally my qualm was the formatting of the wikitable, thus I've written it in prose now (copy-edit away!), Wikipedia prefers text over tables so I think it's a good idea, it also (imo) solves the above problem. Matthew 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of P3Y-229 or whatever

I think that this section should be removed from tghe article - all that relates to the Daedalus class is covered in the Odyssey/Korolev sections anyway. mattbuck 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been already, have you even bothered to read the paragraphs left or not? They specifically outline the involvement of the BC-304 series and that's it, with a link to the full article - Count23 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Empty Sections

Someone did an edit adding in some categories for "Bomb Bay" and "Cloaking Device", IIRC, but did not put any content in the sections. I went ahead and removed them, figuring that whoever put them in the first time round can just put them back once they have the content they planned to plug in.--Raguleader 06:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The anon. really needs to look closer at the TOC, we already have a section for bomb-bay :-\ Matthew 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Korolev

In the Russian language sequences of "Camelot", the ship's name is spoken correctly as Karalyov, commemorating Russian rocket scientist Sergey Korolyov. In the English language sequences, it is pronounced as it is written in English, which is incorrect. This could be ascribed to the American characters not knowing the correct pronunciation, except that Daniel Jackson, who speaks excellent Russian, also makes this mistake; however, this could have been intentional so as to avoid confusion.

I propose we remove the above block of text, it's all original research, and appears to be speculation, also how do we know that the Korolev is "commemorating Russian rocket scientist Sergey Korolyov"? Any opinions, or shall I go ahead and remove it? Matthew 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it there. I didn't even notice until I read that so I say keep it for those who would like to know.

Vala M 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They need to go. It is treating a fictional universe as real, and inserting POV by saying one is correct and the other is not. It also contains a sentence of pure speculation as to reasons. CovenantD 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please...the stargate series is largely based on real world events...and very closey mirrors modern day history...furthermore, since we know that the korolev is being pronounced DIFFERENTLY...why can't it be listed down?219.74.76.149 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)ray245

Because it's almost certainly an unintentional production error ...no reason to include it in the in-universe sections unless it's explicitly stated to be otherwise. English-language shows often get pronunciations wrong. Leushenko 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Odyssey section "Other operations"

Should the events of "Dominion" really be stuck in there as well? I think it deserves it own little subsection.

Vala M 23:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't do anything "fancy" and the episode wasnt centred around the Odyssey like previous episodes, it was a place like any other, but i say split it up into another section if you can write more then 2 paragraphs on the odyssey's dominion activities - Count23 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. I'm betting that the "Unending" mission will have it's own section...

Vala M 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

nat. - Count23 02:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clear it up

Should we clear out all the old information about the Daedalus class ships old weapons, given that they will soon likely all have Asgard Gear. It was said in Unending by Thor that Odysseys power core will tie into all of the systems. This means the ZPM doesn't power the ship, and wasn't during the entire battle with Ori Ships. It should be removed from the characteristics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockintheface (talk • contribs)

No, because it is an assumption that the other vessels in the class will receive updated technology. We have no way of knowing, currently, whether they will even be able to reverse engineer or duplicate the tech. Making that assumption violates Wikipedia policy of no original research. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Only way we will know for sure is in Stargate Atlantis Season 4 or the new movies, and just because they're getting new weapons, doesn't mean we delete all the info on their original ones. We would just move it to a "history" section. - Count23 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be moved to a history section at all. --Matthew

Why wouldn't it? As Count23 says, we don't delete information about earlier episodes just because there's changes in later episodes. Bryan Derksen 06:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The information would be kept in the existing section with new information expanded in, just because new episodes air doesn't mean old information gets chucked away to the recycle bin. Matthew

Ah, I misunderstood you to be taking the opposite position. Bryan Derksen 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault, my message was a bit too brief. Matthew

OK, but what about the ZPM, it was said that it was no longer powering the ship, the Asgard power core was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockintheface (talk • contribs)

As I recall, that's not true. The ZPM remained as the main power source, the Asgard core (and components?) simply had its own power. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but you are wrong, when the Asgard installed the technology, Thor's exact words were: "The Asgard Computer Core will not infringe on your ship's ZPM. But, when the upgrades are complete, it will be tied in with every system on this ship." Besides, even though it is TV, and it would be cheap if they did this, if the ZPM were connected, the Ori ships would not have even scratched the Odyssey, while the writers would not have it so the Odyssey was untouchable, they can't deny the facts of the show, a ZPM would have been strong enough.T C 9:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Carter said the ZPM and the power core were both near depletion when she was explaining they didn't have enough power. OBviously the ZPM is supporting the time dialation field along with the asgard tech - Count23 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is possible that the ZPM was connected in order to power the Time Dilation field AFTER the core was depleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockintheface (talk • contribs)

RockInTheFace, PLEASE SIGN your comments!

Now, Carter specifically stated that the ZPM and the power core were nearing depletion, but she never said that either was depleted. So i'm assuming that the power drain was either shared over both power sources, or something else was eating up their energy while it was running - Count23 00:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Daedalus class missiles

I guess some people weren't paying attention in First Strike (SGA3x20). The Apollo moves into position to fire weapons on the Asuran weapon platform. It fires 2-3 missiles and these impact the platform (and I can't help but note that there was not a nuclear flash like we have seen when they have previously used nukes in space) with no effect. McKay states as much. The Captain of the Apollo asks if Nukes would be more effective and McKay nixes this idea. Furthermore, what do you think is launching the nukes? Missiles. Missiles that can obviously be equiped with multiple warhead types (two confirmed nuke types). Its quite clear that the Daedalus class can pack conventional missiles. Alyeska 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nukes

Appears Alyeska is edit warring to insert "common sense" that Daedalus has conventional, this is untrue without a citation, could easily just be there was little explosion to the vacuum of space, I'd like for this page not to end up protected, so please discuss here :-). Matthew 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear explosions create a nuclear flash. This is clearly shown when Daedalus drops nukes in SGA2x01, its shown in SGA3x01 when a nuke hits a Mothership, its shown again in the SG1 season 10 episode when the Oddessey beams nukes into space. Nuclear weapons have a very specific effect. See the above post for further information on the specific example in First Strike. Alyeska 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your speculating based on past events, inappropriate, for all we know there was FX problem, or an in-universe problem that meant the effect was different, or vacuum, you've violated 3RR now, I'm obligated to report you. Matthew 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You comment on my secondary evidence but ignore my primary evidence. What about the fact that after the missiles were fired they then ask of nuke effectiveness? Alyeska 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated they could just be asking if they *can* get a nuke through, conventional missiles aren't even mentioned. Matthew 08:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. They fire nukes, then ask "Hey, will nukes work since the nukes we fired don't work!". And technically speaking, my entry on the page itself makes no mention of nuclear or non-nuclear. VLS is a weapons delivery system, a very specific weapons delivery system. Saying that Daedalus has nukes doesn't specify delivery system, VLS on the other hand gives a descriptive mention of how the Daedalus can deliver missiles (nuclear, non-nuclear, or whatever). Alyeska 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at every other transclusion of the infobox, it's for listing the weapons, not the delivery systems (isn't that "common sense", as you say?). Barring the fact you've provided no evidence to backup your conventional missile claim, I can only assume you're adding your speculation, as usual. Your "descriptive" methods belong in the "Tactical systems" section, which of course, already states that information, *chuckles*. Matthew 08:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not speculation and you know it. We see what happens and the facts are clear. Weapons that do not appear to be nuclear in nature are fired. After they prove ineffective they discuss the option of nukes and then reject it. This clearly indicates that the previous weapons fired are not nuclear weapons. The facts support the conclusion. You cannot actually provide any contrary evidence. You just say "What if" and make suggestions that contradict the known facts. We have a conclusion that comes from the facts without any contradicting evidence. More to the point, we know the missiles themselves can carry multiple warhead types. Alyeska 08:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pure and baseless speculation, entirely, you know it, I know it. I know that the missiles may of looked conventional due to vacuum of space, irrefutably you are wrong, unless you can provide some more logical evidence them, "I think they're conventional cuz they fired from the side of the ship and only made a small boom boom." Matthew 08:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting) In this situation I do agree with Alyeska. Visual evidence can certainly be used as reference when it is a clear example of something happening. Nuclear explosions have been seen before, and these explosions were definitively not nuclear. There is a simple solution here, and that is to just state that Daedalus vessels are capable of carrying "Conventional and nuclear ordnance." -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Visual evidence could be, when it's accurate, does not refute the fact it could easily be the vacuum of space, nor the fact that Stargate does not have perfect FX, as demonstrated by odd ship-sizes. We do not know if they're nuclear or not, it wasn't stated, and the visual evidence is not enough, way too ambiguous. We already know it carries conventional missiles for the F-302s, anyway. Matthew 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there is a big difference between firing nukes and using the Asgard beam to get them inside the shield, which is what they were suggesting after the initial attack failed. Secondly, it's perfectly feasible that the shields absorbed the energy in such a way as to absorb the flash - I certainly don't know how energy shields work, do you? There is no conclusive evidence that the weapons fired were non-nuclear. --Tango 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not baseless speculation and you should know that. And way to go ignoring the dialog again. The Apollo fires missiles, the missiles do nothing. The CO of the Apollo then asks if Nukes would be more effective, McKay says don't bother. The Dialog implies that Nukes weren't used and the alternative is conventional weapons. And as to shields absorbing the nuke effect. Nuclear weapons are omni-directional. IE, they explode in a spherical pattern. The shield would only absorb 50% of the explosion and a nuclear flash would still be visible. As it is, we see the missiles explode against the shield with a spherical explosion where the shield did not attenuate the explosion at all. Critical thinking skills are rather lacking here. Alyeska 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's very baseless when you do not attribute a reliable source, implications require citations. "Critical thinking skills are rather lacking here" - WP:CIVIL, as Tango states "It's perfectly feasible that the shields absorbed the energy in such a way as to absorb the flash - I certainly don't know how energy shields work, do you?". High altitude nuclear explosion and Outer space#The "Vacuum of Space". Matthew 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I already gave you a source for the dialog. SGA3x20. I was being civil. Civil does not mean you like someone nor does it mean you lie. I could have called you an idiot or used other colorful language. Instead I made a technical description of the situation. You could reply back that I am being arrogant. Thats civil and truthful. So don't try and confuse the situation with rules that don't apply to the situation. As for explosions in space. A nuclear weapon is still going to have a nuclear flash. That will happen regardless of it being in space or in the atmosphere. As for the shield itself. You are assuming facts not in evidence. You are making assumptions as to how the shield works without any facts to support the claim. Where is your proof that all missiles are nuclear missiles? Got a piece of dialog to back it up? We see spherical explosions against the shield. This tells us that the shield did not absorb anything of note. We know that nuclear explosions are spherical in nature. We know the shield did not absorb anything of note. And finally, you continue to ignore the dialog which clearly indicates that conventional missiles were fired. Alyeska 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Jebus, this is slightly funny.. do you have any evidence to backup your claim conventional missiles are fired? No. Matthew 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you want a video clip of the section? My recounting the section and giving an episode number doesn't count? Tell me, how many other people have met this burden. I see a lot of information where all the people did was post what they saw. You haven't even tried to prove that the Daedalus fires only nukes. You just say its so without a shred of evidence. Alyeska 22:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Daedalus has only unambiguously been seen to fire nukes (The Siege, Part 3 or NML), they've never been unambiguously referred to as firing ordinary ordnance. Alyeska, we need something more substantial then opinions. Matthew 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Every time we have seen the Daedalus fire nukes, they have specified that they fired nukes. Your assuming that all missiles are nukes even though you only have proof they only said they had nukes twice. Whats more, every time they mention Nuke, they have nuclear flashes (SGA2x01, SGA 3x01, SGA 3x20, and SG1 Beachhead). Thats right, the only time we see a nuclear flash is when dialog mentions nukes. Every other time we see missiles fired there is no mention of nukes and no nuclear flashes. Alyeska 23:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already told you, you are misquoting the episode. McKay is asked is *beaming* nukes behind the shield would work, not firing nukes. It makes perfect sense to fire nukes first and if that doesn't work to try beaming them. And no-one is saying they only fire nukes, we are saying that we have no way to know. Wikipedia articles do not contain speculation. --Tango 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

McKay talked about multiple options. One of them was about firing nukes, not just beaming. And its really easy to have conventional weapons. Remove nuke warhead, you have a kinetic weapon. Attach conventional warhead, you have conventional weapon. Infact, from the Prometheus we know that they used missiles against light targets that clearly don't require nukes. The missiles between Prometheus and Daedalus would be functionally similar. Alyeska 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find a citation, it all sounds like Original Research. CovenantD 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So reporting what is seen on the TV screen is original research. Riiiiiiiiiiight.Alyeska 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of it is, yes. CovenantD 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation is, that means any interpretation is. All I did was form a conclusion based on the facts presented. Other people are making conclusions based on facts not in evidence. Alyeska 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, the million pound question: What evidence supports your "conclusions"? Matthew 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already cited it multiple times. Dialog and onscreen evidence from SGA 3x20. I've yet to see you provide proof that they only fire nukes. You make a conclusion that they only fire nukes based on only two incidents. Your not making an argument that makes any logical sense. I asked you what constitutes proper proof and you completely ignored it. Your being intellectually dishonest here. Alyeska 00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Aly, your going to need better "proof" then "the boom boom was small", seriously, I'll reiterate, do you have any substantial argument that it is a conventional? Matthew 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean beside the fact that it did not look like a nuclear explosion by any stretch of the definition? And once again you ignore the dialog. Furthermore you have twice ignored my request for what makes better evidence. I am now asking you for the third time what constitutes "better" proof. Your refusal to answer this question is telling of your position. Alyeska 16:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Consequently appearances can be deceiving, as stated above: the explosion is in space, against shields we've never before fired upon. We've seen nuclear shock-waves from a Hive-Ship, additionally a Hive-Ship has an artificial environment, following this further the outside of the shields where the missiles hit did - not - have any apparent artificial environment. Perusing this matter further I am of the belief that your "conclusions" violate Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, as the line below the edit box candidly states: "Content must be attributable to a reliable source", your argument that it does not "look" like a nuclear explosion is thus flawed without any sources, e.g. an episode, following this further a secondary source (such as an interview) with a writer/cast member, etc, of the episode would also be more then ample sourcing. You've failed to provide any of this. Now, in conclusion I've not ignored the dialogue at all, I've merely not convulsed it, point in fact that it can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Matthew 16:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on? Aren't you speculating that ALL missile onboard daedalus are NUKES matthew? ALL of them? Where's YOUR 'evidence' on that? And you know it...in science fiction series...visual evidience is counted more important than diaglou, reason being character can say wrongly about stuff at times. The same with person like you matthew...who do NOT know the differences between what a convential explosion and nuclear explosion looks like...219.74.76.149 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Ray245

Length

Not sure if this would be of any use, but I recently got an email from Bruce Woloshyn (lead visual effects supervisor for Rainmaker) stating "...a Daedalus class spacecraft is slightly more than 700 metres in length..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.130.18.93 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it's unverifiable, it would need a citation from a verifiable primary/secondary source. Matthew 10:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it's unverifiable? It came from the Digital Effects Supervisor & Lead Digital Compositing Artist of the company that makes a large amount of the cg for stargate. 69.130.18.93 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What this means is that we only have your word that this is actually a statement from Mr Woloshyn. No offense is intended, as verifiability simply means we need to be able to cite a source...either a physical item (book, magazine, etc), visual media (movie, tv episode) or some kind of authoritative website (official webpage, news site, etc...nothing fan-related). Read the page behind that link, it'll tell you more about that particular policy. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you or anyone can verify it by emailing Bruce at Rainmaker.com. He says he's not aloud to give out exact measurements, but he should say it is over 700 meters if you ask something like "is the Daedalus around 700 meters long?" http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y220/Howard69/bemail.jpg If that's not acceptable I'll remove this from the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.18.93 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 March 2007

Actually, thanks for that. I don't know if that is acceptable, but hopefully someone else will come along and be able to make a determination. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately your communication isn't a valid source, we'd either need a primary source (such as an episode), or a verifiable secondary source (such as an interview, e.g. for example a GateWorld interview with RainMaker or a magazine interview, etc). This likely falls under WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. Matthew 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, that length wouldn't fit with what has been shown in the episodes; the supergate was stated to be 300-400m across, which is approximately the width of an ori mothership, and the daedalus is certainly no longer than that (just going by screenshot comparisons). - Ancient Alteran 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Going by the fact that the Supergate only is one model and the on-screen sizes of jumpers, gliders and other small craft compared to Earth carriers, the 700 metres would never work out. Counting 300 metres for an Ori battleship (across) that would make it the same size as a Sovereign Class starship. In many shots, the Daedalus class is clearly dwarfed by those ships. The size of the Ori cruisers can be approximated by their size on the ground in season 10 shots, as well as compared to the supergate diameter. That would make the BC-304 class no larger than 120 (beam length).

The Ori making supergates in multiple sizes wouldn't be useful anyway. If the one in Beachhead were to be a working unit, wouldn't it be terribly useless if their ships wouldn't fit through? Stoney3K 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An Ori mothership is not 400 meters wide. The size of the supergate in Camelot was way larger than the one in Beachhead. Ha'taks are 750 meters long, and based on what we saw in Flesh and Blood we can see that an Ori ship is MUCH larger than what you say. 69.130.18.93 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know the second supergate was larger? And how do you know a Ha'tak is 750 meters long? It's length has never been stated in the show that I know of. -Ancient Alteran 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, guys, there is no way these ships are over 300m long, come along 700m, I'd only say, who ever said they spoke to SG CGI artist, I'd only say, SG artist are rubbish. They did good job of making almost real spaceships, but clearly they are space impaired. Just to give you an indication of blunder here, CVN Nimitz is 332m long, and 75m wide, for Daedalus class are about the same size as Nimitz class.

700m long ships, well you all watch BSG, well Galactica is about 600-650m long, and this should give you some idea of the sizes we are talking about here.

BTW Daedalus class are all same class fo ships, they are multi role warships able to perform many tasks, why ppl make so much of this is just beyond me, I am a fan of SG1 and SGA, but hate when ppl try to ruin things with nonsense.

PPl stop that nonsense, get real and chill out, it is only a show ffs. 83.112.155.193 21:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hangar bays

"The Daedalus is capable of carrying up to 16 F-302s, but so far its only been seen carrying eight so that the other hangar can be used for various needs."

I'm trying to recall an episode in which it's stated it can carry 16... but can't. Can anyone shed some light on this or is it speculation? Matthew 11:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I cannot recall that either. I believe "16" was interpolation based on the eight in one hangar, but I could be forgetting of a specific reference. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In "The Intruder" Shepard and Mckay only go into one hanger bay to take the computer out of the F-302, they didn't go to the other. I think thats where that comes from.

Ship numbering system?

It seems the way we thought that the ships were numbered is incorrect. (Daedalus 02, Odyssey 03, etc)

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s10/1020/html/sg1s10e20%5F0293.html

It seems the Odyssey is also Odyssey 02.

Vala M 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They could just be counting it as the second Daedalus class ship (Not counting Prometheus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.7.117 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

This article needs reliable sources — the 'references' section is entirely links to other en.wikipedia.org articles. The opening paragraph even states that the (real) Russian Air Force had one of these puppies until it was lost. <joke>Maybe there needs to be an article on the Russian Air Force (Stargate SG-1).</joke> --Jack Merridew 09:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, considering it is a fictional spacecraft on a science fiction television show, it seems one must expect the references to be the shows themselves. The article was only created because the vessel was a highly visible and very often used device within the show. Use of the Russian Air Force link should be okay, considering that it clearly fictional, and the opening paragraph (or sentence) can be reworded to reinforce this point. Something I can do right now. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear that you've cleared up the implication that the Russians had one of these. And the article does not have reliable sources, so the tag should be restored (or reliable sources added). I'll pop back in a day or two and see where things stand. See: WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources): Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Try and see this from an out-of-universe point of view. --Jack Merridew 10:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are reliable sources and are acceptable. Matthew 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And secondary sources are preferred. --Jack Merridew 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How else can I possibly clarify that the Russians didn't have one other than to clearly state in the opening sentence that the craft is fictional? I'm perhaps misunderstanding your terminology here. You also (sort of) made my point in using that link: it clearly states that television series are considered valid primary sources. Yes, secondary sources are certainly preferred, and I use them whenever humanly possible, but secondary primary sources are also okay, especially given the large body of work cited that includes this particular vessel. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(you meant: secondary primary sources are also okay — right?)

Oh, I agree that getting the word ‘fictional’ into the opening sentence was an improvement. It just looks silly to me seeing a link to the real Russian air force in this context (kind of like reading that the US Military is planning on naming their first Death Star the ‘Cheney’). --Jack Merridew 10:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(see also: Sergey Korolyov) --Jack Merridew 10:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks for the correction) So additional articles should be made when referencing any real-world institutions as used in a fictional universe? I don't think that is a reasonable expectation, and would likely draw more than a few AfDs. After stating that the vessel itself is completely fictional, I don't think it is a normal reaction to believe that because a real-world institution is linked, that agency must actually use the fictional item. A fictional item is a fictional item, no matter what links are used. A link simply provides a gateway to learn more about a particular topic; in this case, to allow the reader to more easily access information about the Russian Air Force. The Stargate Command and other similar articles link to Cheyenne Mountain, yet I don't believe it is reasonable to assume the SGC actually exists inside the mountain just because we link to the real thing.

To be honest, I don't see how your 'Cheney' example holds any relevance to this case. You are incorrectly implying that a real institution is building/using a fictitious device, whereas this article states that a fictitious device is being used by a real agency in a fictitious manner. The article makes no allegation that the real agency is actually using the fictitious device in the real world. Also, how does Korolyov come into play here? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an example. The opening paragraph states that this is ‘Also referred to as a Deep Space Carrier’ and gives a footnote that, after a redirect, lands you at Off the Grid. The current version of that page in no way supports the statement. What is needed is a real source for this statement. Links between articles here may be useful and convenient for readers but they do not serve to reference facts. --Jack Merridew 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's citing the episode, not the page, it just happens to be convenience that the article is linked. Matthew 11:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Jacki is calling in backup. Hehe. Matthew 11:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the use of the {{Cite episode}} template is intended to reference the "physical" episode. Just because the link exists, doesn't mean the article itself is being cited, which would go against the idea of citing external sources, right?

And while I frankly don't care one way or another, it seems wildly inappropriate to call in extra guns to support a debate, however, that is simply my opinion and is something I don't recall ever doing myself. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to learn policies and procedures. I dropped that note because I wanted his opinion on the line of discussion I've been pursuing here. He might even support what you two have said. --Jack Merridew 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I admit I worry greatly when such notifications are left on talk pages about focused incidents, because all too often it results in different sides calling in people strictly to support their points of view, which tends to result in a degradation into wars of words...and worse. I'm glad this wasn't the case. (Yes, I should assume good faith, but it becomes difficult after having witnessed events in the past.) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've been nosing about and have found the Primarysources tag and feel that it expresses my concern re sourcing well and have added to this article. I see the many articles on tv shows as being inappropriately written from an in-universe point of view and hope that a nudge towards non-primary sources will encourage writing from an outside point of view. --Jack Merridew 12:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for simple facts. Anything else (eg. cultural impact, critical review, significance of particular plot devices, etc) require secondary sources. If there is anything in the article for which a primary source is not acceptable, please tag it with {{fact}}. A general tag at the top is not helpful, since you haven't said which parts require secondary sources. --Tango 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate SG-1 - Odyssey fires energy weapon.jpg

Image:Stargate SG-1 - Odyssey fires energy weapon.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of; the image page was quite out of date. There are a significant number of Stargate images with description, etc, problems. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apollo fires drones?!

S04E02

See pictures: 01 02 03

27. October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.19.242 (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they're just regular missiles. --Tango 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why they couldn't be -- Jumpers can fire drones as well and it wouldn't be unthinkable to cannibalize an Ancient ship or jumper and use its drone installation (e.g. chair). Stoney3K 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Korolev is named for...

I believe this article should explain where the name Korolev came from. My reasoning is that as a viewer, I was perplexed by the writers' choice of Korolev. I couldn't find any references to Russian "Korolev" worthy of having a battleship/deep space carrier named after them. It took me a long while to link Korolev to Korolyov. A person may be able to link Korolev to Korolyov and realise the writers named the Russian ship after the foremost Russian rocket scientist, but it's odd not to have it here. If there's no statement of it anywhere by producers, writers, et cetera, so that it would constitute 'original research' then surely someone could ask a producer via email, or something? 59.167.130.145 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem: there is no stated link between names. Because email cannot be verified as per WP:V policy, any such email would have to be rejected as a source. Logically, yes, we can easily deduce that Korolyov is the basis for the name, but until more is available (perhaps in some kind of behind the scenes book, novel, DVD special features?) it is best not to include it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose even a comment along the lines of "It is suggested that Korolev is an anglicanisation of the Russian rocket scientist's name Korolyov" would be somehow an infraction on Wikipedia policy? I can understand why Wikipedia policy is what it is, but this is useful information, it really is more relevant to an encyclopedia than a rundown of the ficticious vessel's career. 59.167.130.145 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it useful when we don't know if it's true or not? Technically, we could be totally misleading readers if it eventually turned out to be wrong. Still a violation of our verifiability policy. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested by whom? If someone has published something suggesting that, then we could cite it, but it being suggested on this talk page is not enough. --Tango (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)