Talk:Stargate SG-1 season 1

Stargate SG-1 season 1 has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Television: Episode coverage / Stargate Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.
	This article is supported by the Stargate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Last versions of episode articles before the redirect here

(Links provided for transwikiing, merging or whatever)

– sgeureka ^t•c 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Solitudes (Stargate SG-1)

Technically, this episode already got merged, but it is quite significant for Atlantis, and it has some production info (although mostly trivial). I already suggested a weak redirect at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review four weeks ago, but I'll ask again just to be sure: Is this really all the episode has to offer for real-world content as needed per WP:FICT. Because if it doesn't it might as well get redirected here. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected (already merged). – sgeureka ^t•c 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spoilers?

I know wikipedias policy on spoilers is "fuck you, we want to include them even if it ruins the fiction", but could we not cut all the plots to just the problem? I suppose those where the ending of another episode is relivant should include that but generally is

"O'Neill and Jackson befriend Apophis' first prime Teal'c, a Jaffa (one who is an incubator to a larval Goa'uld), and Teal'c joins their side. He helps SG-1 return to Earth, though they cannot save Daniel's wife Sha're and his friend Skaara, who have been taken as hosts."

really any better than

"While SG-1 escape and convince Teal'c, a Jaffa (one who is an incubator to a larval Goa'uld) to join them they are unable to save Daniel's wife Sha're or Skaara, who are taken off world through the stargate."

Help ... What direction

Hi folks. New here, so please forgive me if I'm missing something I should have already read but ... I was reading through Stargate and all, and saw that there weren't many "episodes" as articles - so I copied one into a text file and saved as a template - got out my DVD sets, and prepared to start doing articles on individual stories: ... long story short ... I see someone did this at one time, and the episodes got archived in favor of episode lists. Does the stargate community prefer not to have individual articles for each episode? (as the star trek and other tv shows do) ... hey - I like em all so don't flame me as an "Oh great another trekkie". The bottom line is, I don't mind working on the articles, but I don't want to waste my time if they are gonna get archived - and the link goes back to season episode list. Let me know if I can help Ched Davis (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... and if it's the wiki community that thinks that SG-1 is not as "notable" as Voyager or TNG ... where can I go to chip in some help on that issue? Ched Davis (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about real-world information for production and reception, which doesn't exist in sufficient amounts for the early SG-1 seasons. Many other TV shows have episode articles on wikipedia when they shouldn't have, and cleanup has been on-going for over a year. You'll find more answers on my talkpage, in the talkpage archives of WP:STARGATE, and many wiki-wide discussions at e.g. WP:FICT and WP:EPISODE. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SG Wiki links

Why exactly were links to SG Wiki removed from this and related articles? Ausir (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes#SG_Wiki_links. Discussions should continue there. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image removal

I removed the cast picture from this article for two reasons. The primary being that it doesn't represent the cast as of ... season 1! I think an apropos cast pic from the first season woiuld certainly fit in here, but this one doesn't as it could be misleading. Secondly, the image's description page doesn't have a rationale for its use here—and shouldn't, given reason number one. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stargate SG-1 (season 1)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No prblems found checking against quick fail criteria, moving on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I had to copy-edit throughout for grammar, consistency of tense and clarity. Please check that I have not altered statements in a negative or inaccurate manner. The Lead should summarize the whole article, there is no mention of critical reception. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]

Good job on the lead, so no problems their. I've added reception info to the lead now. --TIAYN (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref #3 [1] ; Ref #14 confirms the MPAA R rating but not the other ratings in the statement. I am happy to accept Gateworld as a source, ref #13 [2] but it would be best attributed as in creator Brad Wright told fan site GateWorld .... ; refs #21, #22, #23 are wiki-linkd to non-existing articles - it would be better to de-link the episode names so as not to cause confusion in those seeking out the references. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Done[reply]

Fixed, --TIAYN (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Just a few matters cited above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Ok, Thanks for your had work. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --TIAYN (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of episodes

This article currently states that this season contained 21 and 22 episodes, contradicting itself. Which number is the right one? Of the four external links provided, three state that there were 21 episodes. The official site says 21 as well. However, the number's 22 everywhere on Wikipedia. What gives? --illythr (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the pilot episode "Children of the Gods" has been counted as two episodes. If the official Stargate website states 21 episodes, then I think it should be 21 regardless of the production numbers.SCΛRE CROW 03:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

200 (Stargate SG-1) is officially the 200th episode, but only if you count the pilot episode as two episodes. IIRC, the pilot episode also had two production numbers, and is twice as long as a normal episode. So I'd argue the best way to avoid confusion overall is to say the season had 22 episodes, with the pilot ep counting as two. That would also be transparant. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a contradiction in the official source. Is there an article explaining this somewhere? I opened this topic because when I reverted an anonymous editor changing the total number to 213 (in ruwiki) and decided to supply a source to prevent further "miscalculations", I discovered that he's actually right. The solution would be to find something similarly official explaining the situation with the pilot and add a ref with it wherever necessary. --illythr (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that the counting of the pilot ep was a major point of discussion among fandom until "200" gave the answer. The MGM website, which was created long before "200" aired, obviously went with counting the pilot ep as one ep, and they probably didn't want to update their site afterwards. If editors cannot decide for which way to go, it's always best to write there is a contradiction, and let the reader make up his own mind. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC),[reply]

Sgeureka, your sentence "If editors cannot decide for which way to go, it's always best to write there is a contradiction, and let the reader make up his own mind" is much too gender-specific (male-oriented, I mean). If you want to use gender-neutral language, I recommend changing "his" to "their" and "the reader" (singular) to "readers" (plural) As for the subject at hand, Netflix lists the pilot episode as one episode, which makes 21 the correct number of episodes. --Marceki111 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that Netflix is an authority on episode numbering that triumphs all other sources (whose episode numbering may differ from Neflix)? Certainly not, so Netflix has no more weight than other sources. Having said that, I've also undone this recent episode renumbering because this season article is transcluded in List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes (or should not differ in ep numbering), and we know that ""Wormhole X-Treme!" is episode 100 and "200" is, well, episode 200. So unless someone can clear up the ep count confusion with a 21-episode first season by other means, the pilot needs to count as two. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason you may think of it as two episodes is because of this link ^[1] which indeed lists the pilot as a two-parter, but Netflix considers it as a single 96-minute episode (in contrast with the regular 40-something-minute episodes) so while others say 22 episodes Netflix lists 21 (because it plays an uncut version of the pilot which runs for 96 minutes as stated above)--Marceki111 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.tv.com/shows/stargate-sg-1/episodes/

Writer/Director information

Where did the information in the table come from? It's unsourced and apparently (looking at my DVDs) wrong. Can I cite the DVDs as a source if I change this? Richard Jackson (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't. Content must be from a verfiable source (website, book, magazine...). Read Wikipedia's policies on citing sources. --Marceki111 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Marceki111 is patently false. Books, website and magazines are not the only sources that can be used. Official DVD liners, videos, etc. can also be used as sources as long as they are cited correctly. See Template:Cite DVD-notes and Template:Cite video. Wikipedia wouldn't have these templates if we only stuck to print and web sources. I don't know why people who have been here one hot minute think they know everything and then proceed to hand down knowledge like they've been here for years and years. If you don't know something, don't answer. It's better to give no information that incorrect information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.173.203 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 December 2012

[1] ttp://www.tv.com/shows/stargate-sg-1/episodes/

[1]