Talk:Stargate Program

Untitled
The depertment of Homeworld security is not apart of the SGC and the SGC is in fact apart of it.

SGC History
This section has some errors. First of all, the Stargate was successfully reactivated in 1945 ("Torment of Tantalus") but after the "death" of Ernest Littlefield, the project was abandoned. Second of all, in the movie, the Stargate is located in Creek Mountain, not Cheyenne Mountain. There is the possibility that they are one and the same and that the change is another inconsistency, but I have always considered it to be two different locations. One could cite as proof the line of dialogue spoken by O'Neill in "Children of the Gods", when he mentions to the guard he has "been here before", although that does not necessarily mean it is the same facility. I'd like others' opinions about this before I make any changes.

Cereal Killer 01:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed the gate was moved from Creek Mountain to Cheyenne Mountain between The Movie and SG-1. I added that the gate had been tested in the '40s, and that it had been in Washington DC (where it was at least when SG-1 got sent back to the 60s). Maybe presumption on my part, but I felt it required.

--Traegorn 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iris and the Kawoosh
I was always under the impression that the iris was closed AFTER the kawoosh, because it *Couldn't* Prevent it. If they could leave the iris closed, they would probably just leave it closed ALL OF THE TIME. The only time we don't see the iris close is when the scene enters AFTER the wormhole has opened.

Traegorn 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The iris prevents any matter from reforming through the iris because there is not enough space, therefore, it is impossible for the iris to form when there are less than 3 micrometers in space between the event horizon and the iris. So, it is impossible for the kawoosh because there's not enough space to actually become the kawoosh, and is just an energy signature that CAN be deflected.

Sorani172 7:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Kawoosh is not formed of Matter though - it is the wormhole forming itself, and while it can't form if it is interrupted (hence buried stargates not working), it has been repeatedly shown that a forming wormhole vaporizes matter. The Iris sits on the edge of the wormhole, not inside it, so it vaporizes reforming matter - not the wormhole itself. Therefore one must assume that the wormhole kawoosh would vaporize, or at least eject an iris. My question is why the claim was made in the first place in this article - is there an Episode where it is directly stated that the Iris can stop a wormhole formation (which the kawoosh is a part of) or that a wormhole can form WITHOUT a kawoosh (which would be required if the iris could stop a kawoosh without stopping a wormhole)? I honestly can't recall one - but am perfectly willing to concede without objection if a reference can be found. Traegorn 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I've seen the SGC's Stargate form a wormhole with the Iris closed but can't remember a particular episode to cite offhand. Instead, how about this: A Hundred Days (Stargate SG-1). In that episode a Stargate is buried by a meteor strike while active and a "natural iris" is formed by the debris covering it. SGC subsequently opens a new wormhole and sends a MALP through but the MALP is destroyed - the wormhole formed but the natural iris was not damaged by the kawoosh, and it wasn't even made of a tough material like the trinium/titanium alloy of the SGC's iris. It's only after they duplicate Sokar's trick with the high-energy particle beam to melt the natural iris that a kawoosh is able to dig out a cavity for travellers to arrive in. Bryan 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected - thanks. The Iris can stop the kawoosh, but not the wormhole. While it doesn't exactly make sense, if that's the way it works in the show, that's the way it works.  If being a science fiction fan has taught me anything over the years, it's consistancy is better than logic.  This is why I asked on the Talk page though, instead of changing the article - I just wasn't sure. Traegorn 16:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Literally just watched an episode where this behaviour occured. Man, it makes no sense, but yeah - the Iris DOES supress a kawoosh. Traegorn 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the Iris portion of this article redundant with the information in the Iris (Stargate) article? Do we really need this twice? Traegorn 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Stargate was designed by the Ancients, and as seen in Atlantis, they did know how to use an "iris" (shield). The gate obviously contains a rather powerful computer, helping to regulate the formation of wormholes and event horizons. The kawoosh is composed of excess energy from this process, possibly partly by design, to clear the area immediately in front of the gate to receive travelers, maybe from fallen trees, etc. without this, you might exit, only to have your chest crushed or impaled by a branch, while the rest of you is pushed forward with considerable force. Since the gate can tell if it is buried, keep local atmosphere (or water if submerged) from entering the wormhole. It is thus not hard to imagine that the Ancients enabled these sensors to detect an artificial device, like a gate shield (either force field, metal surface, or something else) covering the entire gate, and then maybe keep the power used for creating the event horizon to a minimum. This would be able to tell if an apparent shield is made of loose dirt and rocks, and ignore it in the case of a gate being horizontal (face down), destroying anything within reach. Edgjerp 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold out your hand and have a friend punch it. Now hold out your hand and have that same friend place his hand right next to yours and punch again. The second time probably didn't even hurt and you could probably stop his fist from moving much easier. Same principle here. The iris is so strong and close to the event horizon that when the kawoosh occurs it doesn't even get up momentum and just splashes. Konman72 08:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Verification?
What would be nice is if people would list what needs to be verified on the talk page before putting the flag up - as I would like to know what hasn't been verified? Traegorn 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty much everything. For an article with four sections and 7 subsections, two external links is insufficient. (And I added those two external links before putting the flag up.) Inline references are easy to add and use. It's not that I think anything in the article is inaccurate - just that it needs to be proven with references. (Reviews, interviews, scripts, plot summaries....) Armedblowfish 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are confused because you think wikilinking to another article is sufficient. If that is the case, then I am sorry, but we cannot cite ourselves. The article should be verfiable by itself without the help of other wikipedia articles, which may be unverified themselves. See WP:Verify. Armedblowfish 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing_sources specifically states this. Armedblowfish 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of what qualifies as citing sources is disputed. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stargate to join the discussion. Armedblowfish 02:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Stargateproject
Please manually move the above banner to the top of the page.

This banner has been added to aid project coordination. It was added using AWB, the automation of which could not place the banner at the top; please help by doing this manually. --Albotim 02:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved. Traegorn 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'Real' SGC
I was watching a special on the science of Stargate SG-1 and at the end of the special there was a brief piece of information from creator Jonathan Glassner. He said at the real Cheyenne Mountain Complex there's a door labelled SGC. He said that it had four locks, blackened glass and that it was a broom closet - but as a joke they labelled it SGC for the show. I'm thinking this might make good trivia for this article. Abrynkus 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned in the Cheyenne Mountain article. Feel free to add it to this article as well, if you like. However, it should go in the main article somewhere, rather than as trivia at the bottom - trivia sections should be avoided where possible. --Tango 13:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Area 52
I added a note about the SGC being Area 52, which was mentioned in one or more of the episodes of SG1, I'm hoping the revert of this correct information was due to poor placement rather than overzealous editting. - Quolnok 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was it called Area 52? JBK405 19:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted it because I've never heard it before and I have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Stargate. It's set in a real military complex and I checked the article on the real Cheyenne Mountain Complex before reverting and it doesn't mention "area 52". If you can tell me an episode that mentions it, I'll have no problem with the information going back in. --Tango 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After further research, I have found that it is mentioned in "Politics". I'll go and put the mention back with a citation. --Tango 23:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Where in Politics? (I'm not questioning, just curious, as I don't really want to watch the whole episode to wait for a single line) JBK405 14:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right near the beginning when Hammond and Samuels tell SG-1 about the hearing. --Tango 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you know, I can't believe I missed that. Just goes to show, you never can know everything. JBK405 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought something much the same when I found it in the transcript. Just as no encyclopaedia is entirely comprehensive, my encyclopaedic knowledge does have its gaps. Who would have thought it? ;) --Tango 16:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheyenne Mt base.jpg
Image:Cheyenne Mt base.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us _ 229  20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Politics (Stargate SG-1).jpg
Image:Politics (Stargate SG-1).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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate command within.jpg
Image:Stargate command within.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StargateIris.jpg
Image:StargateIris.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sg1stargateside.jpg
Image:Sg1stargateside.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cheyenne Mt close.jpg
Image:Cheyenne Mt close.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alpha site.
The alpha site is first mentioned in season 1, episode 20, there but for the grace of god, not in season 2, as stated in the article. The mention occurs when the SGC is being evacuated in an alternate reality experienced by ol' Danny Jackson. It may have even been mentioned before this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.39.246 (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

civilians
"A very few select civilians such as Martin Lloyd and Jeannie Miller are also aware of the existence of the Program." other citizens are joe citizen guy, jacob carter, dr. weirs husband, the guy who played maxwell shetfield in the nanny, the news reporter from the prometheus episode, sams boyfriend, jacks exwife, daniel's mentor lady and her husband ernest, etc. also martin lloyd is an alien Also, Jacob Carter was in the military —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.13.128 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that list you have mentioned is still very few in number. I see no reason to add more names.  [SCΛRECROW] CrossCom 2.0 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I kept the list at two names but took off Martin I felt him being an alien he isn't realy a regular 'civilian' and added Pete S. Xiahou (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeworld Security
Has the name "Department of Homeworld Security" ever been mentioned explicitly onscreen? Hammond mentions in "Lost City" that "a new government department" will be formed, and in New Order Weir mentions an organization which is unofficially called "Homeworld Security". Unless there is direct confirmation of this name I believe it constitutes synthesis, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy, in No original research. Unless this "Department of Homeworld Security" is in fact canon, it would be contrary to how U.S. Government agencies in the real-world are organized. It would be more likely that this "new department" is an agency or office within either the Executive Office of the President of the United States or under the U.S. Department of Defense, rather than an executive department itself, which would be totally pointless since it would require legislation (not executive action) for its establishment. Furthermore, Homeworld Command may or may not be the same entity.RicJac (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Embarkation Room"
"while the Embarkation Room (commonly known as the Gate Room) with the Stargate and an elevated Control Room are at level 28." I'm not going to slap a citation needed sticker on that, because it's honestly a nitpick, but I seem to remember that it was called the Gate Room by all personnel in the SGC, and was only called the Embarkation Room once by a tour guide in "2010" (which made all the SG-1 members internally groan). I'm not going to switch it back, because just doing that would probably result in an edit war, but I would like someone to explain the rationale behind calling it that, or have someone confirm that it wasn't actually called that ever, or something.

Like I said, I'm aware it's a nitpick. lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 03:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)