Jump to content

Talk:Stargate (device)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Techercizer (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 30 July 2008 (→Questionable Rephrasing: Fixed direct quotation for accuracy.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleStargate (device) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 20, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 19, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 12, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Stargateproject Template:FAOL

Iris

(And gate activation / shutdown)

How does the iris work? i mean , if you bury a gate it becomes inactive, so wouldn't the iris stop the gate to? I think that has something to do with distance, but anther question is how is it that in one episode they dialed a buried gate, and teal'c wen through to dig out. Shouldn't the fact that the gate was buried have stooped the worm-hole from filling....? ok just a random thought... --Hiaburi - the wormhole was still active when it got burried stopped the soil from burring the gate. it gave the nessasary space for the wormhole to engage but not enough for the matter to reintegrate. stargate command used a goa'uld weapon to punch a hole big enough for teal'c to get through and get to the surface but,It has to do with material being within the Stargate. When you bury a Stargate, you've buried it underground with soil all around and inside the circle. This is what stops a wormhole from forming. The episode you're thinking about ("A Hundred Days") the Staragte was trapped under a layer of rock, but did not have anything within the ring itself which would prevent the connection. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so i read up on the episode since its been awhile i guess it all makes some sense now. On a side note, i saw a question on another site that i thought was really good, In one episode, as people were going through the gate, O'Neil put his hand in the gate, as you would do to hold an elevator open, how did he know the gate would not just shut off and take his hand with it? --Hiaburi(don't feel like logging in)
As long as something is going through the gate (a radio signal, a hand, whatever) the gate won't shut down unless it reaches the end of the 38 minutes, or there is some kind of malfunction (in particular, a power failure). Template:Sgcite explains that. --Tango 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ok well thanks for explaining...--Hiaburi(don't feel like logging in)
If this is true, then why in one of the first few episodes (the first?) did the tail end of a staff weapon get cut off as the last Jaffa passed through the gate? This has always bothered me through-out the entire series. --Agvulpine 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the gate was manually shut down - a benefit of having a home made dialling computer. --Tango 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the torment of tantalus? His cord got cut off. Technically he shouldn't even have made it to the other side, as the whole object hadn't been recieved by the stargate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.140.192 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that bothers me too. It's probably just a mistake. You could say it was a loss of power, and the DHD at the other end compensated (despite being broken) and allowed what had crossed the horizon to reach the other side. --Tango (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the 38 minutes were up, time up, shutdown, woooooooo... – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that the scientists dialed the gate, and then had Ernest suited up. He steps through, takes a look around, 38 minutes are up and the gate closes. I can only imagine what kind of panic he went throughafter that. I also wonder how many times they dialed the gate after he was cut off before giving up... Tigey (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gate may allow cables/cords without the whole "waiting for the rest" protocol, remember in "A Hundreded Days", Teal'c fired the cable into the gate before stepping through to make sure it was secure. --Vala M (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the writers aren't quite as obsessed with these things as we are! ;) (I've always wandered why they don't just employ a handful of dedicated fans to read through the scripts, etc., and check for continuity errors and things - there are plenty of fans with such an encyclopaedic knowledge of the show that they can spot mistakes immediately.) --Tango (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 Stargates on Earth question

When the Russians and the americans both had Stargates. How does the DHD on one planet know to send people through to the right stargate. Sorry i can't be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.33.82 (talk • contribs)

As it says in Template:Sgcite, the Russian Stargate took priority whenever they had the DHD attached, when they disconnected the DHD they US Stargate had priority (due to being older, I guess). The Russians had to be very careful to connect and disconnect their DHD at just the right times. --Tango 13:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when the Russian DHD was disconnected, the US gate became the only powered gate with the Earth address. Since the Russian gate had no power, it couldn't receive an incoming wormhole. Tango is correct - the Russians decided who came through and when, not the Stargate system. =David(talk)(contribs) 03:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A gate doesn't need to be powered to receive incoming wormholes - wormholes are (barring black holes) powered by the sending gate. --Tango 15:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...good point. Surely there's an answer in the episode...or maybe it's just something they conveniently left out. Careful, don't step in my plot holes!  :-P =David(talk)(contribs) 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the receiving gate needs some power too, because the wormhole draws energy from it to sustain itself. Remember in Watergate, Carter says that the gate on the other end was drawing power, and was staying open because of energy in the water. So I would think that the a gate without a DHD or manual device would not open, it just happens that the stargates throughout the show generally still have the DHD. --Estrill5766 04:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In exceptional circumstances, the wormhole can receive power from the receiving gate (black holes, that strange living water, etc), but generally it doesn't. If a gate without a DHD couldn't be dialled, they wouldn't have to worry about finding the DHD in the MALP's footage before travelling there. Take the episode where the gate is in a museum with a replica DHD as an example of an un-powered receiving gate. --Tango 10:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tango is right a recieving gate doesnt need power to establish a connection. What i always assumed was that if for some reason there were two stargates on a planet (as was the case with Earth), if someone dialed in from another planet, they would be connected to the gate that was being powered with the most energy. With a DHD connected, the russian gate trumped the other gate. But with the dhd diconnected, the sgc gate was being powered so the wormhole went to that one. --Zoobz19 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As good a guess as any. --Tango (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matter and Pressure

There is, however, at least one inconsistency in the application of this rule; in the Atlantis episode "Inferno" when an outgoing stargate is consumed in a volcanic eruption, something- presumably lava- passes through to the receiving gate at Atlantis and is destroyed against the quickly-engaged forcefield.

i'm not sure if i agree this is an inconsistency, the lava was not causing pressure on the gate when it opened, not was it pushing equal pressure all over the event horizon. the gate also fell over and gravity could have caused the lava to be forced through, the gate would not have been able to tell if it was lava or just some liquid based life form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AvatarIII (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is entirely possible that the Stargate does not correct for gravitational change, or falling over. I'm not entirely sure how, if at all possible, such a detection device would function, but it may be able to detect flow, and mistook the fall, possibly onto rocks, as entering. This very well could have been exemplified by a short and well-placed stream of high speed exhaust, very much like all the others that were coming from the volcano at that time.
Should anyone disagree, I believe it reasonable to at least state that it is a possible inconsistency, and consider the alternative.70.176.59.40 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even stating that it is a "possible inconsistency" would be original research. What you should do is quote what they have said about what can pass through the stargate then state what happened in this case. Let readers draw their own conclusions without drawing it for them. — Val42 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if i recall correctly McKay called for the shield to be activated before the lava passed through the gate. The Shield in Atlantis, does not act like a normal shield but as an Iris and is close enough to the event horizon to prevent the proper re-integration of matter (sub-atomic particles being the exception with an iris but perhaps not with this shield). On this basis i do not believe this is truly an "inconsistency" as it is in keeping with the section 'Gate obstruction', which discusses the iris. That the matter doe not pass through is less to do with pressure and more do do with the effects of an iris. (if i remember correctly the stargate does react to pressure differential on either side of a gate and not on the whole system as shown by the episode called either waterworld or water gate or something similar, and that atlantis doesn't decompress whenever they link to a space gate.) Aamackie (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matter transmission

It says in this bit of the article;

"There is, however, at least one inconsistency in the application of this rule; in the Atlantis episode "Inferno" when an outgoing stargate is consumed in a volcanic eruption, something—presumably lava—passes through to the receiving gate at Atlantis and is destroyed against the quickly-engaged forcefield."

I however do not believe this is an inconsistency. I think that the stargate figures out what's trying to get in from what's not trying to get in (ie air or water) by sensing the pressure around it and not letting anything in exerting that pressure (or lower than it possibly). So when the stargate was upright only air pressure exerted on it, when it fell over the lava went in because it had not yet adjusted itself to the new lava pressure so the lava went in --Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That very issue is being discussed just two sections up. I think you're right, though, it seems consistent to me. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kawoosh film.jpg

Image:Kawoosh film.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) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. – sgeureka t•c 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was delisted. Good luck improving it. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of posting my primary greivance (the pedantic obsession with the fancruft term "kawoosh" spoken a grand total of 3 times in a 20 second span in the entire series) on the reass page. Since I have taken the initiative to fix it too, I'm posting a copy of that here as my reasoning.

I do not believe this article qualifies for GA anymore. There are multiple reasons for this but my main one is the overcrawling of fancruft, specifically this "kawoosh" nonsense. Carter uses it maybe twice, a dozen or so seconds apart, to refer to the unstable vortex. The adoption of this term throughout the entire article is the ultimate example of pedantic fanboyism and needs to go before this article can be half decent.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I'm a little disapointed in the community as a whole that this has existed since June of 2004 without anyone noticing it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kawoosh" is an out-of-universe term for the vortex effect; isn't that supposed to be a good thing? It's used in DVD commentaries, and it's official enough to be the name of a Stargate production company.
—WWoods (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Kawoosh" is the name given in the show, and it is widely used out-of-universe as well, both by fans and people involved in the show. It is entirely appropriate that the word be used in our article. --Tango (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So add a line referring to the use of it, but it would be a disgustingly excessive application of in-universe style to refer to it as that in the article. Never mind that anyone even slightly unfamiliar with the topic isn't going to have a single idea in hell what you are talking about. "Fan use" means absolutely SQUAT unless you can cite it as some kind of movement. It would have to have been covered by a reliable secondary source as well (secondary to the use, not to the show mind you) per WP:SOURCE. Instead of clinging to some fan cruft neologism that will alienate readers, why not go with an equally (if not more so) valid descriptor that is both more descriptive and more understandable. To put it more bluntly, a large percentage of the population, perhaps the majority, would refer to George W. Bush as that "miserable failure" or "the worst president ever". Does that mean we should be using those terms to refer to him on the wiki? Well it would amuse me to no end I'd like to think not.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Sci Fi" branded images

I've been thinking that the remaining images in the article that are from low-quality TV broadcasts (specifically the images branded from the Sci Fi channel) should be replaced with images from DVD releases of Stargate or reduced resolution images from HD broadcasts of Stargate from channels like Sky One HD (The images I uploaded for the Carter-McKay bridge are from there). It's a shame to see an article of such quality suffer from compressed 480i images with the channel name branded all over them! -- Cody-7 (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually unacceptable. You can not use higher resolution images when you are going through fair use. It is one of the image use policy rules. Fair use images should be a low resolution copy. As for Sky1, their broadcasts are WORSE than SciFi for logo. They slap it on the top halfway over from the side. Half the time it's right in the middle of someone's forehead. The only possible improvements I can see being made would be to use DVD screenshots at the same low resolutions of the current ones.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "Reduced resolution". I've already uploaded a couple of DVD screenshots that have been reduced to use for commentary purposes. My whole point was we need images without watermarks on them, and higher resolution than some of the ones on here right now (For example, the X-301 image here: [1]). What do you mean by "You can not use higher resolution images when you are going through fair use"? There are fair use templates for copyrighted material. As long as 1) The image is reduced resolution, 2) Has proper tags and copyright information (ie where it's from, why it qualifies for use in the article), and 3) doesn't infringe on copywright holder's ability to sell the product, doesn't it qualify?
While we're on the subject, maybe you could clear this up for me, how would a full resolution DVD capture infringe on copyright holders ability to sell the product when it's ONE single FRAME from an entire episode? Despite what some of you think, images CAN be be reduced to comply with copyrighted image guidelines, as well as not be ridiculously tiny. I mean, is copyright getting so strict here on Wikipedia that we're limited to forever stare at small images so the big bad copyright mongers don't come in and... do what exactly? -- Cody-7 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I missed that part in my original reading. As long as it's at a reduced resolution. As for debating the points in the separate part of your statement, that would probably be better suited on the talk of the image use policy pages. However, I will say that these rules come from a long and heavily debated discussion on the issue. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the rule, but it has its founding in United States Copyright Law and US fair use regulations. And before someone goes into "why does the US dominate Wikipedia?" thing, allow me to point out that Wikipdia's Servers are based in the US, so those are the rules me have to most strictly adhere to.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I think we're on the same page now :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody-7 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercase vs lowercase s

I thought "Stargate" was a proper noun. Why are they called "stargates", with a lowercase s, throughout this article? - Sikon (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stargate" when referring to the show is a proper noun. When referring to the device, it's just a regular noun as far as I know - is there any clue that it's considered a proper noun on the show? --Tango (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would it be an uppercase S referring to the device? Just because their are objects (books, movies, ships) with the proper name Enterprise doesn't mean an enterprise should be capitalized.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An enterprise is a real concept, and a Stargate is a fictional device (and written with a capital letter in official materials). - Sikon (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a capital in official materials, we should have it capital too - do you have an example? --Tango (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official episode transcripts — for example, refer to the "screenplay" link in the Children of the Gods article, and search the PDF for "the Stargate". Stargate RPG materials use the same capitalization; for example, the supplement Living Gods - Stargate System Lords contains such sentences as "But when the Stargate was uncovered from the sands of Giza, we learned otherwise" (page 5) and "Surely the Ancients never intended — nor foresaw — the great danger of putting a Stargate there" (page 7). - Sikon (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is one fatal flaw to that logic. We aren't gateworld. We don't follow fictional grammatical rules. Although I suppose since the article is already a pile of in-universe jumble, it would fit with it's CURRENT form, but not with WIKIPEDIA'S form, which is to follow the rules of the English Language. It's this kind of desperate clinging to fancruft and in-universe content that made the article such a twisted wreck to begin with.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Stargate" is a made-up word and thus there are no rules in the English language governing its spelling, so we should stick to canonical spelling. - Sikon (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Valid Addresses

In the article's "Features" section, it states: With 38 symbols, the Stargate Network in the Milky Way has: 

   (38×37×36×35×34×33) = 1,987,690,320 possible addresses.

However, if you look at this image: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/StargateCoordinates.svg It can be seen that there are three lines each made up of two points to determine the destination.

If you assume the addresses are of the form: 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b (points a and b on each of the 3 lines), then putting the lines in a different order would still result in the same destination (eg. 2a 2b 3a 3b 1a 1b), as would swapping the two points that form one line (eg. 1b 1a 2b 1a 3a 3b). Thus the following are all the same: ABCDEF, ABCDFE, ABDCEF, ABDCFE, BACDEF, BACDFE, BADCEF, BADCFE, CDABEF, CDABFE, DCABEF, DCABFE, CDBAEF, CDBAFE, DCBAEF, DCBAFE. And that's only one third of the possible ways of rearranging the lines AB, CD, EF such that they would still intersect at the same point.

I think the total number should be divided by 48 (3!=6 for the number of ways to arrange the lines and 2^3=8 for the number of ways to write the lines using the two points) to account for geometry of lines, or am I missing something?

Canadiancow (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short answer: Daniel's explanation in the movie is rubbish. Long answer: The address mechanics given in the movie and the series are so contradictory at times (why would addresses differing in just one symbol exist?), especially when the point of origin is involved, that it's best not to think how they map to real coordinates and just accept them as convenient unique identifiers, like IP addresses. If SG-1 canon says that every planetary system with a Stargate has a unique address, then so it is and thus the symbols are not reorderable, Daniel's guess notwithstanding. - Sikon (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Trying to make sense of the address system just drives one to drink. If a given planet could be dialled with a selection of addresses, it would have been mentioned at some point, I'm sure. In fact, they've mentioned that given the 6 symbols but no order there are 720 addresses, which is 6!, so there can't be any reordering. --Tango (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just bow down to the fact that the movie and the show conflict on more than a few issues. After all according to the show Abidos is on "the other side of the known universe" while in SG-1 It's pointed out as practically next door (why they were able to dial it without accounting for drift). Suffice to say any concrete exploration of this in the article without a creator interview or something to cite would most likely be OR.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest modifying section 3.2 (Operation -> Addresses). The description of addresses do not correspond to the number of possible addresses given in the Features section. Canadiancow (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is basically one of Combination Versus Permutation. The current calculation on the page shows 38 P 6 = 1987690320. A permutation is counting the number of arrangements in a set where ORDER matters. But if we accept Daniel's "3D-Map" in the movie, then the order in which symbols entered into an addresses should NOT matter, this would be 38 C 6 or 2760681 (actually much less) unique addresses though some of those addresses may still map to the same place. Nevertheless, the article makes reference to BOTH Daniel's explanation AND a number of gate addresses that does not agree with his explanation, and I think this should be cleaned up to reflect that so that they are not contradictory! NathanRahl (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be careful to avoid original research. It would be good to point out this inconsistency, however it would be best if we can find a reliable source that discusses it (which probably does exist somewhere). Anyone want to volunteer to look for one? --Tango (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making of the props section

ive read somewhere before that the Atlantis stargate (the prop) is made of rubber. Is this true? if it is i think it should be included in this section. --Zoobz19 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to include it you need to be able to provide the source. If you can remember where you read it, and it's not gateworld, it would probably be worth including.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was said by Martin Wood in the first Atlantis preview which was included on SG-1 DVD Vol. 37 (Lost City) and SGA DVD Vol. 1 (Episodes 1x01-1x04). Don't know about American DVDs. – sgeureka t•c 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was also said by Hewlett in the "Behind the Gate" special features if i remmember rightly (season 8 SG1 DVDs) --AvatarIII (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Like the top of the article says, there are way too many images in this article. While it would be wonderful if we could keep them all, we can't. Which ones do we want to get rid of? I say that Image:Minigate-activated.jpg is quite unnecessary and should be removed. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, both in theory and specificity. That image is not only poor, but unnecessary; we've already seen Orlin's makeshift stargate with Image:Mini gate.jpg, and its event horizon and kawoosh are no par for the course. I'll nominate for deletion.

I also think Image:Buried gate.jpg is unnecessary. We have images of stargates, I don't think anybody needs special illustration to visualize the concept of one's obstruction—especially with the description provided. What does anybody think? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say that, inspired by a rule of thumb from WP:FA and the Minimal usage clause of WP:NFC, no more than five non-free images should appear in this article. The article currently has 23 non-free images if I counted right. So I wouldn't discuss what images to remove, but what images to keep. – sgeureka t•c 06:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well speaking of the WP:NFCC, we should only use images that (a) cannot otherwise be described and (b) are crucial to the readers' understanding of the prose. I don't think we should limit ourselves to a set number of images and work towards that goal, but instead read the article (w/o non-free images; keeping in mind we have several libre images in the article) and see what passages/concepts we could not otherwise understand sufficiently w/o employing copyrighted images. What do you think? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, I think that Image:Minigate-activated.jpg is an easy one to lose. We probably don't need to see two different shots of the stargate opening, regardless of the slight difference in computer graphic rendering. The picture of the Antarctic stargate is simply really bad. Other pairs that could be whittled down (or combined into one image, that's always an idea) are the 7th chevron images, while the Midway station should really just be one image. It's a space station that plays a plot role in a couple of episodes, not something so major and signifigant that we need two images. Any one have any thoughts on this and can we try and gain some consensus, as the article looks very cluttered with so many images. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you two are more reluctant than me to remove unnecessary images (no problem), you should just be bold and remove five or ten images you truly feel the article can do without, and save discussion for later. What needs to happen at some point is for someone to read through the article and remove original research (WP:OR) and plot over-detail (WP:WAF), which may make it easier to find more images that can be lost. Contrary to my initial goals, I am currently not so eager timewise to do the latter job, so I'll just state what images I believe truly help the reader understand the device (i.e. the article topic) better: Image:SG1stargate.jpg (for general look and scale), either one of the Vortex pics (both pretty much look the same), one or both of the wormhole travel pics (wormhole travel is essential, and they look dissimilar), Image:Event horizon emerge.jpg, and the Pegasus gate. Supergate (Stargate) and Dial-Home Device may need to be merged somewhere eventually since their real-world notability is doubtful (unlike the Stargate device which has been spoofed very often in other shows), and depending on their merge target, one image of each one may be reasonable here as well. I don't really see the point in having images of things that were shown just one time on the show(s). – sgeureka t•c 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these images are needed! – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (policy) and common practice (which hasn't reached this article yet) disagree very very strongly. Wikipedia strives to be a free encyclodia after all. – sgeureka t•c 17:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the copyrighted image tag header. For two reasons: 1) There are generally no free images that can illustrate the Stargate, because it is only available from copyrighted film / DVDs. It's obvious that almost all of the images are copyrighted on this page... we don't need an annoying header to tell us. As much as Wikipedia guidelines loathe copyrighted images, sometimes we need them. And 2) User:American_Patriot_1776 just deleted some unnecasary and redundant images. The article now has around the same number as before the tag is applied. I don't think we require it any longer. Cody-7 (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I don't think the article is tag-worthy any more. We could probably afford to lose a couple more, though. I think the one in the durability section could go (we don't really need to show what it looks like for a Stargate to *not* be destroyed). The Antarctic gate and the buried gate add something, but I'm not sure they add enough. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article still has way too many non-free images to not be tagged (as I have already expressed above), but I will leave this decision to local consensus at this point. – sgeureka t•c 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones do you think don't add enough to the article to be worth having? --Tango (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what our fair-use policy says. Here we go;
  • WP:NFCC#3a - "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
  • WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • Also, WP:NFCC#1 is relevant here ""Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all? If the answer ... is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion"
There are 20 (!!) non-free images in this article. How many of them pass all three of those criteria? BKNFCC 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "adds enough to the article to be worth having" is an accurate summary of that policy. The policy makes no mention of numbers. --Tango (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does - WP:NFCC#3a - "As few ... as possible". Black Kite 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just means each one needs to be justified. It doesn't say that if, for example, you already have 5 non-free images then the 6th needs to meet higher standards than usual. The same standards apply to each image, regardless of what images are in the rest of the article (unless there is already one of the same subject, of course). --Tango (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, we could get rid of all but the lead image and the "how it works image". You could argue we can have free replacements for that too. But do we really need two "seventh chevron" images, or several images of identical looking Stargates? Sceptre (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two 7th chevron images are to show the difference between the film and the series, and the various Stargates aren't identical. There are definite differences between the Milky Way gates, the Pegasus gates, Supergates, the Tollan gate and Orlan's makeshift gate, so images off each of them are useful. --Tango (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful" is not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC. See the above policies. Black Kite 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; Tango et al., despite the frustration you must feel, I'm afraid that conservatism in the use of copyrighted material is a policy that trumps all at WP. Please read the NFC page, which sets out clearly why we must follow this course to be true to our mission statement. TONY (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it trumped all, we would ban all non-free images. We don't do that because we acknowledge that they sometimes add something to an article that can't be done another way. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "sometimes" being the operative word. But as few times as possible, and certainly not 20 times in one article, that's ludicrous. Black Kite 22:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least 7 good uses, but after that it gets questionable. βcommand 2 16:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then list the ones you object to and explain why. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "sufficiently useful", then. They add something significant to the article in a way that cannot be done using text or free images - that's the criterion (policy creep means the actual page is far longer, but that's what it actually means). --Tango (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have this conversation a lot with editors, but I'm amazed that an admin doesn't grasp the concept of minimal use which, apart from being a core concept of our non-free policy, is enshrined in one of the five pillars. Black Kite 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal use means only using non-free images if an image is necessary to explain the concept fully and there isn't a non-free one available. It doesn't mean we can't have lots of non-free images if they are all needed. If there are ones you don't think are needed, say which ones. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the repeated questions why most of the images are not needed; from my point of view:

I can see a reasonable justification for the others:

  • Image:SG1stargate.jpg is a very good depiction of a Stargate for design and scale. Maybe increase resolution if the other images are removed, to e.g. allow the reader see better how a chevron looks like.
  • Image:Kawoosh side.jpg - the kawoosh happens with (almost) each Stargate dialing and has been used as a plot device several time. Pretty hard to describe properly in words because it's fictional.
  • Image:Pegasus-gate.jpg is central to Stargate Atlantis and looks very dissimilar to the SG-1 gate or the one from the film. Also shows the event horizon.

Where it depends on what happens with the "other" article, and where suitability can be argued in both ways:

  • Image:Dhd.jpg currently already appears in the article Dial-Home Device, but that article may be unable to demonstrate (real-world) notability and maybe merged elsewhere like here (although it is more likely it will be merged in one of the technology list articles). On the other hand, the DHD appears in many episodes, is directly linked with the working of the Stargate, and it's hard to describe its look in words.
  • Image:Supergate.jpg currently appears in the article Supergate (Stargate), but that (nonnotable) article is short enough and related enough to the normal Stargate device to merge it here rather than the tech list. The Supergate was also pretty central in Seasons 9 and 10 of SG-1 and The Ark of Truth. I'd compare its suitability here similar to the image for the Pegasus gate.

– sgeureka t•c 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The satellite weapon gate is different from a standard Pegasus gate (it has one less chevron if memory serves), but I'm not sure it's different to warrant an image (you can say "one less chevron" in words, after all). I don't see why hand drawing an image makes it free - the stargate is still a copyrightable design, it's not just that particular image that is copyrighted (IANAL, YMMV, etc.). The one-episode only gates (well, actually the Tolan one is used more than once) could have the images moved to the episode article, but those have mostly been deleted now. I think it is worth having an image somewhere, and this article is the only reasonable place. Your other points are reasonable - your first one is indisputable. --Tango (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the tag again. I think we're all aware of the guidelines -- And now the amount of non-free images is reduced to around 14 (This number is lower than the article has had in some time). If you're having to make point-by-point reasons why each image does not add to the article then you have too much time on your hands. I feel the length of the article deserves a larger amount of images to go with it. Besides, some people are visual learners. I don't know about you, but I do not want to read an article several pages long with only 5 images. You all need to calm down about this for a while. And please don't remove any more images, I think the article is balanced now. Cody-7 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also, I undid a revision by User:Betacommand2 because he was removing images that I believe strongly illustrate the series. I removed an illustration of the 7th chevron in the film near the bottom that added almost no commentary value. This would of been a better decision for removal. Cody-7 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well it appears I'm being threatened with being banned from editing articles as stated on my talk page. Given the article has far fewer images than when it was originally tagged, which I believe makes it far more non-free compliant, I would hope to remove the NF images tag at the top. And I would just like one more image re-instated as I think it's important to show readers what a wormhole looks like in SG-1 (This one here: [[2] |Image:New_wormhole.jpg ). However, despite several of us on the talk page voicing that many of the images still belong, others are now claiming that it's still against the guidelines. Like said several times, there is no magical number on how many non-free images an article is restricted to . As long as an image meets the 10 guidelines on the NFCC page and is believed to add some importance, it can stay. And has anyone taken into account the length of the article? Sure, the article has many non-free images but it's a fairly long article.
But someone else is going to have to edit if we agree on this, because I've got a ban hanging over my head. I guess that's what people do around here when they're a little bit too up-tight about copyright when it can be dealt with. I believe the article now is much, much more NFCC friendly as I stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody-7 (talk • contribs)

I'm definitely not opposed to re-evaluating some of these images, but we all need to keep in mind that we're talking about the plot device for the entire franchise. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we have a large number of images, and that all of them have reasonable justification. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the image of the new style wormhole present but not the old one(s)? Surely if one is useful, they all are - the article discusses the changes, so before-and-after shots should be included. --Tango (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm glad to see that it looks like (for the most part) we got the whole image issue sorted out. I believe now there's a fair amount of images that both illustrates the article well, and still complies with non-free media policy. I think as long as the number of non-free images remains within 14-16 or so (currently at 14) we can leave the over-use image tag off.
As far was the old wormhole - I'm happy with just the new one showing. I think we should let the images we have now sit for a while, focus more on editing the article itself, and we can re-asses adding this image in a little later if enough people would like it back. Cody-7 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a few others we can trim. I don't feel strongly about it, but the buried gate one and the beam weapon one don't seem that important. I'm not really sure, though. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - the buried gate, the beam weapon, the minigate and the Tollan gate all clearly fail NFCC as decorative. Unless anyone can come up with a good policy-based reason for keeping these in the next few days or so, I'll remove them. Even 10 images is pushing it, but with such a expansive subject I'm guessing it can just about be justified. BKNFCC 11:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some contrasting thoughts

  • Image:Seventh chevron.jpg already appears in Image:SG1stargate.jpg (unfree, but very good and already appears at the top of the article and should be kept)
    • This image should remain, since it conveys information the larger picture does not and that the text by itself could not, by locating exactly the location of the Seventh chevron.
  • Image:Stargatesg1diallingcomputer.jpg can be replaced with the words "The Stargate is dialed with a Dialing Computer." => decorative
    • I diagree. This is a useful image which actually imparts more information than the text allows. How do you dial, what is the interface, these are questions the image instantly imparts. I would argue this one meets our policy and should be kept.
  • Image:Asuransatelliteweapon.jpg already appears in Image:Pegasus-gate.jpg. => decorative
    • I'm missing something because I don't see it the second image, and I also don;t follow the rationale for calling it decorative because it appears elsewhere. They look to me to be two different images, and * Image:Asuransatelliteweapon.jpg is a very good image in depicting the visual elements of what is a graphical fictional construct. Any text to describe it's appearance would be lengthy and subject to original research, whereas an image imparts the same information without breaching OR and enhances the reader's understanding. There are no minimum's on the number of images beyond using only what will suffice. That's a matter for editorial discression, and I think in this case the second image does not suffice for the stated purpose, which is to inform the reader. I agree with the rest of the proposed removals, however. Hiding T 10:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Solution: Slightly increase the resolution of the main image. Write "The seventh chevron is at the top." or "The seventh chevron is at twelve o'clock."
  2. The look of the dialing computer interface is not important to understanding how the Stargates works; it could look completely different and the functionality of the Stargate would still be as before. All that's important is that the chevrons are typed in the dialing computer and some blinky lights show up on screen. And that can be done in text.
  3. My point was, the gate in the Asuran satellite weapon already appears in the image Image:Pegasus-gate.jpg because it is the same gate. The Assuran satellite weapon is not the topic of the article, it is however the topic of its own section in Asuran_technology_in_Stargate#Asuran_Satellite_Weapon (with image), just one click away. The Assuran satellite weapon is also not important for understanding how Stargates work. If it was up to me (which it isn't and what I also don't want the responsibility at the moment), I'd trim the whole section of Stargate (device)#Other variants to a minimum and point to the relevant technology list sections.
As always, you are (still) free to disagree with anything I just said. – sgeureka t•c 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your solution to the seventh chevron issue appears to me to be to use the same image twice, with an increased resolution. However, won't that make the image too big for the page? As to the Asuran satellite weapon, it is not currently one click away, and that article should be merged somewhere at any rate. Hiding T 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, just use the Stargate image once at the top, with an increased resolution. The fair use rationale would then include "it needs to be of higher resolution because the structure details of the Stargate are discussed in depth in the article". That's better than having two non-free images, I think. I added the links that were missing to the Asuran weapon, and I also take back it's the same gate as the Pegasus gate - it's just a similiar gate with 8 chevrons instead of nine. It can be argued whether that difference really needs illustration, and I also remember the fan forum discussions about whether the 8-vs-9 chevrons was intentional or just a VisFX screwup. The next parent list where Asuran technology in Stargate could be merged is Miscellaneous technology in Stargate and/or Asuran by the way, but I desperately need some time off of merging after I did exactly that for six months in a row (must have been 400 articles for Stargate alone). – sgeureka t•c 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple gates

When Apothis(?) and SG-1 dialed a bunch of gates to kill the replicators, the signal got sent to all the gates at once. If somebody walks through the gate which (if not all) will he come out of? – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was Ba'al, and I don't think anyone knows. It was never addressed. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got 2 possible explanations, they get cloned or the gate with most power. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 20:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or they get split between them and die. --Tango (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they would be cloned. After all the actual matter is being transmitted from one gate to another under normal conditions. I would imagine that the gates have that multidialing capability to allow for gate-system wide programming updates. Thus, no matter is allowed through. If the gates can be set to act like a network router, they multicast information from one to the next and therefore only energy (in this case the anti-replicator energy) is allowed through.Tigey (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree, i think if someone tried to go through the gate whilst in multi dial mode, they would just leave one gate (randon or perhaps specific, or perhaps would die, or be held in the buffer and rematerialized at the same gate without wormhole travel.--AvatarIII (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's assuming the gates are designed to be able to dial multiple addresses, Ba'al had to make significant modifications to the DHD to achieve that (and the other occasion I can think of was apparently a malfunction - the Groundhog Day episode). Avenger suggests gates are updated by updating one and having that one dial a few others (presumably one at a time) and having those dial more and so on - dialling multiple addresses isn't required. If the feature isn't an intended one, then there's no reason for the outcome to be anything desirable - a horrible gruesome death is quite likely. --Tango (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eww, guts. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Id say the the Ancients probably thought of dialing multiple addresses and would have realised it would be possible after some tinkering (If Nerus could think of it, surely the Ancients would as well) so they probably added a safety protocol just in case. Perhaps if solid matter enters through a gate that is connected to multiple/all the other stargates, it is sent to just one of them, perhaps the gate that is closest in the system to the gate of origin. But of course thats just fan speculation. --Zoobz19 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, they knew dialling multiple addresses would kill people so implemented a safety protocol to prevent people doing that, which Nerus figured out how to disable (in the same way Carter was able to disable [or at least ignore] the protection against wormholes going straight through stars). --Tango (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We know. We're not harming the project by having a short chat about the topic on the talk page. If it becomes excessive, feel free to intervene. Posting to a month old discussion with just a shortcut to a policy page might not be the best way to make your point, though... --Tango (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replace an image

why not replace the burried gate with one of the iris in action? βcommand 2 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because burying a gate is a different concept to shielding one with an iris. Whether an image is needed to describe each concept should be determined on a case-by-case basis, there is no policy that says we should weigh one image against another. --Tango (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
its in the Gate obstruction section and that would make the point clearer than the current vague burried picture that we have. βcommand 2 18:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Obstructed" is usually used in the show to describe buried gates, not shielded ones. They are very different concepts (in short, burying a gate stops you from establishing a wormhole to it, shielding it allows wormholes to establish but stop matter from coming through). --Tango (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Supergate (Stargate)

The article Supergate (Stargate) currently establishes no notability, consists almost solely of plot retelling, but why I propose this merger is that I have no idea how to fix that other than through merging. The supergate section in Stargate (device) is already pretty good, so only little merging may be required in the end. Comments before I go ahead with the merger in about a week or two? – sgeureka t•c 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any need for more than a paragraph or two about supergates, and that can easily go in this article. Merge away. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'll merge the full version of the article to the Stargate Wikia. - Sikon (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the Stargate Wikia's policies, but most of the information will be redundant - it's just plot summaries which will already be in their episode articles. --Tango (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merged". (There wasn't really anything to merge but the number of modules). The "history" part of the Supergate article has already been transwikied by someone else. – sgeureka t•c 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article to long?

Maybe it's time to split up the article some? I find it very difficulte to read with so much information in one place. 129.16.49.9 (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should trim it first and consider a split only afterwards. The section "Other variants" can be trimmed a lot IMO (as I've said before), the section 'Use of the term "stargate" in other works' is a mix of trivia and original research, and the whole article has more of an in-universe focus than a real-world focus, but balancing that would require time. As a general note, since the article is so badly sourced, it is hard to tell what is original research, what is fancruft, and what really needs to be mentioned. I'd say that at least 30 percent can be cut without the article suffering anything. – sgeureka t•c 07:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient/Alteran

It is a trivial point i know, but at the start of the article it says
"their creators were an alien race known as the Ancients, who called them the Astria Porta in their language, and scattered them on a variety of planets and moons, throughout the Milky Way and other galaxies millions of years ago. The Alteran who invented the Stargate was named Amelius"
My point i was going to make was, it should say 'their creators were an alien race known as the Alterans (now known as Ancients)' or something like that. It also just occured to me that in the one paragraph it calls them Ancients and then says 'the Alteran who invented them...' which could be confusing for someone not familiar with the show.--Zoobz19 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When we discussed it before, it was agreed that Ancient is the far more common term, and therefore the one we should use. Alteran should only be used in direct quotes and in the one sentence mentioning that they were once called Alterans. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Rephrasing

Is this revision Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stargate_(device)&diff=223127670&oldid=222321472 really necessary? I don't recall the quote actually being in Stargate SG-1 or Atlantis, and the former version seems much more descriptive and professional. I hardly see the advantages of describing conservation of Momentum between wormholes as "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing come out".--Techercizer (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stargate_(device)&oldid=228902060"