Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

SG character articles up for deletion

Just an FYI that someone has nominated Carson Beckett, Ronon Dex, Teyla Emmagan, Rodney McKay, John Sheppard (Stargate), and Elizabeth Weir (Stargate) for deletion, and is apparently fighting tooth and nail in regards to it, attempting to swing things in terms of policy which appear inaccurate.

The full AfD is here. rootology (T) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is that guy's problem?? Does he hate the show that badly??

How can this argument even hold weight? Why not just have admins dismiss it or something?

Faris b 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

you gotta love stargate

seasons thought to be the last?

I seem to recall their being a blurb in this article, at some point, about how all of the season finales of SG-1 were expected to be the last, with a few exceptions. I tried looking in the history for a version that had this, but I can't find it. Was it ever on wikipedia, is it even true, or is my memory just playing tricks with me? TerraFrost 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

season 5 was a finale before skiffy picked it up, then season 7 and season 8 were both suppose to be the series finale, but it got picked up again, season 9 was written as if it was getting picked up, but they didnt know at the time... i thought this info used to be on wikipedia before... -Xornok 20:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought that ALL seasons on scifi were thought to be the last and no, season 9 was also set up that way, they didn't show which Earth ship was destroyed until part 2 because if the show wasn't picked up, they could say it was either ship that fit the storyline and say that Sam was killed in that space suit and that Mitchell didn't make it, that's why it was set up that way so that either way could happen. And you forget, season 6 was also supposedly the last as well, that's why they had Abydos be destroyed, one of those "doom" ending that I hate.

Now I have asked this numerous times but never got an answer:

WHY do the writers make these stupid "doom" changes that someone or something in the show is destroyed?? Do they fear that someone else will pick up where they left off and make something even better? I mean, take a look at their track record; this is just a guess but it's a good one that would have been explained either on gateworld or another site or in a bad movie of some sort:

Season 5
Thor could have possibly died (YES he could have, please don't say they could have recloned him as that wasn't established until that very same ep and they could have easily said that they couldn't do it another time.
Daniel died (they could have said he just plain died if the show wasn't renewed).
Season 6:
Abydos and everyone on it died.
Season 7:
Dr. Fraiser died which was the WORST person to kill off at the time, it took 3 years to get a new permanent Doctor and now the actress is on maternity leave for most of the season.
Anubis killed (they could have said that it was enough to kill him if the show wasn't picked up.
Jack being in statis at the end could have been changed to him being killed when he was revived if the show wasn't renewed. Season 8:
The stupid "General O'Neill" year as I like to call season 8 was the first hint that they thought it was the last.
RepliCarter killed, that could have been a GREAT storyline if they didn't rush things.
All the Goa'uld defeated except for Ba'al, they did this because they thought the show was over so they had to make up the Ori.
The whole Moebius time travel fuss, they could have just said that the original SG-1 wa stuck in Ancient Egypt and said the end of the ep was an alternate SG-1 instead of the other way around if it wans't picked up.
Season 9:
Bringing in Louis Gosset, Jr, Ben Browder, Claudia Black and Beau Bridges was obviously a ratings ploy.
Killing off the best thing ever discovered since the Asgard, the Sodan, they could have gone a great way back 2 years ago when the Jaffa rebellion was in full swing but they have to wipe them out in the 3rd episode to feature them! Lord Haikon doesn't count because a single man can't ressurect a dead society. The whole Camelot thing where the Milky Way fleet was decimated, they could have said as I said above made everyone die instead of letting the main cast live and say the Ori targeted Earth and wiped it out right away.
Season 10:
Adding Claudia Black as a fulltime cast member, while I do enjoy her being on the show, it's another ratings ploy.
Having Chulak fall to the Ori is another one of those "doom changes" I talked about above.
Destroying Dakara and fracturing the Jaffa nation.
The end of the season is likely to be something simmilar to last year but this time it'll be the alternative I bet.

Hope everyone took the time to read that, if you forgot, my initial point was WHY THE HECK do the writers do those "doom changes" every year? I mean, what would have happened if they doomed Star Trek back in it's 3rd season (original Star Trek that is)? There would have been no movies or anything, why are the Stargate people doing the opposite? Sure they want a movie but 5 more would be better. I mean, there are so many things they could explore in the movies, finding the REAL Furlings, freeing the the people in the Ori galaxy because how will they know the Ori are gone? Destroying Celestis, exploring the other 2000+ planets in the database etc..

Faris b 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the changes were because of the actors and potential fate of the show. Michael Shanks decided the fifth season would be his last, so they killed off Daniel Jackson, only to revive him when Shanks found his post Stargate career less than what he wanted and asked to come back. Dr. Frasier was killed because they thought season 7 would be the last. Richard Dean Anderson decided spending time with his daughter in LA was not compatible with full time involvement with filming SG1 and so the producers reduced his role to that of an extended cameo to avoid having him quit completely.

And even ignoring those reasons the SG1 writers and producers do things like that for the same reason any other show does. They don't want the plots to stagnate, they want to make the stories more exciting, and sometimes they find that a certain idea doesn't work for the plots they're writing or it proves unpopular with the fans.Tim gueguen 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The reckoning breaking neilson ratings

In the last paragraph of the intro, it says that the 8th season, particualrly "The Reckoning" broke nielsen ratings for Sci-fi. I find this sentence vague and inplausible. Despite being one the best SG-1s of all time, (In both my opnion and fan polls) I don't think the ratings could have been that high. Could someone find a source for this statment. I thought that ref 2 sourced it but it didn't. Even if the fact is true we need to reword that sentence. Tobyk777 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It says it broke records for the Sci-Fi channel. SG-1 is widely regarded as one of the best shows on the Sci-Fi channel, so it's not that suprising that is gets the best ratings... --12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

More online petitions that need to go

Someone put an online petition in the Planets in Stargate article. As I also put up save Stargate petitions at one time and the fact that I support these SaveStargate sites, I want someone else to get rid of it.Skynet1216 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Done Morphh 01:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

DVD Releases

which moron moved this to the trivia section, and could somebody move it back --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Munnp001 (talk • contribs)

Please read: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Be bold. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. --Tango 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Region 2 DVD release dates are wrong. Basically at least the last few seasons to be released are roughly a year out (the dates shown are a year earlier than actual release dates). I'm not registered but if someone who knows what they're doing wants to check the dates and change this since it is a relatively big error in what i am sure is a popular page

Should the savestargatesg1.com campaign be mentioned?

I've been having a length discussion on my talk page with InShaneee about the matter, and we're getting nowhere. Can the rest of the people watching this page give their opinions, please. I think most of the points have been discussed somewhere already, so lets give it a straw poll feel. --Tango 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - It's relevant, true, verifiable and neutral. Those are the only criteria that matter when all we're talking about is a single sentence. --Tango 20:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - This has already been discussed and concensus reached. A small mentioning with proper citation to notable sites like Gateworld and the many news sites that have mentioned it is enough to prove notability. Konman72 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - I already tried putting the website on the external links but it got deleted75.30.201.206 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• No - This straw poll is irrelivant, anyhow. The campaign is not notable in and of itself, therefore is only linkspam. --InShaneee 16:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not notable? It is the one singular fan campaign, supported by Gateworld and Stargate SG-1 Solutions, the former you will note is notable enough to have its own article. They have already made over $9000 in fan contributions and are aiming for $15000 by the end of the campaign. It doesn't get much more notable than that. Besides, I find your arrogance a bit off-putting. This straw poll is perfectly useful in determining whether or not it is notable enough to be included, so far the vote says that it is. Just because you disagree does not make us all wrong. If the poll stays the way it is then a concesus has been reached saying the campaign is notable enough for a mentioning so that is what we will do, whether or not you agree. Konman72 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and something is not notable just because you say it is. --InShaneee 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but given the fact that there is no other way to determine notability other than to discuss, present evidence and then find concesus I guess we are stuck with this. I, and all the other yes votes here, feel that it being the one singular fan campaign, having the support of the 2 biggest fan sites for the show (one of which is notable enough to have its own article here) and the amount of support it has proves its notability. You may disagree, but there is no way to determine who is right, so a concensus must be reached. Konman72 00:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are several other ways of determining notability, such as the consistent application of guidelines. --InShaneee 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you know a relevant guideline, please give us a link to it. --Tango 19:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments, for one thing. --InShaneee 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, that's an essay, not a guideline. Secondly, it's about things being notable enough for their own article, it's nothing to do with what should be included in existing articles. --Tango 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an essay that mentions/describes several guidelines, and it has often been used to decide what is notable within an article. --InShaneee 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case, quote the bit that you interpret as saying we shouldn't include this petition. --Tango 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - I have also stated that I believe this to be relavent, notable, and something of interest to readers. I thought the best way would be as a sentence with a reference, however, I also support it as an external link at the end of the article. Morphh 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Very notable, petition has more than 30,000 signatures. Tobyk777 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes As the savestargate campaign has been mentioned in outside articles, (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art46225.asp and http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art46224.asp), it notable and obviously of interest. Alessandriana 18:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Maybe', dependant on the reason for the inclusion of said referrence. If mentioned for a point of interest, yes. If placed on the page as a push for signatures of the petition, than a strong no. -Emhilradim 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates at the top of this page

Does anyone else think it's funny that four diffrent independent wikiprojects on completely diffrent topics have clamied this page. TV and Stargate make obvious sense. Egypt is a stretch. Colorado, that'sd pushing it. I just think it's funny to have all the projects fighting over their domains. Tobyk777 04:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed TV, Egypt and Colorado. For the TV one, I figured WP:TV is already represented via WP:STARGATE since Stargate is a child project of TV. Egypt.. I'm not sure how much help that's gonna be... and why the heck was Colorado on here? -- Ned Scott 06:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can actually understand all of em, and if it improves th article, does it really matter? TV because its a show, Egypt because this program has really helped shed some light on that extremely interesting topic, and Colorado because it supposedly takes place there.. I say leave em be.. it just shows the impact that the program has had, and exactly what damage does it do, by notifing MORE people about the topic? EnsRedShirt 08:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't notify people to come work on the article, it's suposed to point editors that are already looking at the article to places of centerized discusison that can help them with this article.

Placing it as apart of Colorado because the setting is in a secret base in Colorado has to be one of the most retarded reasons for inclusion in a WikiProject that I have ever heard. Like I said, WP:STARGATE should already point to the relevant points of WP:TV, since it's a direct child project, so there's no point in listing both of them. The Arts banner, if you notice, is only there for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's efforts, and is not an actual WikiProject banner. (It could even be replaced by putting in rating code into the Stargate banner.) And for Egypt.. I seriously doubt SG-1 is a good reference for Egyptian history, being a fictional story where pyramids are actually spaceships and all.. -- Ned Scott 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make POV statements in your arguments. The fact that Stargate is based around Cheyenne Mountain, agreeably, does not make it a part of the Colorado Wikiproject. But that's no reason to use inappropriate commentary in your arguments. One can argue that it benefits Colorado, because it improves rate of tourism, and interest in Colorado. Therefore, it can, but should not be mentioned in the Colorado Wikiproject. -Emhilradim 02:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but POV is completely acceptable on the talk page. (Further more, our policy, which applies to articles, is neutral point of view, not no point of view) I know one can argue such things, but why sugar coat it? I'm not attacking that WikiProject, or their scope. You seriously need to calm down there, buddy. -- Ned Scott 02:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I predict that at some point someone's going to set up a classification called "halfway decent articles" with looser criteria, to pick up the articles that would have once been called "good articles" (and perhaps even once long before that called "featured articles"). Not that I don't approve of increased standards over time, I just find it amusing how these classifications all seem to slowly creep upward like this. :) Bryan 05:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who lack of dispute

There is a bit of controvery going on as to whether Doctor Who is the longest running or whether Stargate SG-1. This is all well and good, however, there is no note of a dispute in either the BBC article being provided or with the GBOWR. And I quote from the BBC article itself "Doctor Who has been named TV's longest-running sci-fi show, after 43 years and 723 episodes, according to the Guinness Book of Records...US series Stargate SG-1, now in its 10th series, holds the world record for "longest-running science fiction show (consecutive)"." Therefore, neither the GBOWR or the BBC article can be used as a source for a dispute. Mucus 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll even quote the second reference: "UPDATED:

Although the sums involved have sparked much debate, the editor of Guinness World Records, Craig Glenday has this to say:

"Doctor Who is without question the longest running science fiction show in terms of years. Stargate SG-1 has run without a break since it first hit our screens in 1997, however, so is the longest show with consecutive back to back episodes.""

So dispute? Not so much Mucus 16:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

However, the fans who comment on that page say things like "To be fair due to the hiatus in 1985 Doctor Who's longest continuous run was actually 63 - 84. But either way it was longer than Stargate. " This does show that fans are in fact disputing this. Ergo the sentence "Doctor Who fans dispute this claim" is accurate, and referenced. Just because the production team aren't arguing the point doesn't mean the fans are. J•A•K 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just read the article itself, in which the response by the editor is followed by what seemed to be acceptance. Anyways, it is my impression that sources such as blogs and bulletin board posts cannot be accepted as a source anyways, ala Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet Mucus 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, surely the posting "I dispute this claim" indicates that this claim is disputed? To be honest, I read the response by the editor as being something which the main part of the article disagreed with anyway, but members of the production crew didn't want to upset the nice GBOWR people who were giving them awards. Regardless ... the fact that there's a decent argument there does seem to indicate that there is dispute to the claim. Why isn't that acceptable? It's not opinion, it's numbers.J•A•K 17:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We now have a valid reference showing there is clearly a dispute, so the comment can stay. Sorry I reverted the addition of the reference - when you're reverting there is no way to know that someone has edited the article since you last loaded it. --Tango 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But the reference was edited at the same time as the claim of the dispute... anyway, no problems, I do stuff like that all the time IRL. J•A•K 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The first time the dispute was added there was only one reference, and that was to the BBC article about the record, not the one about the dispute. --Tango 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just specify US scifi show. I thought that was the record in Guinness, perhaps I was wrong, but either way that would take the dispute away. Konman72 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You would need something to that effect that is citable. The Guinness reference, while problematic, is citable. (Actually, in some ways the Doctor Who reference helps, as it does establish that SG-1 isn't the overall longest-running series. Without a mention to that effect, it is easy for a reader to presume that SG-1 is the longest-running sci-fi series overall.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode Length

The article says 42 minutes, but imdb says 46 minutes. Does anyone know the right number? --Arctic Gnome 17:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 42, but I don't have any proof of that... --Tango 17:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It just IS 42 - the IMDb may be referring to the absolute maximum limit of an episode set by networks? No SG-1 episode ever has been longer than 43. --Alfakim-- talk 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Threads was 90 minutes (with commercials), so actually it was 60 minutes. Other than that, as long as you don't count the two parters that aired together, the episodes are 42 minutes (I believe, but I have no proof). -- Johnny06man 14:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not hard to prove it's not 46 - just find a TV guide for a channel that shows it without adverts. It will be in a 45 minute slot, so it can't be a 46 minute program. To know that it is actually 42 requires actually looking at the length of an episode, which isn't something easy to cite... --Tango 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I admit I haven't bothered to look at the rules for citations here with regards to TV shows, but it's actually pretty easy to find the total running time of a Stargate episode - if you have the DVDs of course. Since those are presented in their entirety without commercials, the final counter indicates the running time. And with a scattered few exceptions, every episode from seasons 1 through 9 runs 43 minutes or less. There is a very slight reduction in running time during the course of the series, with the earlier seasons tending to have slightly longer average running times than the later seasons. Presumably this is accounted for by increased commercial time when aired on TV. Toroca 04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the episodes are in between 41 and 43 minutes, so 42 will be god [[user: dobby-fc|dobby-fc[[ 16:55, 8 may 2007 (GMT+1)

Deletion of talk page comments

Emhilradim's deletion of various talk page comments has been reverted. While I appreciate the desire to clean up the page, that was NOT the way to go about it. Deleting some comments, merging others, and posing the same "warning" note repeatedly does not help. If so desired, the page should be properly archived, and a notice can be posted ONCE. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of Virtual Series

Stargate has spawned a number of virtual series, one of which is actually able to confidently boast around a thousand downloads per episode; this is readily possible considering that it is available in three languages. While an article on SG-1's virtual spin-offs would not be necessary, it is most certainly necessary to mention them under the 'spin-offs' section. Espescially consider that the Buffyverse has its own page, and mentions a number of virtual series and continuations. Why does Stargate not deserve that honor?

You would need to cite an independant reference - show they've got press coverage. 1000 downloads isn't that impressive, anyway. --Tango 11:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Horizon is officially a part of the Gateworld network. Does that count for anything?68.56.245.245 06:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Short Answer: No. Gateworld is a fan site, just like anyother. Being part of their network doesn't mean it's any more official to MGM.EnsRedShirt 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say it counts for something, but it isn't enough on its own. You need an independent source, Gateworld doesn't really count. --Tango 11:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. They're fanfiction, they're not official. Therefore, they're not really spin-offs and don't belong to that section. If you mention them, you need to mention all the other Stargate fanfiction out there or it wouldn't be fair. If you want to make a Stargate Fanfiction article, that's fine, but make it comprehensive. Do not add them to the spin-off section. They don't belong there. --Andromeda 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"STARGᐰTE SG-1" (Yes, that's the Earth glyph!)

Just discovered that the Earth glyph is in Unicode: Canadian Syllabics Paai (U+1430). Just wondering how many others know this and whether it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. I myself was thrilled at finding it in the Unicode chart!

Wikilackey 08:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just see a question mark.. haha.. :) Matthew Fenton (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I only see a question mark too. It's even just a question mark in the edit box, so I'm guessing Wikipedia doesn't support unicode...--Tango 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does support unicode, it must not support that particular part of unicode. --Tango 12:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just see a rectangle, but I don't think that it makes much of a difference.--Dani 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Found it on the web 'CANADIAN SYLLABICS PAAI' (U+1430) Morphh ^(talk) 20:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I also found it, the number is right, but Mediawiki converts it to a question mark, it seems. --Tango 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia indeed supports all Unicode characters, as long as you have appropriate fonts installed. You'll need a unicode font that supports UCAS (Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics). Code2000, Aboriginal Sans, and Aboriginal Serif all support it; there might be others. And I just saw that I put the glyph on the wrong A. I fixed it. Go me. Wikilackey 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Title card for main image?

That image makes them all look horribly, horribly deformed. Since the Atlantis article uses the S3 title card, shouldn't we use the S10 title card for the SG-1 article? (BTW someone else would have to do it, I don't have any DVDs from which to take non-DOGged screencaps) --Codenamecuckoo 09:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stargate_SG-1_Season_9_Title.jpg . Any ideas? Yes or no? --Illyria05-- 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to the picture I linked to in my post above.. Again, if you do not like it, you may of course revert it :) --Illyria05-- 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That title card in the infobox doesn't do much for me. Can't we go back to a picture of the original cast? Currently the only picture of people in the whole article is a small pic of the season 10 cast — which doesn't include R.D. Anderson or Don Davis.

—wwoods 07:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Agreed.) Avt tor 08:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait, what about that 200 promo photo on the scifi site when it aired? (something like this one http://www.sg-1spoilergate.jackfic.com/images/200_1.jpg) Although, I do wish there was a better picture than that poster of the original cast that was on the SG1 article for a long time.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

VP:V

IMDB confirms that this show is produced in Canada. IMDB is authoritative; the database takes information from show credits. I am looking at the DVD credits right now, and it says "Filmed on location in British Columbia, Canada; With the participation of the Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit". Please do not waste time making unfounded assertions which deny documented evidence. Avt tor 10:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDb having information means nothing, it's non-verifiable. It being filmed in Canada does not make it Canadian, the same scenario applies to a book, if it was printed in Canada would that make it Canadian? I think not. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is widely acknowledged as an essential authoritative reference for TV pages across Wikipedia and many other online resources. You are drawing a false analogy. "Filming" is analogous to writing a book; it is where the artistic work happens. What you think is irrelevant. What can be documented is what matters. If you have no specific facts, you can't delete the facts cited simply because you don't like them. Avt tor 10:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously mistaken, it's acknowledged as a good link to as a citable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." - IMDb is not verifiable, is a user submitted source with a high rate of false data. "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." - Yep, I challenged it and removed it. "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." - Yes, that means you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I cited credits from the DVD itself, but that was reverted. If you listen to the DVD commentaries, Peter Deluise and others go on at great length about how, where, and why they produce at various British Columbia locations. Sources are easy to find, limited by one's typing speed I suppose. The facts aren't in question. Removing the facts seems highly POV. Avt tor 12:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The question of sources is irrelevant. We all know it's filmed in Canada, and it seems that's all the sources are saying. The question is, what does the "Country of origin:" section in the infobox mean. Does it mean "Where is it made:" or does it mean "Where is the company that owns it registered:", or both? If the former, "Canada" is the correct answer, for the second, "USA", and for the final one, "Canada, USA". There are plenty of sources that can tell you the information, and I can't see why anyone would question the facts. The only question is which fact we mean to put in the infobox. --Tango 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've always seen the infobox used for the original country, not production, i.e. Americaland is Stargates original country. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So have I, but only because it's always said "USA". We need to decide what it *should* be, rather than what it is. --Tango 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Show credits show that it is Canadian right on the DVDs. Stargate has won Gemini awards, which are only eligible for Canadian productions, and other Canadian awards.

Many shows clearly belong to multiple countries; these are not exclusive definitions. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful, accurate, verifiable information. Where ambiguities exist, they should be shown; where completeness is practical in a concise way, it should be presented. If consensus does not present a single answer or methodology, accuracy suggests erring on the side of not deleting relevant information.

I don't have a doctrinaire opinion on the Wikipedia infobox template. However, as a member of the Canadian SF fan community, I use the common definition that if it's made in Canada, it's Canadian, and I provide information useful to members of the community. Legal "country of origin", however it may be defined or documented, is not definitive for the purpose of this category definition. Avt tor 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. It seems we're all agreed on the facts, so why don't we simply state the facts in the article? "Country of Origin: USA (production company), Canada (filming)" --Tango 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm going to disagree; that's misleading and not factually correct. "Country of origin" is legal jargon and a misnomer as it does not actually refer to the country from which the work has originated; it only refers to the tax jurisdiction where parties agree to conduct legal interactions, which isn't really a part of the creative or production process. It's not correct because the company that organizes the actual production, Double Secret, is Canadian. After a show is produced, it is handed over to the distribution company, in this case MGM.

The credits of Stargate, as I read them on the screen right now, say "This motion picture is protected under the laws of Canada, the United States and other countries, and its unauthorized duplication, distributions, or exhibition may result in civil liabiliity and criminal prosecution." Note that Canada comes first, the United States second, on the copyright disclaimer. That is the assertion of "country of origin", for whatever that's worth. Feel free to look at the DVD credits. This show is produced in Canada, according to the credits.

The Stargate SG-1 press kit mentions Vancouver four times in terms of production, but only refers to the United States twice in the context of fictional characters and organizations.

Second, I don't strenuously object to your suggestion. A Wikipedia infobox is merely a tool for providing quick summary information. It can't possibly describe in detail complex legal relationships; detail belongs in the body of the article, not the infobox. I don't care how Canadian or how American the show is, because it's not a clear question. Like a large proportion of the Canadian entertainment industry, and myself, Stargate pays taxes to both Revenue Canada and the IRS; we hand the legal details to our lawyers and accountants. Put a Canadian flag in the infobox, as is consistent with the work itself and other reliable sources, and I'm happy (not because of a personal agenda, but as an information resource for the Canadian fan community); then you can describe the details in the text in as much (accurate) detail as is appropriate. Stargate has a few actors and bankers originally from the United States (most of those now being legal Canadian permanent residents, but whatever); if that's enough to make people want to call it American, I'm okay with that.

The verifiable facts (from the show credits) as I read them are that this show is produced in Canada by Canadians, and also that a multinational corporation with offices in many companies provides finance and thus holds the actual legal ownership of the property in order to facilitate distribution worldwide (hence "MGM Global Television Inc.". Stargate meets the strict legal requirements to be eligible for Canadian government tax breaks and Canadian television awards.

I haven't seen anybody (except for me) refer to a reliable source indicating that this show is American in any way, and the source that I have (the show credits) indicates that the US is only the secondary "country of origin". If there is an alternate interpretation of the available facts, or if there are facts (as opposed to unsourced assertions) not presented, I think the readers of this Talk page would find that informative. Avt tor 04:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was very obvious.. C comes before U. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the discussion among principals, but usually one sees the dominant partner listed first.

Are you done yet? If we are reduced to merely debating the order of the links, instead of the content, is it possible to request unprotection? Would it be possible for you to comment on the talk page if you don't agree with something? Most editors use the occasional fact tag, or tag a section as missing sources if they don't agree with things, in order to allow others to do research. It seems unnecessarily contentious to revert points when sources are available, especially when you aren't offering any sources yourself. Will you tolerate people making positive contributions? Avt tor 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the order is important. If we're going to put both countries, it's probably best to explain why. If "production company" and "filming" are strictly incorrect, what do you suggest? "Distribution" and "Production", perhaps?

Once we've reached a definite concensus, I'll unprotect the page and implement our decision. --Tango 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, as a result of the discussion. It seems to me that we need to use clear and verifiable terms in order to avoid confusion. It also seems to me that this is a function of the infobox template itself, so that part of the discussion can move there. I concede that "country of origin", misleading as the term is, should draw on legal information provided in the credits (wherever that happens to be documented). Optional fields in the template can be added for "production" or "filming" where that is different.

I believe a lot of people don't understand how television is put together. Media conglomerates contract almost all production to independent production companies, in order to shield their investors from the financial risk. Even shows and movies produced on the lot of Universal, Paramount, or wherever are produced by legally separate companies. In-house production units exist, but it only makes sense when the financial risk can be offset by other advantages, such as the synergistic benefit of having resources in one place, so in-house production units almost always film on their own studio lot, not in far-flung countries. Television isn't done the way movies are. In a movie, pre-production can be organized at a production office, then the whole team can go to one or more locations to film the movie, then producers can return to the production office to complete the post-production tasks. In a television series, there may be two episodes being filmed on the same days because of actors or overlapping project schedules; two or three more episodes will be in pre-production, and two or three more will be in post-production. The lower castes of producers have to do some of their work on set, and even executive producers have to talk to people in person when the other people have to be on set sometime during the day. Television shows are organized out of a permanent base of operations, a studio, with sound stages, equipment warehouses, production offices, editing facilities, and so forth, all on a single site, and that's where the filming happens on a series. Stargate is produced at Bridge Studios in Vancouver; you saw the lot enrance and sets in the episode "Wormhole X-Treme". If you listen to Peter Deluise's DVD commentaries, he explains how he works, all the balls he has to juggle on any given day. It is not accurate to say that Stargate is "produced" in America.

So to narrow this particular discussion, in this case, we don't need to worry about "production" or "filming". The country of origin of Stargate, per the show credits, is "Canada" and "the United States". That's what the country of origin field in the infobox template should show. I think optional fields will clarify this question for other shows, but for Stargate it is not necessary to drill down to that level of detail.

I will leave it to someone else to request un-protection. As it stands now, the page happens to be factually correct at the moment, so I don't care how long the discussion continues. Avt tor 15:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm kind of a newb here. Are the people who care about the accuracy of the knowledge in the Stargate articles actually so concerned about a comment on the show's production country that they are willing to write tomes about it here on the discussion page and protect the article rather than focusing on the content of the sub-articles themselves? There has been a lot written about the series here and I love it, and I'm following the show pages as I run through the first 8 seasons on DVD, but guys...come on. If this is still going on by the time I get back from vacation, I'm going to start wholesale editing the article pages, and then you can all talk about and debate the contributions I've made. While it is significant that the show has historically been a great collaboration between the US and Canadian entertainment industries, not to mention the collaboration between the Pentagon and RDA (when he shared a credit), with all due respect, I think this discussion is a little bit too trivial (I do not use that word lightly), even for Wikipedia. This is the stuff Weird Al sings songs about. Please, someone, put it to a vote, finish this up, unprotect the article, and let's all get back to work. Tarkaan 03:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Science fiction television is a billion-dollar export industry in Canada, comprising about 0.2% of all trade in the world's largest trading relationship and thousands of jobs. In Canada, science fiction is associated with the underlying streak of utopianism in Canadian culture, so the growth and success of science fiction television in Canada is a significant cultural development. Setting aside the economic and cultural issues, from a fan perspective, allowing fans to know which shows are made by Canadians will make it easier for them to identify favorite actors and recurring locations; understanding the links between writers and producers helps explain the formation of ideas that come together in various shows. Suggesting that "production" is the same as distribution diminishes the work of producers and gives a misleading impression of how television is put together. I would argue that the way some people misunderstand or even argue against the facts is an indication of the importance of getting the facts right. Avt tor 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)