Talk:List of Earth starships in Stargate/Archive 1

message: The Daedalus will have a bigger role on Stargate Atlantis than the Prometheus on Stargate SG-1, so I think this separate Daedalus page should be kept and not merged. WayneC
:I concur.  The "story", so to speak, of the ship will certainly develope seperately. -b 03:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: there are three ships, not two. we only saw one get hit and the front blow up.... there is still a possiblity that some of it survived. we dont know for sure... so i say we keep it as 3 current active ships... 206.113.23.187 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 or 3?

message: RJ: The oddyssy is still ok. The russian vessel got destroyed throu the first ori attack. This info is based on the facts which stands on gateworld.net about the 10th season.. but i would prefer to wait until its clear which one was destroyed.
I believe that the Odyssey was destroyed.  Destroying the Korelov means risking the loss of up to three main(ish) characters: Colonel Mitchell, Daniel Jackson and Colonel Chekov.  There weren't any main characters on the Odyssey. RG
Far as I'm aware nothing is known of the Korelev other then it exists.  Has it said that it is a Daedalus class?MarineCorps 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we had the preview of Korelev in the preview of Crusade (SG-1) after this Friday's showing of Arthur'S Mantle (SG-1). Korelev appears to be not a Daedalus class vessel, but a Prometheus class vessel. So I suggest moving Korelev to the Prometheus article. --Will74205 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korelev

message: This article needs to be renamed either Daedalus class battle cruiser or Daedalus (Stargate).
—wwoods 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bizarre. If you watch the scene in the Odyssey 's briefing room in Off the Grid, the screen in the background clearly states: Deep Space Carrier. Since Odyssey and Daedalus seem to be identical, should we rename it Daedalus-class carrier? LD 16:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should rename the article to Daedalus-class Deep Space Carrier according to the what we saw in Off the Grid --Will74205 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Just remember Lowercase second and subsequent words. LD 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: I know it's picky, but the article talks about /plural/ battlecruisers, doesn't it? -Cws125 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It talks about plural battlecruisers, yes, but the title is still supposed to be singular. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." Taking a quick look through :Category:Ship classes, I don't see a single one of them that uses a plural title so singular is also preferred simply based on precedent. I'm moving the article back to singular again. Bryan 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural title 

message: In the interests of verifiability would someone mind pointing to the screenshot that shows the BC-02 hull number? AlistairMcMillan 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that original research?  At least you considered it original research when related to Trek. Alyeska 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not trying to start another argument here, but you left "Screen shot gives the Daedalus a hull number of BC-02" in an edit comment, if that is the souce then you should link to it somewhere so that if someone disputes your edit they can see where you got the number from.  IMHO If the hull number was clearly shown in big clear lettering on screen, if one hundred people could all look at the screenshot and come up with the same number, then it isn't original research.  If however it is blurry and indistinct, and it is likely that different people might see different lettering, then that is original research.  Which is what I've been trying to explain all along on other Talk pages.  Everyone looks at it, comes up with the same result == not original research.  Everyone looks at it, comes up with different results == original research.  AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should remove the "BC-02" reference until someone can supply a screen capture. From all my times watching Stargate, I had never seen any reference of Daedalus as "BC-02". --Will74205 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did anyone end up finding a reference for this particular tidbit, or did it just get lost in the hustle? If there's no source then I'll go ahead and take the registry column out of the table. Bryan 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ill watch season 2 this week and look for it... -Xornok
BC-02 is a combination of things.  The Daedalus has a hull number of 02.  The BC was added in the front using traditional naval naming.  Such as CVN-65.  Ship number 65, CVN type.  The BC part was inferred from the use of established military conventions without being directly seen.  The same as BC-302 was inferred (and just so happened to be correct) before it was confirmed.  Feel free to remove it if you want.  I am starting to think the Deep Space Carrier might be the only real designation we can use.  Technicaly, the ship was called a 302, not a BC-302.  Given Deep Space Carrier, we could be left with DSC-302 and a hull number of DSC-02. Alyeska 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've taken out the BC part, is there a source for the hull numbers? Also, the class as a whole is designated BC-304 (We have a reference for that now. :) so I'm not sure where the "302" bit comes from - the 302 is a fighter craft. Bryan 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Siege pt 3. I've inserted the ref, and removed the citation needed for the column as a whole since it widened it significantly. Anyone know if the hull numbers for Oddessey and Korolev are visible in any of their appearances? It's getting a bit nitpicky even for me, but it'd be nice to complete the set. Bryan 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best place to look for hull numbers on either ship is episode 920.  The problem is we need a real close shot of the hanger area to see.  It required a near shot on the Daedalus to see its hull number.  I don't know that such shots of the other ships exist. Alyeska 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: i didnt see it, then again, i dont have the best quality videos.... btw, where did the 16 f-302 stat come from?-Xornok 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: and the source saying 8 f-302s in 1 hanger bay? just want to clear it up, someone might bring it up... eventually... -Xornok 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: well, we clearly see 6, as two on the right are not in camera view, but it would equal 8... so, should we cite that? -Xornok 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now now, assume good faith. I just broke out my copy and had a look, and the only time I saw it was really brief and tiny in the moment when it's visible. I saw it at the 26:00 mark (the timecode will probably be a little different when the DVD comes out); right after Daedalus takes a bunch of damage to one of its shields and is trying to maneuver to hide it. There's an external camera shot that sweeps forward along the ship and white text that appears to read "DAEDALUS· 02" in the middle of the upper sloped face of the left engine nacelle. It's only there for a few seconds and it's barely large enough for me to consider it useful evidence. The resolution of my copy is only 640 by 352 pixels so the DVD release should help clarify this matter. Bryan 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, he is right it says Daeadalus 02. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC-02 

message: "The Prometheus general design is that of a battlecruiser, a defensive/offensive craft designed to provide fire support in a space combat situation, trading shots with Goa'uld spacecraft. The Daedelus, however, is designed more as a multi-role carrier/battlecruiser, carrying 16 F-302 space-fighters as well as the capability for over 400 soldiers. While it is a carrier structure it is capable of standing up to multiple Wraith Hive Ships or Goa'uld motherships." —Where, pray tell, did THIS come from? I've never heard it anywhere on the show. LD 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which episodes do these facts appear in? These could use some specific cites. Bryan 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes the episode reference would be useful. But then that's a sublight speed. They have hyperdrive for FTL travel. And, that's the Prometheus, which shares very little technology with the Daedalus (Asgard and Goa'uld technology).Jordan.Kreiger 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode I believe was season 6 Memento.  It was the episode that the reactor goes critical and they were stranded on another planet for a time.  Same episode was the "charging main weapon" piece comes from. Alyeska 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship in that episode was Prometheus, not Daedalus. Daedalus didn't even exist yet, it was first mentioned two years after that. Is there any reason to believe the two ships have the same maximum speed? (Not that "maximum speed" is a particularly realistic statistic for a spacecraft, of course, but alas that's modern science fiction for you :) Bryan 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a different ship, but the speeds are almost certainly comparable.  We already know the hyperspace speeds were comparable. Alyeska 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a rather big assumption considering how different they were in other areas of construction and capability. Lacking any source I think it's best to take this out for now. How about those other stats? Bryan 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We made the leap and used both Prometheus and Daedalus information for the Hyperdrives.  The top speed should be similar for both.  As to the other stats, no clue where they came from. Alyeska 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any information about hyperdrive speed in either article, and even if they do have the same hyperdrive speed I don't see how this would imply similar sublight speeds - the FTL and STL drives are separate mechanisms operating on very different principles. I don't see these leaps as being warranted. Bryan 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I remembered the discussion, but didn't remember Prometheus coming into the matter since 18 and 20 days are both "approximately 3 weeks" anyway. As for the sublight drives, that's just not how physics works (hence my earlier grumbling about modern science fiction). There's no such thing as a "top speed" in space. And in any event, human technology has been advancing very rapidly in the Stargate universe and the two ships are designed for different roles so they might indeed have very different drive systems even though they were both built by the same contractor. A Yorktown class aircraft carrier and a Bagley class destroyer have different speeds despite being built around the same time and by the same country. Bryan 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And top speed in slower-than-light travel using ion drives and inertial dampers is far different from faster-than-light travel using Asgard hyperdrive, wouldn't you think? :) The point of bringing those two ocean-going ships up was simply to disprove the statement that the top speed of one ship design should be the same as the top speed of a different ship design simply because they're built using the same engineering principles. It looks to me at this point that there is simply no source to indicate what the Daedalus' sublight capabilities really are, and so it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to just make up some number like this. I'm taking it out. Bryan 15:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. So we've established that the sublight speed is iffy. However, doing some elementary calculations from material presented on the show, I determined that the Daedalus must travel somewhere in the neighborhood of 73,000,000 times faster than light to reach Atlantis in twenty days. Maybe we can add this. Also, I think the mass of the vessel is a number pretty much pulled out of thin air. All ten of the Nimitz-class carriers add up to around one million tons, yet this vessel by itself weighs forty times a Nimitz-class. That sounds rather strange in retrospect. Concur or disagree?Jordan.Kreiger 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where on Earth did you get these stats from? 

message: You moved the page without consultation.  That was uncalled for.  While the designation is true, we also know that the Daedalus has a hull number of BC-02.  Take a wild guess what the BC stands for. Alyeska 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we had discussed this Talk:Daedalus-class battlecruiser#Article name. And since no one else responded (including you) I just go ahead with the article move. Also, the BC-02 designation is not verifiable, as noted in the discussion. --Will74205 09:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: hmmm.....so what do we do about the "deep space carrier" info in "Off the Grid"? --Will74205 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a battleship with the ability to perform carrier duties and go into deep space, but it's still a battleship. Add a note about it being a Carrier if you all think its necessary, but the specifications are clearly laid out, i dont think any further claficiation is needed - 59.167.38.77 12:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I don't know about the BCS convention since there is no S, but if it is called battlecruiser in the show, then I say we at least mention Deep Space Carrier in the article. - Rudykog 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "...is the preferred designation of the creators of Stargate."  Let me say, once again, that there is often a huge gap between the producers/creators of the show and the graphics department, which is usually outsourced to another company entirely.  Those art departments make mistakes (such as the early schematics of the Daedalus class, which look very little like the on-screen model), and thus take a factual back seat when other information is specifically stated in the script; in this case, Battlecruiser, which has been in spoken dialogue more than once.  Please see below to the Vote/Discussion for an expanded explanation. -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: You know what?  Lets leave ALL spoilers out of the articles until they have actualy aired onscreen or been shown in an offical teaser/trailer by the franchise owners.  For all we know, the information on the Oddessy and Korelev could change before the next season airs. Alyeska 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoilers

message: Kvasir is not the engeneer for the Odyssey. You can clearely see in Camelot that he has his own Jack O'Neill-class vessel. Further more, in Allies, the season finaley for Atlantis, McKay ironically states that Hermi is not that important on the Deadalus and was probably put there for the Humans to Get used to controlling the advanced Asgard Sensors. And another thing, not related, it seems farfetched that in one week, the russians were able to construct a Deadalus class ship. in that rate, Humans could have an armada in a couple of months. And another thing, in Camelot, on the main viewer, the vessel seems more like a BC-303 but when it exits hyperspace you can clearely see that it is a deadalus class. Oh and the prometheus could cary 8 F-302s
The russians didnt build their BC-304, the Americans gave them it. They said that the ship wasn't going to be finished for another 12 months in Crusade, when Daniel and Landry were discussing the deal, in Camelot, Colonel Emmerson explained that they rushed the ship into service. Korolev was an incomplete BC-304, under Russian control. - 59.167.11.69 09:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kvasir 

message: Why have you modefied my correction of the table of the ship list. It was accurate according to Gateworld spoilers for the first episode of the tenth season of Stargate SG-1?
Why have you not read the discussion page and noted the little bit asking people to stop posting spoilers?  Just because Gateworld reported it doesn't make it fact.  It can change before aired, and there are people who avoid spoilers. Alyeska 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: (PLEASE DONT READ THIS IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE SPOILED)
Gateworld has already said for the spoilers for season 10 that the russian ship was destroyed because in the first episode if you go to gateworld and read "flesh and blood" it says the Oddy is looking for people who where still alive from the russian ship. The Oddy is also suppose to be in a fight with the lucian alliance in the first episode so I didnt want to change it untill some of you read this and saw for yourself and since im new to the Stargate Wiki community I figured it talk about it here first :)
Yes it does say that but it could wrong.  At the end of season 9 the LA were fighting alongside us yet in the first episode of season 10 we are fighting them.  So I would't take the spoliers for granted.MarineCorps 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if it can be cited from other reliable sources (interviews, Gateworld, etc.) then there shouldn't be a problem with including it. The key is to ensure that information is cited, not just that it's "canon". Bryan 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 10 ALREADY SAID 

message: In the episode "Off the Grid" the plaque behind Col. Emerson said USS Odyssey Deep Space Carrier. So, would it be more fitting to call the Daedalus class line of ships Deep space carriers instead of battlecruisers?Tegalans 20:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: do you have a timecode for that? id like to check it out. if true, then yeah, i guess it would be more fitting to call them Deep Space Carriers. Xornok 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As Xornok has corrected one of my (premature) modifications to this page, I hope this helps him and other SG scholars alike: In episode 190 - "Off The Grid", the scene begins at timecode 22:32 (min:sec), the animated video-plaque is first visible at 22:35, which reads "U.S.S. Odyssey" in white block @ top, where it shows the Odyssey's profile rotating every ~5.5 seconds CW about it's origin's y-axis @ centre.  The blue text @ bottom is legible from 22:47, with the lower half of the plaque reading "PB3865 - DEEP SPACE CARRIER" at 23:04.  This can also be read in full as the plaque's negative is the (still-)image printed on the patch sewn-on below the right-half colar of the front of the "U.S.S. Odyssey" uniform, best viewable at 23:20. Anonymous 03:39, 06 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been sometime since a merge was called for, as there was no objection i have merged some data from the DSC article and setup a redirect to this article and removed the merge tags. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Space Carrier? 

message: Speaking as the person who initially crusaded against the changing of the Korolev's status to destroyed based one one spoiler, i think there is now sufficient information to say the Korolev was destroyed in action, both Major Marks and Colonel Emmerson appear to be in at least 4 episodes this season, not including the opening two parter. Perhaps it's time we remove update hte status to reflect this, or at least, remove the speculative comments from the spoilers and leave them as pure spoilers.
My initial comment about Season 10 was that it only had a 12 month old spoiler for the opening of season 10 with a throwaway line about the Odyssey facing down the Lucian Alliance. Now if you read recent reviews posted, after production has been finished, we see that Emmerson and the Odyssey take a much larger role in the episodes that follow. Obviously showing that Odyssey wasn't destroyed with sufficient evidence to prove it. - 59.167.33.205 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: go ahead, change it... at least you put something on the talk page about it... plus, its too much trouble to keep reverting nearly every other day -Xornok 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korolev's Fate

message: Ok. I couldn't find any reference to a second battle at P3Y-299 so why is it referred to as the first battle? I checked Gateworld and such and found nothing. Why not just call it "The battle of P3Y-229"?
Also, I am in favor of changing the page name from Daedalus class battlecruiser to Daedalus class Carrier as it is NOT a battlecruiser but a carrier, the USS Odyssey patch says "Deep Space Carrier" on it and since it's identical to the Daedalus, I'd say all of them a DSC's. What ever happend to this issue?
Faris,
Because, for all we know, there's going to be another battle at P3Y-229. It makes sense to leave the comment as specific as possible until we know for sure. Dont forget the Odyseey and Lucian Alliance ships survived the battle. AND the Orii Supergate isnt going anywhere... -59.167.19.238 00:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it should be the other way around. During World War I do you think they called it World War I? No, they called it the Great War or World War, then when WWII happened they renamed it, so for now it should be called the "Battle of P3Y-229" and then if another major battle happens we go back and change it to the "First Battle of P3Y-229". If we went with your naming requirements then all wars, conflicts and battles in fiction and the real world would have to be called the "First" because there could be another battle or war in that location some time in the distant future. I'm changing it to "Battle of P3Y-229" and unless a good reason can be given, or another battle happens, it should stay the same. Konman72 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "FIRST" battle of P3Y-229? 

message: Please see Template_talk:Spoiler#CSS_class_good_solution_to_complaints. Armedblowfish 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding an alternate means to hide the text would cause the exact same trouble - it's the hiding of text itself that's the problem. This silly argument's been going on for months now, how about we start an RfC or something? Bryan 02:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Or you could go and discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Armedblowfish 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are implying that Alyeska is guilty of vandalism, I would have to strongly disagree. It is only vandalism when someone intentionally wants to reduce the quality of Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case, as Alyeska, though he or she disagrees about the best way to do it, does care about the quality of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Vand. Armedblowfish 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please try to assume good faith.  AP1776 wasn't saying he thought Alyeska was vandalising this page. AlistairMcMillan 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about Alyeska's unkind comments in the edit summaries towards you. Not that it was really my fault, seeing as I'm not Alyeska's sock puppet. (See my edit history to confirm this.) But everyone is getting emotional right now. I had hoped to help people to assume good faith by pointing out that no one (including Alyeska) is actually guilty of vandalism in this situation. Armedblowfish 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize if my above comments were viewed as calling Alyeska a vandal.  If you took it that way, I am deeply sorry.  I was merely pointing out that you must follow all policy, not just pick and choose which ones you want to.  Once again, I'm sorry if those comments were taken the wrong way. American Patriot 1776 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's alright. Hopefully Alyeska will agree. I actually agree with you that Wikipedia consensus, at present time, is against white-texting spoilers, but I don't want Alyeska to feel unwanted. Armedblowfish 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also chip in at this point with an apology for my recent edit summary which said that the repeated removal of the information was "starting to edge into vandalism territory." I still think it's wrong to be removing this tidbit, but not all wrong things are vandalism and I shouldn't have bandied the term around so freely. Bryan 19:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mayhaps the page should be protected. I think the 3 revert rule may have accidentally been broken by more than one person. Just to give people time to reach a nice, happy consensus without further edit warring. Armedblowfish 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't. In text-only browser like Lynx, the colors specified by the website will be ignored. Many other browsers also have customizable colors that can override the colors chosen by the source code. In fact, W3C recommends that, "If you pick one color, pick them all." Armedblowfish 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: actually, i like they way you reworded that and switched some of the stuff around. it seems fine to me now. its saying there is a possiblity it was the korolev, where as it used to say it was the korolev... -Xornok 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I didn't think my edit changed the meaning much, I just wanted to get that italicized parenthetical "note:" line out since IMO it looked inelegant, but if it helps find a compromise on a dispute then I guess yay me. :) Bryan 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well, to me, it seemed the entire article read "we do not know which ship was destroyed" and that thing at the bottom in italic, then that spoiler said "oh, wait, we do know" and it just kinda went against the rest of the article. now it says "well, we dont know for sure, but a reliable source says this, but still, dont write it in stone yet"... i dont know, maybe its just me, i tend to be weird like that -Xornok 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning

message: Has the dispute of white on white text been resolved? It's quite clearly not acceptable on WP:SPOILER. If so, please remove from RfC. Thanks. Tyrenius 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been stable for a couple of days now, but the underlying argument's been going on for months so I guess all we can do is hope. :) Bryan 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Daedalus-class vessels, at least the Daedalus, are armed with weapons that Caldwell has called 'Mark Eight Tacticals'. (Ref: SGA Siege Part III) Why is this marked as Mark VI here? Jordan.Kreiger 04:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've corrected it.  Both sources cited clearly say mark 8. --Tango 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weapons

message: Perhaps it would be best to remove that column from the ship chart, and thus stop the reverts that have been going on for some time now.  Hermiod is the only Asgard known to be attached to a particular ship; has it been stated that each ship carries an Asgard engineer, or might the Daedalus be an isolated incident?  If so, then this column is extraneous. ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it.  Someone added Kasvir again, so I got rid of the whole column. --Tango 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice addition, though correct me if I'm wrong in that the Asgard engineer also was responsible for assisting the Tauri in learning to use the advanced Asgard sensor systems as well....  -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Believe it? Oh yeah...new folks here tend to operate on autopilot, not thinking things through when they make edits.  That's why it's so important to have a large number of experienced users who know what to look for, so they can correct those mistakes.  Thankfully, the new users add a large amount of very useful material as well...tis one reason why anon edits haven't been banned ;)  -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asgard Engineer 

message: Ok, I'm sure we all remember how a lot of people were going on and on about how it was the Korolev that survived because key people were onboard and the Odyssey was destroyed because no one in a pivotal role was on it.
Ok, no offense to anyone but..
HOW COULD ANYONE THINK THAT? One look at the track record of the Russians and you'll see that their things are destroyed, their teams are all killed usually how could anyone think they'd get to keep a ship on this show? Obviously, their first (and most likely the only) ship will surely be destroyed. We all know how the SG-1 team has more lives than a cat and combined with the fact that the Russians always get screwed on the show, how could anyone think they'd get to keep the only ship in the Milky Way galaxy?
Anyone have any thoughts on how people came to this conclusion? I knew immediately it was the Odyssey that survived (not because I read the spoilers) but because I knew what happens with the Russians on Stargate.
Faris b 07:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prehaps some of us aren't so cynical. (Although, I certainly am, and still didn't spot that, so maybe I'm just an incompetant cynic...) ;) --Tango 11:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this issue was more an argument for argument's sake.  It is an American TV show, so of course if a choice had to be made between a US or Russian (or other) team, the US is almost always going to come out on top.  Doesn't make it right, but you have to appease your demographic :)  ···Q Huntster (T) • @ • (C) 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odyssey vs. Korolev thing 

message: I saw under the history section of the Daedalus, that with the ZPM, it's speed was 1215 LY per min. Where did this figure come from? That would mean that Pegasus is 7 million LY from the Milky Way. Has this been stated somewhere?
Faris b 04:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pegasus distance and speed 

message: Ok I think I found an accurate way to get the true size of the Daedalus.
http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/zocalo/sga_2x06/sga-2x06-449.jpg
That pic shows a few blue rectangles which appear to be windows at the bow (front) of the ship and there are people visible (average height is around 5'8" or so), so using this, I managed to get 118 ft or 35 m for the front of the Daedalus's height, the back end of the ship is bigger but I haven't worked on that yet. Can this be used as a serious way to measure the Daedalus's size? I can also work it to work for length as well? Because I don't want to do all this work and then have it be reverted. If anyone else wants to work on this as well, they may do so.
Faris b 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fantastic picture, but is it official?  I've never seen it before.  Also, while those shadowy things in the windows may be people, they may just as easily be fixed equipment inside the ship.  So I do not think it would be wise to use this image as a size reference until something can be proven.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe so as it is copyrighted to MGM. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would almost certainly count as original research.  It's very good research, but unless it is published somewhere else first, we can't use it here. --Tango 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Better to have no data in this case than unverified and possibly false data.  I say just put "Unk" or something in place of the figures.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daedalus specs 

message: Okay, someone please confirm whether or not a dash is permitted between Name and class, aka, is it Daedalus-class or Daedalus class?  I'm seeing it both ways, and haven't noticed a concensus on this issue when there should be one.  Based on the whole of the 'pedia, it looks like not is the verdict, but, thoughts?  -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with no hyphen unless someone can find it written with a hyphen somewhere official (transcripts of things official people have said don't count - it needs to have been typed by someone official). --Tango 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vessel class text formatting 

message: I heard that there will be more Deep space carriers in service later on in season 10, is that true?
Also, why aren't other countries building their own ships? They supposedly got the plans for at least something like the Prometheus as stated in season 6.
Faris b 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More ships 

message: I know the Asgard have a policy of not putting any weapons on any Earth ships but why not retrofit something from an Al'kesh or Ha'tak, surely they could have gotten their hands on one of the Ha'taks after the battle with the replicators or at least have a team study their design or something like that, why not ask the Free Jaffa Nation to let a team study the weapons on a Ha'tak, it obviously woudln't risk their security because they have way more ships than Earth probably ever will and the fact that Earth wouldn't dream of attacking them like that, they have no problem letting SG personnel onboard them if need be so why not?
I'm tired of this, why are the writers are afraid to make Earth ships too powerful or at least more effective than targets with great shields? The missiles are limited and the railguns, while they do pass thru shields (this WAS stated because of the fact that they travel at Mach 5, the same reason that SG-1 could run thru shields in "Upgrades"), they aren't very effective unless you hit something like a fighter bay
Or is it a power thing? Like the reason that the Asgard hyperdrive and shields are only being powered at 25% of their max output? I got these figures from the Daedalus taking 4 days to get from Earth to Atlantis with the ZPM which can give full power and it taking 18 (YES, I am one of those who think it's 18 not 20 days) to travel from Earth to Atlantis which is just a little over 4x the amount of time it takes to go without the ZPM and the same reason the shields give out so easily under constant fire. So I guess weapons fire would do little good at 25% yield? But didn't they say in "There But For The Grace Of God" that the weapons of a Ha'tak are as powerful as 200 Megaton warheads? So at 25% that would be 50 Megatons so I don't see power being a problem especially because the Goa'uld systems use Naqahdah generators but Asgard systems use Neutrino Ion generators (Mentioned in "Nemesis").
Faris b 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy weapon dillema 

message: So which is it in the image for the Battle of P3Y-229? The Korolev or the Odyssey? I always thought it was the Odyssey. Can anyone comfirm the ship positions?
Faris b 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the Odyssey; The Korolev was on the right to the Asgard vessel and the Korolev was still on the right when the weapon hit the Odyssey. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korolev or Odyssey in image?