Talk:List of Earth starships in Stargate/Archive 2

message: Has anyone noticed that the general design of the ship is similar to that of a Battlestar from Battlestar Galactica? I mean it has flight pods either side of the ship and as a large command module at the front. It also makes use of projectile weaponry and nukes much like the new series of BSG. In my opinion the producers should have stuck with the Prometheus design and just added to it. The Daedalus just feels like a rip-off quite frankly.
:The only similarity is in the hangar bays on either side of the ship. The rest of Deadelus' shape is fairly different from that of Galactica's (it's also alot smaller). As the majority here also point out, Deadelus' primary defence is not her fighters and unlike the Galactica, is completley capable of destroying ships many times her size without using her fighters. So the ships and their combat abilities are actually quite different, and you are looking for debate. No Way Back 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Design to a Battlestar? 

message: why is the same picture used twice but is called the daedalus in one and the odyssey in the other? -Xornok 23:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that picture of the Daedalus in ep. 8 (SGA) when Daedalus was over Earth and about to leave for Atlantis, fariusb insists overwise. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  same picture, 2 ships 

message: Currently the weapons section links to the Rail Gun article, which makes sense, but there's also a Railguns in science fiction article that includes a section specifically on Stargate.  Should we switch the link to the article, or leave it to the generic Rail Gun page? JBK405 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deha Vu, :-P thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rail Guns

message: On the main Daedalus page the Gateworld web-site is listed as a source for the classifying the Odyssey as a "PB3865 Deep Space Carrier", but is Gateworld a "legal" source?  How official is its information?  I'm not contradicting its info, but simply curious as to whether another source needs to be found. JBK405 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gateworld an acceptable source?

message: That is and isn't an O'Neill class.  Its the same model, but its size is horribly mixed up.  When the Prometheus encountered an O'Neill, it was dwarfed.  In this episode, the O'Neill was the same size as the Daedalus class ships. Alyeska 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you tell relative sizes without any way to tell distance? The battle was in space, there were no landmarks. Anyway, when did the Prometheus meet an O'Neill Class? --Tango 11:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I take that last bit back, it appears the ship in "Prometheus" was O'Neill class, I had my timings confused. --Tango 11:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a reference for that? A link to an interview, or something? It would be useful information to include in the article. --Tango 22:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was on gateworld a while ago, troll through their news, you should run into it eventually. Something to do with interviews regarding CAmelot and Flesh & Blood. - 59.167.26.44 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Neill class

message: why is the apollo listed as a 304? there is no evidence suggesting that it too will be a 304. until more information is released, i think we should take it off the list... -Xornok 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to agree - the only information we have is a short spoiler about an episode that won't be aired (or even filmed) for months. It's not very reliable. --Tango 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only information on Apollo is that it's a new battleship, we dont know that means a 304, for all we know, it could be a 303 or a 305 specifically outfitted to kick the Asuran's asses. It should not be on the 304 page. - 59.167.26.44 08:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the USAF is following naval standards (quite possible given the previous ships have been called Battlecruisers or Carriers), the new ship could also be the 307 (304 is Daedalus, 305 is Oddessey, and 306 being the Korelov).  When you get down to it, the Apollo is unknown.  However, there is a solution.  We can create a new page called Tauri ships.  This page can go into some detail about each SG ship.  That would let us prune this page of some information (it doesn't have to go into detail about every ship of the class).  Tauri ships would spend more time talking about the history of the ship then the technical specifications. Alyeska 17:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alyeska, where did you get that the 304 is Daedalus, 305 is Odyssey, and so forth? If i remember Flesh and Blood, Landry tells Woolsey that the Ori ships cut through two 304s (meaning the Odyssey and Korolev). You're confusing hull codes and hull numbers. Jordan.Kreiger 21:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I am using traditional US Navy naming conventions.  The class of ship is designated by both the first ship of the class and its hull number.  An example of the 688 Los Angeles class submarines.  They are known as both LA and 688.  The Los Angeles was hull number 688, and yet the entire series of boats is often called 688 even when the newer ships are actualy higher in number.  The Sea Wolf class wasn't 689, it was a much higher number because it followed the previous 688 boats.  If the Tauri ships are following a traditional naming and designation, the Apollo is going to be 307 since we already have 304-306. Alyeska 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think its American? I mean come on if it stands a cat in hells chance of taking on Asurans its likely British :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've stated it multiple times, Apollo should not be mentioned anywhere in this article. It is complete speculation that it will be a 304, and until the ship is shown on screen it shouldn't even be mentioned at all. Now, I am about 90% sure it will be a 304, but until that is shown on screen we need to wait. Konman72 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So we present false information because there is no place to present correct information? THAT is BS reasoning. And I see 4 people who definitively say that the Apollo should not be presented in this article, whether they phrase it as "304 page" or "this article." CovenantD 23:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I right in saying that the only information we have about this ship is what is in a single spoiler? Spoilers have been known to be wrong, or plots change prior to airing - we shouldn't be writing multiple paragraphs about a ship that may not even exist. A single sentence mentioning the ship is plenty - "A spoiler has been released describing a new ship called the Apollo, commanded by [whoever it is]. No other details of the ship are known at this time, including its class." (Ok, so that's two sentences, nevermind). --Tango 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You seem to think that we must include the information just because it is out there. That is wrong. There should be no mentioning of Apollo for the many reasons stated. Until it is seen on screen anything about it is subject to change (including its very existance). Just wait the few months it takes for the episode to air and then slap it wherever you want to. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the information is not a present thing then it is not to be included. If we include the fact that a new ship is coming then we will need to also mention that at any time, in any episode, a new ship could be revealed. This is why there is a policy against crystal balling. This isn't about false or true information, it is about what should or should not be included in an encyclopedia entry. And speculative information based on spoilers that have shown their fallibility should not be included. Konman72 03:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  speculation on apollo 

message: There, I've created First Strike (Atlantis) with a copy of the "Apollo" section from here. If it does turn out to be a Daedalus class ship the information can be easily copied back here when confirmation shows up, and until then it can be edited and expanded freely over there. Solution for everyone, hopefully? Bryan 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That takes it out of the realm of speculation, which is what policy and common sense dictate. CovenantD 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. Works for me! (Personal note: Sorry if I came off harsh or like an ass, the internet does not carry tone of voice very well. I was not angry or upset in any way, and if I upset anyone then I am sorry) Konman72 08:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're making the assumption that we were aware of it. With over 1.4 million articles on Wikipedia it's impossible to know about all of them. CovenantD 17:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I've got this particular article watchlisted because it's historically attracted a lot of speculative edits and original research, I don't have the Aurora class article watchlisted. I do now, and I agree that the Tria may have the same problem over there too (though not as much as Apollo, Tria was "said by Dr. McKay to possibly be Aurora class" so at least there's some evidence to work with). But far be it for me to spread a lame edit war to other articles, so I think I'll wait until this situation is resolved before taking that one up myself. If my attempt at resolving it by putting the information in the "First Strike" article hasn't worked, all I can think of doing next is starting an RfC to see if anyone else has ideas. And also requesting protection if the edit-warring continues in the meantime. Could someone explain what's wrong with the "First Strike" article solution? Bryan 18:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good catch. I changed First Strike (Atlantis) to a redirect since all others are (Stargate Atlantis). Alyeska, if this doesn't satisfy you then please explain why. We have shown multiple times how this information violates Wikipedia policy and all you have come up with is "precedent" which has never been sufficient reason to do anything on Wikipedia. So, please explain why this is not satisfactory and we can discuss further. Konman72 20:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, the whole "Funny how its a solution only when one side openly agreed with it" comment threw me off. Glad we could reach this compromise. Konman72 06:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a tad irritated how people were dismissing my comments by using incorrect statements as to what I was doing.  I was also not pleased that people declared a solution reached when no one from the opposition had yet to say anything.  I neither like or dislike the solution.  It just is and it works, and that is sufficent in my opinion. Alyeska 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Solution

message: After looking over my copy of Crusades again, I've spotted something that seems to contradict areas of this article, and I wanted to discuss it before starting an edit war :)
There are a few sentences in this article that indicate the Korolev was unfinished when it went to battle in the season nine finale, now I'd assume that came from this scene in pt1:
    LANDRY
    Colonel Chekov's had his eye on (a 304) for a while. The latest was about to roll out.
    DANIEL
    I thought the next Daedalus class ship wasn't due out of the pipeline for over a year?
    LANDRY
    It was a huge concession, but we didn't have much choice.
It seems to me that the Korolev was complete at the time of Camelot, and Daniel was talking about the next 304 after that, as in there were two under construction; the Korolev (which was more or less complete) and another 304 (possibly Apollo, since it will arrive nearly a year since that episode). Daniel was talking about Apollo being over a year away because he recognised the problems with the Russians and US having equal ability to project power in the Milky Way.
Landry's two lines seem to back up my claims, i.e, 'The latest one was about to roll out' (why would he say that if it was unfinished?) and 'It was a huge concession' (Why would he say that if it was a partially constructed ship? Surley a partially finished ship means fewer resources spent on it before handing it over to the Russians?).
I may be halucinating, but thats how it reads to me No Way Back 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crusade pt1 Issues

message: Ok, probably a stupid question but does the Daedalus have rings or just the Odyssey/Korolev, the reason I ask is because why would rings be useful for a ship that's going to where they don't exist? It seems the Ancients supplemented the rings in exchange for the booth transporters so I doubt there'll be any in Pegasus, also rings used to be in Atlantis, at least in theory, back when they left Earth as Earth's Ancient outpost had them but Atlantis does not, they were probably removed after a bit.
Also, can rings and the booth transporters exchange matter streams or are they not compatible? And are the booths a security threat to Atlantis? I mean, what if the Asurans or someone else with an Ancient warship (assuming they have booths as well) managed to booth into Atlantis via one?
Anyone have any thoughts?
Faris b 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any of those questions have been answered in the show. The Daedalus has Asgard transporters, so might not have rings... It's possible the booths could be used as a point of access, but I expect the shield blocks them. I've always wondered why the Gou'ld don't guard their ring rooms, or at least have alarms... --Tango 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the pronounciation not just how Americans say "o"? --Tango 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know if it was just a typo, but to clarify, it's "Hermiod," not "Hermoid". And GateWorld proves this (you'll need to search for Hermiod in the list on the right side of the screen). The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me!  You can't control me!   I'm a P. I.! 01:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rings 

message: In the article, you wrote that the MarK VIII warheads were "tactical". But, tactical warheads are small warheads, not as powerful as the strategical warheads. We mesures their explosive energy in Kilotons.
In Stargate Atlantis, Mark VIII warheads are supposed to have a destructive power of several gigatons, maybe more, because they are Naquadah warheads.
So, I think that you should maybe delete the word "tactical" in the article, for Mark VIII.
:Caldwell called them tactial nukes. Deus (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Warheads 

message: Ok, here is why [I think] that shield color is evidence of shield strength:
It's kind of like the way that different colors of fire equals greater heat if you know what I mean.
Red: Weakest but prevent slow moving objects from entering (Seen in "Deadman Switch" and "Window of Opportunity")
Orange: Weak but do not prevent against slow moving objects (Ha'tak mothership shields)
Yellow: Strong but not the strongest (Seen on the Prometheus in multiple episodes)
Blue/Green: Very strong (Atlantis's shield but it is powered by a ZPM so it can go on forever)
Blue: Very, very strong (Asgard ship shields and Daedalus class ship shields, demonstrated by the fact that the Prothemeus couldn't take one Ori beam hit but Daedalus class ships could)
White: Almost perfect (The Ori shields)
Does this make sense now? I may have talked about this before and it may be in the archives for this page.
Faris b 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is some great analysis and evidence. Sadly though it is original research by its very definition, so it can't be in the article. Konman72 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While it makes sense as far as energy levels and visual spectrum go, it also looks uncomfortably like original research to me. We shouldn't be trying to "figure things out" here on Wikipedia, just reporting on what other sources have said about them. Bryan 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to say it again but it is flawed speculation. (No Man's Land) Matthew Fenton (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's original research in it's purest form. It's not even reliable - we have no idea how those shields are meant to work, so we can't even begin to speculate about a relationship between their colours and strengths. --Tango 12:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Faris, again, this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Unless your comments are about editing the article, please take your discussions to a more appropriate venue. CovenantD 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield color debate 

message: How is this OR? The figures are given in the episodes. The trip takes 4 days with a ZPM and 18 without one, that's 4.2x longer therefore, even with multiple Naqahdah generators, they can only achieve 25% of the total potential power since the Asgard use Neutrino Ion generators which must have a simmilar power output to a ZPM. Why else do the shields last such a short time without a ZPM and the hyperdrive so slow? It was even stated in "Misbegotten" of Atlantis by Weir that with an Asgard ship, they could get to Atlantis 2 weeks earlier? 18 days minus 14 days = 4 days!
Does it have to SPECIFICALLY be stated in the ep "Our systems are at 25% of possible power without the ZPM!" for it to be not considered OR? If so, this is really stupid because we're omitting some pretty juicy info here.
Thanks,
Faris b 04:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All we can really say from this is that "the trip between Milky Way and Pegasus takes 4.2 times longer without a ZPM". You're trying to generalize that to other systems and situations, that's where the original research comes in. If I've got a car that gets twice the mileage when running on ethanol rather than gasoline, does that mean that the headlights will be twice as bright too? It doesn't necessarily follow. Bryan 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We know the hyperdrive is about 25% as fast, and we know the "shield strength [is] severely diminished" (I looked up that quote). We don't have a quantitative assessment of the shield strength, and we don't have any assessment of any other systems. --Tango 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no way to know what a full bar means. It could mean maximum possible strength for those shields, or if could mean maximum strength possible with the current power source. It may be 75% because they've lost the ZPM, or it could be 75% because they've taken a few hits. All we can know is from what Kovak said about the shields being "severely diminished" - we have no way to know what "severely" means. --Tango 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What it actually means is that the Daedalus systems run 4 times more efficiently when the ZPM is tied in, not that the loss of a ZPM cuts their already operating rate. Daedalus was NOT designed to run with a ZPM, they only installed it later on so the 400% increase in efficiency was just a bonus, not a design implementation. Saying they run at 25% is saying that the ship was built to use a ZPM for operating at full capacity which is not true. - 121.44.251.28 01:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The systems of the ships DO run at 25% without a ZPM! 

message: All the Daedalus-class vessels use Asgard beaming technology, and the Daedalus herself can use it offensively because of Hermiod. The Korolev attempted to transfer nuclear warheads using their Ring Transports, but not via Asgard beams. The Odyssey has used Asgard beams to destroy a Wraith hive ship (in Pegasus Project), with no mention of an Asgard engineer. I think this means the Asgard have modified the ships (Odyssey at least, with possibility of the Daedalus) to use the beaming technology offensive without the safeguards. Would it be possible to add this to the article? I.e. is it something that isn't original research? Jordan.Kreiger 16:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the safeguards had been deactivated once, they can probably just repeat whatever Hermiod did - it's their ship, so I doubt Hermiod can keep much secret from them. However, that is OR. We don't even know for sure that the Odyssey doesn't have an Asgard onboard. --Tango 20:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the engineering room is not shown in Pegasus Project, or at least I don't recall they did. And in any case, there is never any specific dialog that there are only humans aboard at that time. So what can we do with this information? Jordan.Kreiger 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing can be done with this information.  It is OR to assume that the Odyssey does not have an Asgard engineer; because it has not been explicitly stated that it does or does not.  His station could be located elsewhere, or possibly just not aboard the ship that that moment, or any other reason.  You cannot pick and choose when OR will be applied...if it isn't stated, it probably should not be used without a *very* good reason. -- Huntster T • @ • C 09:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe the Asgard was attending to a call of nature. Never dismiss the simple solutions. --Tango 12:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is why the Asgard complain so much you know.. :-\ thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beaming Technology 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Trivia Section Removal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Conventional missiles 

message: What evidence do we have that every 304 has a bomb bay?Faris b 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bomb Bay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  USS ''Odyssey'' and ''Apollo''? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 (Deceased) 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Ships of the Line infobox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Battle of P3Y-229 or whatever 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Empty Sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Korolev 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Odyssey section "Other operations" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Daedalus class missiles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  (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)

text: 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)

text: Unless you can find a citation, it all sounds like Original Research. CovenantD 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Your interpretation of it is, yes. CovenantD 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, the million pound question: What evidence supports your "conclusions"? Matthew 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nukes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ship numbering system? 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate SG-1 - Odyssey fires energy weapon.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: I think they're just regular missiles. --Tango 13:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Apollo fires drones?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Korolev is named for...