Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Stargate SG-1 Portal DVD Collection Release

In Australia there has been a release called the "Portal Collection" of the complete Stargate SG-1 collection along with Ark of Truth and Continuum. I can't find any official media release regarding this. I have seen the product in stores, also you can check this website for information JB HI FI.

Should this release be added to the home release table? Black Sabre (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across this yesterday, too, but couldn't make any out of it. I'd say if you can find equal releases for R1 and R2, you can add it to the table, otherwise it can be added to the prose (with reference). If you are familiar with Australian releases, could you also try to find reliable sources for the R4 releases of Seasons 1, 2, 9 and the series collection? The internet failed me there yesterday (I could only find reliable sources for the slim box releases in 2007). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found the region 2 equivalent version of the "Portal Collection", see Amazon UK. Is this enough to warrant entry in the DVD release table? Or does a R1 release have to be found? - Black Sabre (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two region releases seem good enough for the table at the moment (although this may change later when/if the article gets polished up for Good Article status). Just add the row with the sources. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, done. &ndash Black Sabre (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources to verify the Gemini Awards

The Gemini Awards website doesn't list old award winners, so a good replacement should be found. IMDb is unreliable, and GateWorld doesn't mention the 2000 award winners (just the nominees). I need to leave in a minute and can't check if the following three sources would be good enough for wikipedia, so I'll just drop the links here and review them later for inclusion:

• http://www.mania.com/15th-annual-gemini-awards-winners_article_25615.html
• http://www.playbackonline.ca/articles/magazine/20001113/30378.html
• http://academy.ca/hist/history.cfm?stitle=stargate+sg-1&awyear=0&winonly=1&awards=2&rtype=2&curstep=4&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

– sgeureka ^t•c 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed information since early March 2009

The following information was (or is about to be) removed from the article for various reasons, e.g. it was too detailed, it "didn't fit", it was replaced with better information, or it may be very difficult to source but can be added back once it is sourced. The information may also serve to be merged into other articles where appropriate:

• The first shown Alpha Site in the series was shot in a gravel pit at Mount Seymour in North Vancouver.
• The SGC set was still standing in August 2008 to allow for future films,
• In September 2006, an IGN report cited an unnamed cast member that instead of an eleventh season, there would be a series of SG-1 TV movies.
• In 1999, Stargate SG-1 received household ratings of 2.3, 2.7 3.1 and 3.3.
• Some shots [of the season 6 opening titles] originated from a test run for the Sci Fi Channel.
• Robert C. Cooper was the only executive producer to direct, directing season 9's "Crusade" and the season 10 finale "Unending".
• The pilot episode was shot on the largest soundstage in Northern America.
• Ryan appeared in the episode "Prodigy" because of his fascination with science fiction, especially space exploration.
• The sixth season was supposed to be the show's last,

– sgeureka ^t•c 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur with most (all?) of this informations' removal; allow me to give thought as to better placement providing there're reliable sources.

• Move to the pertinent episode (LOE) first depicting the Alpha Site.
• If reliably sources, use at Stargate#Direct-to-DVD films?
• Unnecessary; delete.
• Awfully non-specific, either move to the pertinent season, or get rid of altogether.
• Move to Season 6.
• Mebbe keep in this article is it can be well-situated w/o being cludgy. Otherwise, move to the pertinent episodes, I think.
• Move to the episode itself.
• Source or delete.
• Mebbe keep here if we discuss the repeated cancel-not-cancel cycle; otherwise move to Season 6.

That's my 3¢. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I expected no reply. I just dropped these facts here to keep track of my actions for both me and the next wiki generation, as I usually do with my improvement drives on obscure articles. It didn't even cross my mind that this article is popular enough that I shouldn't use this talk page as my personal sandbox dumping ground... :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Only thing id keep would be the last thing about season 6 possibly being the last, the series was always on risk being cancled and i do recall the 6th season was the first of many threats to cancel. The seconf that the site is still standing for the sgc thing is kinda useful, but i can see why being from last august could appear dated, id be cautious about that one but i dont think its necessary (I find i check the article frequently for news about the movies or new series or character cross overs...its tough being a sg fan you just wanna know....)Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Below is a list of other removed random information that could be relocated elsewhere. Since the article is 116kB with sources including over 55kB of prose, some more trimming or spinning-out is likely necessary. I am thinking of creating a List of awards and nominations received by Stargate SG-1 (although the nominations will be a pain to source), moving the DVD release table to List of Stargate SG-1 episodes (although it's kind of nice having a list of season links here, plus the LoE has display-size problems of its own), and trimming the Showtime and Sci Fi Channel broadcast sections to two paragraphs each and relocate in-depth ratings and other broadcast details to the season articles.

• [Martin Wood regularly appeared as an SGC background character in the episodes he directed,] often shown handing a giant wrench to stunt coordinator Dan Shea (SG-1's Sergeant Siler).
• [Actor-director Peter DeLuise made many (cameo) appearances] as different characters, most notably as a better-looking version of the titular alien in season 3's "Urgo" (who was played by his father Dom DeLuise), as show-within-a-show director in "Wormhole X-Treme", and show-within-a-show lead actor in "200".
• It ranked second behind the Pamela Anderson vehicle V.I.P. as new syndicated hour-long programs.
• In August 1999, a survey designed to rank the popularity of cable TV programs placed SG-1 on rank 34, followed by Nickelodeon's Little Bear and Rugrats (both 35), and HBO's The Sopranos (36).
• Although MGM had a net loss of US$40.2 million in the third-quarter of 1999, cash flow from television rose 58% to $9.8 million, largely as a result of increased product in worldwide syndication, principally Stargate SG-1 and the other MGM production The Outer Limits.
• (reduced severely) In February 2008, British company Big Finish Productions (known for its original Doctor Who audio adventures) announced that it had secured the rights to produce new audio adventures for both Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis. "Shell Game" features the vocal talents of Claudia Black who is joined on the project by Michael Shanks. The audio story takes place after the season ten episode Pegasus Project and explores what happens to Vala when an incident in her shady past lands her in prison. So far, six titles have been announced. Further adventures are planned, using more members of the Stargate cast. (See List of Stargate audiobooks.)
• The show also has contained one-episode stories.
• (remove some character/actor information that is already present in the respective character articles)
• Professor of Egyptology Stuart Tyson Smith was called in to translate dialog into Ancient Egyptian in season 2's "Serpent's Song" and season 3's "Forever in a Day".
• 15 people from the construction business were hired to analyze the drawings of production designer Richard Hudolin of the set
• SG-1 and Atlantis had occasionally interconnected plots and simultaneous story timelines.
• Sci Fi also aired four SG-1 episodes back-to-back on Mondays nights, averaging a successful 1.2/985,000 HHs/1,307,000 P2+.
• Richard Dean Anderson' schedule was reduced in season 8 so that he only worked 3.5 days out of five working days a week.
• The producers and writers tried to add humor wherever appropriate to offset dramatic storylines. (this information was kind of but not completely redundant with other assertions about humor on the show, but it was an unknown DVD narrator who said this)
• The season 2 and Season 8 box sets have some episodes in an order different to their originally airing order.
• According to Gord Lacey at tvshowsondvd.com the release of Stargate SG-1 Season 9 was being held up due to the fact that MGM is changing its home distribution company from Sony to Fox.
• The [complete series] set includes all of the Sci Fi Channel's annual behind-the-scenes specials, never-before-seen video diaries and installments of the SG-1 Directors Series, new featurettes produced specifically for this release, and more.
• The art department was always several weeks ahead of the shooting schedule.
• Anubis was originally intended as the "last big bad guy" on the show, with much more power.
• Actors Michael Shanks wrote season 7's "Resurrection", while Christopher Judge received story or writer credits for the season 5–8 episodes "The Warrior", "The Changeling", "Birthright", and "Sacrifices". Corin Nemec wrote season 7's "Fallout", and Ben Browder received story credits for season 10's "Bad Guys".
• Actors Michael Shanks and Amanda Tapping directed season 4's "Double Jeopardy" and season 7's "Resurrection", respectively.
• In season 8, the USAF invited Martin Wood and Brad Wright to a test ride in their trainer jets.

– sgeureka ^t•c 14:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of that information (along with its constituent references) should be moved to the individual episodal articles. If the episode is merged, and this information wouldn't suffice to spin it back out again, perhaps just putting it and its reference on the redirect's talk page for potential inclusion—should the article get re-spun-out. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

insignia table

United States Air Force officer ranks and insignia
General
Lieutenant General
Major General
Brigadier General
Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Major
Captain
First Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant

I disagree as to the table's uselessness on the basis that it provides a lot of hierarchical and chain-of-command information that some readers can't intrinsically get by reading the prose. Without the article explicitly explaining USAF officer ranks in each instance they're used, they're functionally meaningless. Some titles go w/o explanation in articles such as "Dr." or "Rev."; we all know who a Reverend is, and what it means to be one. But I say that a great many people don't know the differences between a Captain and a Major, or a Major and a Lieutenant Colonel, or the two Lieutenants, and that having this reference chart explains the superiority relationships between them without having to explain each rank's meaning and significance when used.

Of course, I'm not 100% dead-set against removing it, I just do find it relevant, which was the rationale for this removal. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally added the table because it was a pain to find a balance between linking the ranks in the character list (for access and context), and overlinking. I think I am not the only wikipedia reader who didn't know anything about the military until I started watching SG-1 (I actually know more about the USAF now than about any of my own country's military subdivisions), and I didn't pay attention to the ranks/chain-of-command and insignia until season 6. If the insignia images are considered as too gimicky, then I'd have no problem removing them (the insignia aren't shown on screen that often anyway). But the rank table in itself is quite helpful per above. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the table because I thought it gave undue emphasis to a relatively minor part of the show. Of the 9 main characters listed only 5 were even members of the military, and the character descriptions give all the info that's needed to understand how the hierarchy went (i.e. O'Neill led SG-1, Carter was subordinate to him, Hammond commanded the SGC). I for one never had any trouble understanding the episodes despite not being familiar with the rank structure, because the plot always made it clear who was superior to whom (Carter got promoted 2 times? But plotwise she was still in the same place relative to the other SG1 characters, so her exact rank isn't that important). Knowledge of ranks is also not necessary to understand the plot summary in this article, which doesn't even mention them. -- Yzx (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

United States Air Force officer ranks

General

Lieutenant General

Major General

Brigadier General

Colonel

Lieutenant Colonel

Major

Captain

First Lieutenant

Second Lieutenant

I deliberately left out (most of) the characters in the plot summary ("Series overview") because it would have been a mere reiteration of the cast section. I also wanted to avoid having to explain the changing ranks there. Why do the ranks have to be explained at all, one might wonder? I recently worked on pd_Thor's Law & Order: UK#Cast and had to click on "DS" and "DI" to find out what it means, since I am clueless about L&O and police ranks. By skimming Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) recently, I found that they had a "Military rank structure" section because the fictional ranks arguably have to be explained somewhere. Of course, since SG-1 deals with real ranks, it could be argued to not explain the ranks, but that doesn't change that most military SG-1 characters are referred to by rank and surname. Now, I do not believe that forcing the clueless reader to click on a rank for basic explanation is that helpful per the L&O example. As a minimalist, I also try to reduce redundance by merging related information, so a rank table in the cast section right next to the rank changes in the story (that would have needed to be mentioned anyway) means one section less to deal with later on. My first explanation from above works from that assumption. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added two alternate table versions to the right that would put less weight on the USAF ranks in the Cast section but would still satisfy my concerns of linking and giving an overview over the military structure. I'd be fine with any version for compromise. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the second table as a compromise. My main concern was with how much room the table was taking up and the insignia images, as they draw the eye but aren't a major part of show (they're not on the field uniforms are they?), making the table seem focused on costume minutiae. -- Yzx (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To do before taking this to FAC someday that I can't do/decide alone

1. Find a source that talks about how long it took for an episode to shoot. I know (from an audio commentary?) that it took 7 working days on average, with 8(?) days in earlier seasons and only 6.5 days in the end, but I haven't come across a usuable source since I started working on the article (I haven't really looked for one though either).
2. Discuss if a non-free image for "Visual effects" should be added or whether that's too decorative (WP:NFCC#8). "Small Victories", "Revelations" and particularly "Lost City" got VisFX awards and noms left and right.
3. Discuss what to do with the infobox image. Regular TV show articles often have an intertitle screenshot there, but SG-1 had several distinct opening titles. There were also two different script nameplates for seasons 1-5 and 6-10, so just showing one script nameplates (like is currently done in Stargate Universe) is hard to decide objectively too. The cast image has one of the script nameplates and has all characters (unfortunately minus Jonas) in it, which was the best most-in-one precomposed image I could find (composing them ourselves is not allowed because of the image licenses). So if we decice on using one intertitle screenshot in the infobox, the character image could be moved to Cast section, but should it?
4. Discuss if the part or all of the following should be left in the article or be moved to the race articles: "Goldsmith wanted a mechanical, repetitive ostinato sound for the Replicators. The inspiration for the Ori themes were gothic, Gregorian, and Christian. The Ancient theme was deliberately carried over to Stargate Atlantis. The end of "Lost City" has a basic melody that would become part of the main title of Atlantis per a suggestion by Goldsmith's assistant." - For someone who has never watched SG-1, the look and story significance of the races isn't clear beyond the very short series overview and the following themes section, so the sound/music is even less of importance to them. On the other hand, it gives a rough idea what kind of music SG-1 deals with. I am really undecided here, because I'd really like to keep the information on "Vesti la giubba" from Leoncavallo's "Pagliaccio", Lily Frost's song "Who am I", and CCR's song "Have You Ever Seen the Rain?" (which can't be moved elsewhere), but that could create a perceived imbalance.

None of this has to be done/decided immediately, but comments are encouraged to guide the decisions. I'll keep copyediting the article in the meantime using my gut feeling. Not much to be done except for that. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the episode shooting time: Michael Shanks says that it takes 6 to 7 days on Season 7's SG-1 Beyond The Gate: Michael Shanks featurette at about 2 minutes 38 seconds. However, I've heard Martin Wood say that it takes 7 days in a different commentary. I'll have a look for that commentary too. Black Sabre (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I could also have sworn that Wood said it in a commentary, but I found the following in the commentary for "Lockdown" (season 8), 8 minutes in in the PAL version:

Jim Menard: "We were also on 6 day episodes last year."

Will Warring: "That wasn't the first year for 6, was it? Officially?"

JM: "Yeah, we have done them before, but it was the first attempted."

WW: "[overlapping dialog] So you've got 45 minutes to shoot for your episode, which allows you to do so much a day. When I first started [per IMDb in 2002], we were doing 7 and a half days."

– sgeureka ^t•c 18:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stargate SG-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm starting the GA review!

Images

• File:NORADNorth-Portal.jpg - The links aren't working in the source field on the image description page. Also, we need a date and an author, if possible. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Michael Ryan, official military photo.jpg - The link in the source field on the image description page should be linked to the HTML page, so that the image details can be verified (see WP:IUP). Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:John-P-Jumper.jpg - The link in the source field on the image description page should be linked to the HTML page, so that the image details can be verified (see WP:IUP). Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:La Tombe de Horemheb cropped.jpg - This image needs an English description. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Milky way stargate with very detailed glyphs2.svg - I think that this might be a derivative work and therefore covered by copyright. Since the stargate itself is copyrighted, I think that drawings of it are derivative and therefore covered by copyright as well. If you want a picture of the stargate, I think it will have to be fair use. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll address these issues later today. Thanks for your time. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All points addressed except for the last one, which will be handled at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Milky way stargate with very detailed glyphs2.svg. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be a shame to lose this image as it appears to be the only version of the Milky Way stargate design on Wikipedia that has all of the glyphs properly oriented (bottom of glyph to center of gate). 198.183.6.22 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article text

• As explained in the series' backstory, the Goa'uld transported human slaves from Earth to other habitable planets across the galaxy thousands of years ago and now pose as gods of Ancient Earth mythologies, particularly Egyptian mythology. - Didn't they also pose as gods thousands of years ago? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the show never clearly explains when the Goa'uld started posing as gods. Probably the farthest flashback is in the feature film when the alien-to-be-Ra kidnaps the human boy to use him as a host, but it's not entirely clear if the alien already posed as Ra back then. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm thinking of the alternative timeline when SG-1 goes back to ancient Egypt. Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The NID probably needs to be explained a bit better in the "Goa'uld arc" section. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten to "rogue agents of a shadowy intelligence agency on Earth, the NID, repeatedly attempt to take control ..." – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "Cast" list would be clearer if it began with the characters' names. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Actor as Character style is the de facto list style for cast information per WP:MOSTV and WP:MOSFILM. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are they the Bible? :) I tend not to pay attention to non-binding guidelines like that, especially when they make articles more confusing, but do what you want here. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• A human alien who leaves his home planet Langara at the end of season 5 after witnessing Daniel Jackson's lethal sacrifice and the following gleeful reaction of his planet's leaders. - The first we hear of Jackson's death is in the description of Quinn. I find this a bit odd. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely rewritten for clarification. The sentence was technically correct since Jackson's sacrifice was lethal ("Lethal is something that is capable of causing death to a living being"), but the implication that Jackson actually died is incorrect because of a sci-fi twist, so the reader never actually heard of Jackson's death first here either. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The new version is much better - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• All episodes were filmed in 16:9 wide-screen, although Stargate SG-1 was broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio in its first years. - Can you explain what effect this would have had? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your question ("would have had" in what respect?). Even nowadays, it's still somewhat common in my country to air American TV shows in 4:3 although they've been filmed in 16:9 for ages. Showtime probably aired SG-1 in 4:3 in 1997-2002 because wide-screen TV sets were uncommon back then, so their behavior doesn't strike me as unusual. Why SG-1 was filmed in 16:9 from the beginning - I don't remember ever hearing or reading an explanation for this. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't even know what this distinction (16:9 vs. 4:3) means, so some sort of explanation as to what it indicates and what the differences might mean for the viewer would be helpful. Awadewit (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Found source to clarify transition from 4:3 to 16:9. See Article. Black Sabre (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The design of the SGC base should match the real Cheyenne Mountain complex as much as possible. - The "should" in this sentence is confusing - according to whom? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I watched the DVD extra again, but it seems Hudolin's explanation is more ambiguous than the notes I once took (which served as the basis of the article). I've remove the sentence because I don't currently know where I could find a replacement source. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• For the design of the Ori and the Priors in season 9, the art department looked at Japanese and Samurai for costuming. - Japanese and Samurai what? These adjectives require a noun! Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Black Sabre clarified it as "the art department looked at Japanese and Samurai garments for costume design". – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Prior and Doci face scarification was inspired by remote jungle tribes for the mystical aspects - I'm not quite sure what this sentence is saying. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded to say "Art director James Robbins found the face painting, scarification and burns of remote jungle tribes mystical, , serving as inspiration for the face scarification of the Priors and the Doci." – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Music" section is a bit choppy. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I rearranged some bits in the first paragraph. The second and third paragraph seemed alright for the most part. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Composer Joel Goldsmith adapted David Arnold's Stargate feature film score for SG-1's opening title theme, which remained the same during the run of Stargate SG-1 and its direct-to-DVD films. - This seems to be covered in the "Music" section already - does it also need to be covered in the "Opening sequence" section? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

While it could technically be considered redundant, repeating it is also helpful because readers may just want to read certain sections in long articles and skip the Music section. Other shows have different music composers and opening titles composers, so it's not clear that the relevant info might be found in the Music section. Lastly, as a reader, I'd simply expect to read about the origin of the opening titles theme in a section called "Opening title sequence". One sentence of redundance is a good trade-off. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that readers might skip to only one section, but this article is already quite long and detailed. Some redundancy might have to be sacrificed. Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thought this through again but come to my old conclusion that it should be left like it is. The "Music" section could go without a mention of the main title score much better than the "Opening title sequence" section, but then the End title score (which can't be moved to the OTS section) would be all alone in the "Music" section and read off instead. I can't lose the redundancy and make it work. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• By far, the weakest section is the "Themes and allusions" section, which doesn't really explain the themes of the show. For example, one of the main themes that the show explores is religion. One could argue that it casts institutionalized religion as a controlling, manipulative, and violent system. The show is also feminist to a degree, with Samantha Carter's character making several overt comments about women in the military (there are also plot lines about women in combat and other gender issues). Do any of your sources address these basic issues? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

For the writing of this article including this section, I used up nearly all sources I already own (lots of magazines and DVDs), or could research for free. Expansion is possible with a few books like Stepping Through the Stargate and Reading Stargate, but I don't intend to spend money on my GAs. Additionally, the article already is 100kB (Mythology of Stargate is set up as the respective subarticle), and as a scientist, Themes aren't my strongest suit anyway (both in interest and non-rambling writing). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There are entire books on this series that haven't been used in this article? This is a serious deficiency in my opinion. Have you tried getting the books through interlibrary loan from your library? Have you tried getting them from other Wikipedians interested in Stargate? Have you asked other Wikipedians interested in Stargate to work on this section? (For example, one of the books is available from my library. I could check it out and send it to you.) Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

By using some books and writing two paragraphs on this topic, I felt and feel the broadness requirement of WP:GA?#3a is met (even though using all books and writing more paragraphs would undoubtly benefit the article towards FA quality). I have no experience with interlibrary loans - English-language books are not that widely available in continental Europe libraries, and I expect tons of red tape with international interlibrary loans, where wiki research stops being fun for me. I have asked for help for other SG articles via WP:STARGATE or several SG forums/communities before on occasion, but have always had problems getting the kind of responses I was hoping for. Unless you really want to go through the pain and send me a few scanned pages from library books (forget postal mail), I'd just wait and see what usable books turn up on eBay and amazon marketplace eventually. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to look at the book available at my library and see. Since this section does not actually focus on the themes of the show, but rather its mythology, I think that is really missing some key elements. Awadewit (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• On August 21, 2006, a few days after the premiere of SG-1's milestone episode "200", the Sci Fi Channel confirmed that Stargate SG-1 was not being renewed for an eleventh season.[105] According to the Sci Fi Channel's Mark Stern, the decision was not ratings-based. - What was the decision based on then? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer is, SCI FI denied to comment for the most part besides this (probably to appease angry fans). Meanwhile, Variety (of course) mentioned the radically dropped ratings; Multichannel News mentioned dropped ratings, age, expensive production, bad exchange ratings, and lack of promotion; GateWorld mentioned dropped ratings, lack of promotion, removal of anchor show Battlestar Galactica, and new competition as possible reasons for the cancellation. I think I could pull up some interviews where the producers vaguely said it was a mix of reasons. But there was no official explanation.[1] – sgeureka ^t•c 06:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we should include some of this reporting. "Official reasons" are usually bogus anyway (politicians always say they are leaving to be "with their families", for example). The three sources you mention have some overlap - why not mention at least the drop in ratings? Awadewit (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanded. I used Variety and Multichannel News (Multichannel News were the first to report the cancellation). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Broadcast and release" section feels overly detailed to me. This is the only time that I got bogged down in the article. Is it possible to cut this down a bit? Here are some examples: Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It used to be even longer, and 4 paragraphs for a diverse 10-year US broadcast&ratings history was the best I could do as a years-long broadcast and ratings freak. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Although Stargate SG-1 received almost no media mention outside hard-core science fiction circles, the show was consistently the most-watched program (including theatrical movies) on Showtime - Perhaps this should be incorporated into the "reception" section?

The first part of the sentence already was in the Reception section, so I cut that part. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need all of the details about syndication?

I don't know. It would take an American to judge the necessity of US syndication. International syndication is already very brief for its scope and relative weight. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sci Fi switched the broadcast of SG-1 to widescreen and aired new episodes of Stargate SG-1 in the 9 p.m. Friday slot between The Dead Zone and Farscape.[35][93] Meanwhile, older SG-1 episodes aired on Sci Fi in a four-hour block every Monday at 7 p.m. and once a week in US syndication six months after their premiere on Sci Fi. - Can this be cut?

I took out the widescreen mention since it was already noted before in the article, but in what slot a show aired seems like the entire purpose of a Boradcast section. The mention of The Dead Zone and Farscape may be of interest since tweo Farscape actors joined SG-1, but I'd be fine if you want to remove that too. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Home video release" subsection, in particular, seems overly detailed.

I removed some numbers because they may indeed have been overwhelming/confusing. However, part of the confusion is because the British DVD releases were a mess (SG-1 was one of the first TV shows to be released on DVD, and the distributers were still trying to figure out what works best). Additionally, 4 of the 5 FAs (Lost_(TV_series)#DVD_and_Blu-ray_Disc_releases, Carnivàle#DVDs, Firefly_(TV_series)#Broadcast_history, Arrested_Development_(TV_series)#DVD_releases) with shorter runs and much clearer season-only releases have more detailed DVD descriptions. Only Doctor_Who#Viewership is shorter (reason unknown). I also believe that 2 paragraphs are better than keeping this article around. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The "Critical response" section seems a bit thin. The focus on the reviews of the first episode, for example, seems unrepresentative. Are there really so few reviews of the series afterwards? Also, are there SF reviews that should be considered? Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The present reviews for the pilot episode were the only usable ones I could (still) find online. I have many sci-fi magazines with episode reviews for SG-1 beginning with season 5, but they don't really focus on the series as a whole and usually lack the scholarly out-of-universe detachment. I can't access my books at the moment, but I don't remember anything usuable there or I'd have punched up this section already. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look at all of the sources later today. Awadewit (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Cinemablend is not a reliable source. Note that their writers are not professionals. Awadewit (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The embedded video is the source, and the speaker in the video is Amanda Tapping, actress in SG-1. This video is (so far) the only place where she announced her participation in the (yet to be produced) third SG-1 film. This source can be removed once the film goes into production. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like a blog. Generally blogs are not considered reliable. Is there a reason to think this meets WP:SPS? Awadewit (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The blog owner is Joseph Mallozzi, executive producer on SG-1. This particular blog entry was a Q&A with Brad Wright, also executive producer of SG-1. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• This link is broken and is also a student newspaper. Can this information really not be found anywhere else? Student reporters are so unreliable. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll look for a replacement, or will remove the information otherwise (it's not essential). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • All removed. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Gateworld is cited in other publications as a wonderful fan site, but is it described as a reliable source? It is used so much in the article that I think we have to establish it is reliable beyond any doubt. Awadewit (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Although GW is technically a fansite, it is also an established SG news site (MGM has repeatedly given them exclusive news stories), and the interviews with the cast and crew are reliable per se (GW hosts the interviews as audio files, so the interviews are obviously not made up). The fansite part shouldn't matter as long as GW is just used on wikipedia for news and interviews. Since reliable mainstream sources only very rarely cover Stargate, they will label GW as a reliable source even more rarely (i.e. never apart from the evidence already present). But the SG cast&crew seem extremely positive towards GW - how else would GW get 40 or 50 interviews a year with the cast&crew, host the blogs of over half a dozen cast&crew members, and have special deals with MGM? (I know my word doesn't count for much, but I've also read GW almost daily since 2001, and they have yet to screw up.) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering how necessary it is to rely on this source, though. I checked LexisNexis and my search for Stargate came up with 999 results (maxing out the search engine). Have you tried using this database? Awadewit (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I do not have access to LexisNexis. If someone looks long and hard enough there or buys the right books (it's not like I haven't looked or don't have print sources myself), GW may be able to be replaced to a certain extent through third-party sources (my guess: 30%). Other parts may also be sourced through lots of self-published sources like DVD audio commentaries, but wikipedia often looks down upon this too. I am all for further improvement of the article and I value your input, but isn't your suggestion focusing too much on if the article uses the best sources (a legitimate concern for FAC), and not if GW serves as an adequate source (as per WP:WIAGA)? – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, this is all speculation. I'm concerned that a site used to promote the show by the studio is being used so heavily. I would be happy to get a second opinion on the source. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Continued at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#GateWorld. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is comingsoon.net reliable? Awadewit (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's probably quicker to replace this source with a better one (which I'll do) instead of finding evidence that this is reliable. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Replaced with direct MGM source. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Amazon is not a reliable source for the kinds of detailed information you are sourcing. We need an actual publication. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This source is just meant to source the release date, and in all FACs I've seen, Amazon could always be used as a source for a DVD release date. Amazon UK is (as far as I am aware) the prefered source for RC2 DVD release dates. The other parts of the sentence are technically unsourced, but anyone willing to browse through the other 50 amazon UK DVD pages will see the information is true (I own all of SG-1 as a mix of British, German and Dutch DVDs, and know the information is correct). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've actually found Amazon to be unreliable in their details about products, so I would encourage you to find another source, if at all possible. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Oddly, the article's date for this DVD (which was there before I started editing this article) differs from the Amazon UK ref which I added later. Either I screwed up big time, or you're about right and Amazon messed with the dates in the meantime. I'll have to check up on that, but I can already say that Amazon UK is as good as it can get for RC2 releases, and reliability is even harder to justify for other online stores. I am unaware of other publications of sufficient reliability that record DVD RC2 release dates. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Removed the ref since I trimmed the release date to just the year (which is noted on the DVD cover). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is tvshowsondvd.com reliable? Awadewit (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Because the corresponding GateWorld news article used this as a source. It's possible to link to the slim DVDs on Amazon, but this wouldn't cover that the slim packaging is new. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • That seems like a tenuous reason to call the source reliable, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I put the GateWorld source there. Anyone being vaguely familiar with online shops will see that the slimboxes exist, and it's now all about the first release date. Even if tvshowsonDVD.com, Amazon, and GateWorld differed on an exact date (they don't), they'd still agree it was summer 2006 in the US, and the article claims nothing else. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is thefutoncritic.com reliable? Awadewit (talk) 05:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Because they host an image of the mentioned TV Guide cover, and GateWorld and tvguide.com don't host it anymore (GW and tvguide.com still have the news article without the TV Guide cover, but don't mention what the cover says). I think the TV Guide cover is also briefly shown in a TV/DVD special feature, but I'd have to look it up (which I'll probably do, although that will make the cover harder to verify for the reader than a quick weblink). – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
    • This is not a reason for the source to be reliable. Easy web links are not always possible. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Does the cover of this TV Guide issue serve as its own primary source? Because then I'd just remove the ref and still leave the info in. (Unfortunately, the special feature I was talking about is a TV special that didn't make it to the DVDs, and I just had it still saved to my harddrive.) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I think you can use the TV Guide issue, yes. Awadewit (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As a fan of Stargate, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. When it comes to GA, I think three things need to be addressed: 1) the images; 2) the "Themes and allusions" and "Critical reception" sections; 3) and the sourcing issues. I am therefore placing this article on hold. I would also suggest that, in the future, you have someone unfamiliar with Stargate read the plot section to see if they can follow it. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to the source questions, but will have to leave the prose issues for later (probably tomorrow). Thank you very much so far for your thorough review. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to do a thorough job with the article, but I am very busy in real-life at the moment (unfortunately, I was unable to predict this when I put the article up for GAN). I may not be able to address all issues in the 7-day-on-hold time limit, so if you're unwilling to extend the limit for a few days, I'd also be fine with a failed GAN for the time being. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely willing to extend the limit. I'm only working on Wikipedia for a little bit each day (I'm attempting to finish my dissertation), so I can respond a little bit every day. How about that? Awadewit (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bearing with me. It seems I managed to take the last major hurdle for my job deadline today, so I'll try to have your concerns addressed by tomorrow evening. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to anyone who comes by: this is an active review and the article is still on hold as it is actively being improved! :) Awadewit (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move to the other side of the country in a few hours and I don't know when I can get back an internet connection. It could be tomorrow in the best case, Tuesday (if my boss allows it after work), or in one or two months worst case. Please do what you feel is best for the article. I don't want to hold up wiki procedure more than I already have. (Things can still be improved when I can devote more time to it than now.) Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that at that this point I'm going to have to fail the article for two main reasons: 2b) Considering there is an abundance of reliable, fact-checked material published on Stargate (I spent some time on both LexisNexis and NewsBank to verify this), I do not think we are justified in using Gateworld for news items. As we discovered with the report about why the show was cancelled, the independent media reported different reasons than did Gateworld; 3a) The "themes" section is really too weak, as it does not actually discuss the themes of the show, but rather the show's mythology. My library is getting the relevant books for this section, but I myself am going out of town for a week, so I won't be able to send you anything for a while. Awadewit (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Critical response

I have adjusted the critical reception section a little bit by balancing positive reviews with negative ones. The way I presented the matters may not be the best possible way and needs several improvements but please do not delete the sourced information outright without justification. In the previous version of the page selectively only the negeative lines were picked up from less negeative or even neutral critics. I have balanced them by picking up both postive and negative remarks from the same critics. I have also included some other more favourable critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Rotten Tomatoes has nothing critical reception wise on it's page, and what makes apolloguide and flickfilosopher reliable? -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Why IMDb is not reliable?, and what do you mean by that?. apolloguide and flickfilosopher is reliable because they are linked in rotten tomato. Please kindly explain yourself or I have to revert back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.40.170 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Also please do not blindly revert, it changes other parts of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.40.170 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Just like to point out that I do not wish to enter into a edit war. Also please note that reliability is not an essential for the inclusion in wikipedia,(because it is subjective matter who find what reliable) but notability and verifiability(WP:V). There is indeed an issue of reliability WP:RS which comes for information about living person and other important news etc. The rating in IMDB does not come in this category and the rating is clearly given in their site so there is no question about its verifiability ( hope you do not question about notability of IMDB :) ). Now you may argue that it may only show the fan sentiment and may not be neutral. Ok possible, I do not disagree. But according to "no original research" guideline we are not supposed to speculate on that. IMDB is an important and verifiable source and that is it. If you do not like it that is fine, do not believe it (nor do I :)) but it should be included in wikipedia. Also note that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Hope I have explained myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your text fails the requirements in several ways; I will expand on this in a short while (as I have to do some stuff in the real world right now). Please do not restore it, however - it has been challenged by several editors, so the proper process is to discuss it here. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be waiting and won't change anything for now. Hope you will reply within few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameos

This edit is inappropriate. Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s assertion that these are "notable" isn't borne out by any secondary sources; much like most references of this type on Wikipedia, these items are basically just I-Spy games. They should be removed, as we're already at over 100k in length and any dead weight is inappropriate as the article moves towards FA status. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

dablink

Is this really required? SG1 (disambiguation) is getting smaller & smaller. Should ther actually be a disambig page? HarryAlffa (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)