Talk:Stargate SG-1/Archive 7

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

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: – sgeureka t•c 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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,
 * 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?
 * 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  undefined | 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. – sgeureka t•c 14:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * [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 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.
 * 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  undefined | 13:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

insignia table
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  undefined | 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)


 * 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 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
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)
 * 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). "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.


 * 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)

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. '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)