Talk:Supergate (Stargate)

message: What is up with it? Originally, the blocks came through a gate which means they cannot be bigger than 20 feet across as seen in "Beachhead" but in "Camelot" and "The Pegasus Project" the supergate blocks are MUCH larger than a Stargate is, please don't say they were made different because they aren't than the Beachhead one because: 
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s9/906/html/beachhead385.html
The VERY SAME ones in "Beachhead" that came through the gate on Kallana are the size of a Goa'uld cargo ship
And in "The Pegasus Project"
http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s10/1003/html/pp00427.html
See how small the gate is compared to the supergate blocks?
What is up with these inconsistencies? The blocks could NEVER have came through the gate, I doubt that about 20 blocks go together to make one master supergate block because they showed them in "Beachhead" coming out of the gate directly to form with the supergate.
Faris b 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think more likely a wizard did it. :) It's an amusing oversight on the part of the SFX people that I suspect was simply due to wanting to enhance the neatness of giant nuclear explosions squirting out through a teeny-tiny hole in space. I'm pleased you pointed it out, though, for some reason I didn't notice this oddity when I saw it myself. Bryan 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a mistake, but nothing can be said in the article. That would be original research and unverifiable. Until a relaible source says something about there being a mistake we leave it be. Konman72 08:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are determining the size of an object by studying what you see on screen, not what is stated or explicitely shown. The angle could be weird, the shot could be misleading etc. etc. etc. There are a multitude of ways that what you state in the article could be wrong, so it should not be included. It is unverifiable at the very least since you cannot verify the actual size, only show pictures and then leave it to interpretation, which means it shouldn't be included in the first place. Here is the definition of original research as stated in the policy itself, "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source." Where is the reliable source for this? And no it is not the same as a blooper since that is clearly right on the screen, while this is taking many things and adding them together to come to a conclusion which is only supported by your research. As I said, you are almost definitely right, it was a mistake, but without any source to cite it to (and no you can't just cite it to the episodes since they don't say anything about the size) it is OR. I'm going to revert it one last time and if you still feel it should be included feel free to put it back and we can discuss it further (I won't be offended or upset if you put it back, I just don't want it sitting there since it is OR) Konman72 09:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further reasons why it is OR: The Stargate is 22 ft. in diameter , how wide is a Tel'tak? No one knows. Also in the shot of the Tel'tak in between the blocks we can only determine that the blocks are longer than the ship, not wider (althoug they look like it, it is not obvious and thus original research and unverifiable). Furthermore, what is your source for saying the cargo ships are bigger than the stargate? It is another instance where I agree, but can you source it? If not then it cannot be included. More from the article on OR: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" Konman72 09:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just checked the transcript for Beachead and it only gives length, about 10 meters, not width. As I said I agree that the Tel'tak is bigger than a gate, but there is no source for that information. Could it be stated in the Tel'tak article? Probably, but not in this context since it is being used to prove another point. Again, I agree that there was a mistake made, but without some sort of reliable source for it the paragraph should not be included. We are not qualified to determine whether this is or is not a mistake. And without definite proof it stays in the realm of OR. (Oh and for future reference, when there is an edit conflict your text is put on the bottom and the other persons is put on the top, just scroll down and there will be a side by side comparison where you can copy your text from and then add it into the top section.) Konman72 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How about a sentence in the main section stating the questions raised or something like that. Giving it its own section gives it a bit too much weight in my opinion. Perhaps, "the size and construction of the individual blocks that make up the supergate is debated. In on scene they are shown coming through a normal stargate, but in later shots they seem to be too big to fit." Something to that effect seems to be NPOV and avoid OR by not stating anything directly. Konman72 20:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a post a while back, but it got deleted from the main page for this episode. I thought it was more than likely that the first blocks to emerge from a stargate, build a midway supergate, one which is then used to transport the massive blocks required for the supergate, one hole in this theory is, what happens to the midway gate, as it is connected by blackhole sustained wormhole, therefore they couldnt disconnect via conventional means. Maybe they could disconnect by constructing the final gate, and have it near the active gate, and as they did in pegasus Project, send massive energy surge through the matter stream, to jump to nearest gate. Then the "Kwoosh" as Carter has called it, would deal with the "no-longer-needed" gate. Also just occurs to me when I look at the images of the 2 different types of supergates, that maybe there was different Sfx guys on Season 10 than Season 9, or maybe bigger budget, not forgetting the super-supergate was first seen in the Cliff-Hanger Season 9 end episode, its presumable, they spend more cash on SFX for end of season episodes, and maybe Season 10 continued with the tradition.Baaleos 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that until we can find some sort of external source to back one of these theories up, it's all original research. All that we can really say based on the episodes is that in some scenes the blocks look larger than the Stargates, we can't speculate as to why that is or even state with certainty that it "really" is that way (within the context of the fictional universe). None of the characters ever mentioned it. Bryan Derksen 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Supergate block size?

message: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I propose moving the Supergate article to the Stargate (device) article.  There is already a section for Supergates that could be expanded.  My reasoning is that the Supergate is just a large and specialized Stargate, and I'm not sure it deserves it own page.
No, that wouldn't be a good idea, exactly like what you said, it's a different type of gate completely, thus it deserves it's own page, I mean, Pegasus and Milky Way gates are in the same article because their differences are only cosmetic, the supergate has major differences in all fields; thus it deserves it's own article.
Faris b 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Stargate (Device) 

message: As you think about it, you could say, due to the enormous size of the Supergate, that it has more chevrons, or need a special device to operate it for such reason. A supergate could be thought to have a bunch more control crystals to reach the Pegasus Galaxy and other, non-explored galaxies. It could just replace the need for a ZPM to power the Earth Gate. I'm not sure about this, but It could happen. What do you think?
No, the crystals have nothing to do with power consumption, it's the black hole that's used for power that allows it to dial other galaxies, not the control crystals alone. The extra control crystal enables the gate do dial intergalactically, not the reason they need a ZPM. Plus now, they have the Intergalactic gate bridge.
Faris b 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of ''Extra'' Chevrons 

message: :Image:Supergatekawoosh.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Supergatekawoosh.jpg

message: :Image:Kawoosh destroys ship.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Kawoosh destroys ship.jpg