Talk:List of Earth starships in Stargate

Roman numerals

Please provide a citation for where Roman numerals have been used in the show, they've been referred to as three's and eights but not "Mark eye-eye-eyes" or "Mark vee-eye-eye-eye" - not everybody is Roman numeral savvy - Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for where arabic numerals have been used for the weapons on the show. They have said "Mark eight", without any stating any specific way of writing "eight". This is not a matter of facts, it's a matter of notation. We don't need a citation for how to spell "star", for example, we just use the standard spelling of "star" in every other context. The standard notation for "Mark eight" in every other context is "Mark VIII", so that's what we should use. --Tango 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have Roman numerals been used in the show for weapons? They haven't - the job is yours to prove they have. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

um, they are military... military uses roman numerals for weapons... why dont you prove they use arabic numerals... -Xornok 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't listened to my point - there is no need to show that it's used that way in the show. In the show, it is never written down. The only thing we have to go on is that "Mark eight" is always written "Mark VIII" everywhere where it is written down. Your comment about the burden of proof is flawed - we're not talking about adding or removing anything, we're talking about how to write something which no-one has an objection to including. If you can find a reliable source to support your view, then we'll change it. --Tango 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one that needs to present a reliable source, you've failed to show this "everywhere" and also do you see any Roman numerals here?. Also not everyone reads Roman numerals, this is not the Roman Wikipedia, rather it is the English Wikipedia. The burden of proof is yours. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to provide a source? It's a style issue, not a facts issue. Why do you consider arabic numerals to take precedence over Roman ones in a context where Roman is standard? As for people not reading roman numerals - should Henry VIII be moved? Roman numerals are part of the English language. This isn't the arabic wiki, but you're still advocating using arabic numerals. --Tango 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they've never been referred to as "vee-eye-eye-eyes", they have been referred to as 8s and 3s. Also how is Roman "standard" unless you can back it up it is an invalid claim. Although I wouldn't object my self to writing it as three or eight, that would still be correct. (addendum: I wouldn't object to moving: Henry VIII of England → Henry the 8th) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"VIII" is pronounced "eight", not "vee-eye-eye-eye", so why would they say that? They also haven't said "Mark two-circles-one-on-top-of-the-other". Your claim that 8 is correct is also invalid by that logic - where is your source? --Tango 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My source? Oh my, you can't of been reading my messages - my source is the show - the primary source. Also no they've said eight, and it would actually be non-numerical "eight" per cMoS/MoS thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The show is spoken, not written. "8", "eight" and "VIII" are all pronounced identically. --Tango 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark (designation) uses Roman Numerals. And the page you linked to is talking about MK, as in MK47, a type of gun, where Mk here stands for Mark, and the link i just presented uses roman numerals as Mark I and Mark II... -Xornok 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - hopefully someone there can help settle this. --Tango 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Xornok, I don't know where you got the idea that the military uses Roman numerals. Coming from someone who's been in the Air Force (that's right, the same AF as in the series), for 4 years, I can tell you that we do NOT use roman numerals. I work on A-10s, not A-Xs. They are loaded with AIM-9s, not AIM-IXs, and AGM-65s, not AGM-LXVs. The weapons used by the military personnel in the show are M-4s and M-9s, not M-IVs and M-IXs. Please, if you have never served, don't make baseless assumptions based on what you think you "know". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2007 (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)

Deep space carriers... or not?

I know, I changed my mind. They're apparently not. It seems each ship serves a different perpose.

Daedalus : Possibly battlecruiser
Odyssey : Deep Space Carrier
Korolev : Unknown as the Russians ended up with it then it got destroyed
Apollo : Advanced Tactical Deployment

So I'm thinking, should this article just be renamed Daedalus Class or Daedalus class ship then? It says DAEDALUS CLASS on the bottom of the Apollo patch.

Faris b 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just keep them named like the rest of the ships in the series? Just call them Daedalus Class (Stargate) that's more then enough. - 59.167.10.58 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but let's see what everyone else thinks before we go renaming it.

Faris b 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave as-is. I don't know precisely where this Battlecruiser term came from, but it seemed to be agreed upon early in. Similar to regular naval vessels, whilst a particular ship may be performing duties outside of its "normal" role, its core mission and capabilities would remain the same. For example, an Iowa-class battleship, no matter where she sails or what mission she is currently performing, is still a battleship. The Daedalus-class vessels would be no different. Other equipment may be tacked on or personnel and aerospace assets assigned, but they all have a primary mission, and that is Earth defense (yes, even in the Pegasus galaxy :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dillion Everett states the Daedalus as a battlecruiser in The Siege Part Two thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Then, for the reasons stated above, let's leave as-is. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone quotes that phrase all the time, for one, that line was written before the actual ship was shown, and at the time, the only look we had at at the Daedalus was in SG-1's "Moebius" and it looked like the Prometheus, that was changed when season 2 started. Secondly, it seems each ship serves a different perpose. Maybe with this new information only the Daedalus is a battlecruiser, Odyssey is a Deep space carrier and Apollo is an Advanced tactical deployment vessel. This supports the renaming of the page to "Daedalus Class (Stargate)".

Faris b 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That quote is used because it is the only real, spoken descriptor that has been applied to the vessels. Calling them otherwise treads into original research. Like I said above, it doesn't matter if different individuals vessels serve different purposes, they have the same basic capabilities, which is the primary deciding factor. Basically, until something else is spoken in the show, we should not label them as something else. If you'll recall, we basically have been through this already with the "Deep Space Carrier" bit. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

just start a vote already, vote to change or to keep and let the people descide, instead of arguing about it here where noone's mind is going to be made up. - 59.167.30.156 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A vote is not necessary or beneficial since Wikipedia is not a democracy. We are here to state facts, and facts are not determined by mass consensus, even here. What we do have to decide is whether or not we follow policy, and one of those policies is no original research. If the show called it a battlecruiser then that is what we have to call it regardless of what it looks like or acts like. Until something is said in the show to contradict this it is what we have to do regardless of our own personal opinions about the matter. Konman72 14:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "battlecruiser" fits because it also matches the missions which daedelus always serves. it is never seen serving in a fleet with any other ships, and it is almost is never seen with any ships at all. so it clearly does not play a supporting role, and it is really not a "carrier" either as this implies a specialized ship serving mainly to provide fighter support, within a variety of missions. The Daedeklus is mainly designed to curise alone, pure and simple, as the Atalantis base has almost no ships to utilize otherwise. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (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 (UTC)

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)

Patches

I've just noticed that most of the Daedalus and Apollo crew don't have the standard SGC point of origin patch. But they have a different symbol rather than Earth's point of origin. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.33.82 (talk • contribs)

The don't go through the stargate, so I guess it makes sense for them to have a non-stargate logo. I think it is standard for ships in the US Armed Forces to each have their own emblems. --Tango 16:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, But the crew of the Odyssey have the patches with the stargate point of origin logo, and they don't go through the stargate on a regular basis. Also the crew of the Daedalus had the point of origin logo in early season 2 of Atlantis.

It's the Atlantis Point of Origin. Both ships are tasked to the Atlantis expedition and the Pegasus Galaxy, while Odyssey is Milk Way/ Stargate Command based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Way Back (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 December 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)

Phoenix

Apparently, we will be seeing a new Earth ship called the Phoenix in the Atlantis season 4 finale. Pics released from Joseph Mallozzi's blog seem to show a slightly different bridge layout with an Asgard console where the star map normally is. Should it be included somewhere in the article or in another one? Vala M 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until there is something more concrete to go on. Looking through the first page of his blog, I see only one mention of the name and a picture of a bridge layout that is not directly connected to the name. Blogs are generally not considered a citable source...even though he is one of the top guys, things can easily change between now and when the episode actually airs. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you know which day those pictures were from? I want to see what the new ship looks like. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.126.200 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

here (86.159.86.131 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (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)

Apollo & Daedalus - Asgard Weaponry

We already know that the Odyssey is now equiped with Asgard directed energy weapons, it appears from spoliers on the Gateworld site that the Apollo and Daedelus have been equiped with Asgard directed energy weapons. Should this be added to the article now or should it be left out until it can be confirmed (viewed on screen)? --Heruur (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't add material until after an episode airs. Everything is subject to modification for various reasons, and fansites such as Gateworld cannot be used as references. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but material is commonly added to these articles before it airs. Anyway, it was confirmed tonight. Alyeska (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear that it aired finally. My whole apartment complex is without cable television for some time due to a line break...grr. As for material being added, doing so violates Wikipedia policy, the "verifiability" portion. If no episode has aired, it is not confirmed (unless specifically stated by a reliable person or publication...and no, not Gateworld or other fansites). I prefer to follow this policy. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up?

Ok the article is getting kind of long, with many parts not being sourced, and many parts are just covering the story line of an episode and going into alot of detail that isn't necessary, so perhaps a cleanup is in order? Also there is very little on the interior of the ship, things about the different rooms, i have added a list of known rooms on board the various ships, however it require changing, i think we should discuss what infomation is key to the ships and try to cut out the unnecessary over detailed recaps of episodes and focus on what are the most important features onboard, key things that are revealed and what exactly the ships are used there and capable of. (86.159.86.131 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

The ships of the line chunk could be compacted down into a table, with headings for: ship name, ship co(s), episode 1st seen, special features/weapons, assigned base (atlantis or earth), current status. The ship design section could be fleshed out a bit, inc (where appropriate) a photo.--Heruur (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean, the entire ships of the line section? That would be rather extreme in my opinion, given that there is quite a bit more information presented than what would fit in a table. I think that events could be summarized better to make a shorter article, but there's nothing wrong with the length per se. As for photos, we have more than enough. Remember, fair-use photos should be used as sparingly as possible. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 21:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We already had a table for the ships last year, but problems with the format lead to it's removal in the "Ships of the line" section. Go back into the history of early 2007/middle 2006 to see what I mean.

I think that the ship-specific infoboxes should stay as each ship has it's own perpose rather than all ships doing the same thing. Vala M (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at the moment there is loads of details about every single move any of the ships have made, we really don't need all that, people can just read about it in the episode part, all we need is key things that have happened, like the asgard upgrades, horizon weapons, info about different areas of the ships, the captains, so a large (very large ha) table might be the best thing to do, or something along those lines for the actual ships themsleves, but for the actual details of areas on the ships we could have more infomation and pictures. (86.159.86.131 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Tables really should be avoided unless the material cannot be presented any other way. Yes, the material should be pared down (while still presenting an informative overview of the events), but that critical information that you suggest should be tablised is best left in prose format. — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hull mark

The Daedalus has the mark 02, but the Odyssey has the mark 03. And you see that you has seen 02 in the hull of the odyssey, this is because CGI used the same 3d model for two ships, and they forget change the hull mark -Alberto14 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in "Unending" the ship said ODYSSEY 02. Apparently, 02 means the second line of ships built, not the individual ship numbers, so the Odyssey is NOT 03.

See it for yourself: http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s10/1020/html/sg1s10e20%5F0293.html

Vala M (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misquote

After destroying seven ships, the Apollo detects that the 30 remaining ships have If I remember the quote, it's Atlantis that detected the ships not the Apollo Terryrayc (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was Atlantis, using the device the duplicate Keller gave them. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)