Talk:Stargate (device)/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Why should this be a separate article when it is entirely of the Stargate universe and indeed is where the Stargate universe and premise stems from? Unlike anything else, the Stargate and the Stargate universe are inextricably linked. And don't talk about linking, because its easy to link like Stargate#Stargate deviceIt doesn't look like you have incorporated any of the edits I made, which indicates that this is just a blind reversion without much consideration? - Centrx 05:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a blind reversion. I'll reincorporate changes now, sorry about that. As for why I think it's important to keep them separate, even though these two things are closely linked they are still two different things. One is a fictional universe, the other is a fictional device. Bryan 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In an encyclopedia, "different things" do not get different articles just because they are different. Each article must stand large on its own, which is not possible for fictional objects and phenomena that are entirely depend and entirely within the context of a particular universe, the peculiarities of which must be explained in the articles in order to present an encyclopedic article. So, with different articles for these "different things", the case necessarily is that there is a tremendous redundancy or that the article is not encyclopedic. and when the articles on one of those "different things" must make extensive reference to other "different thing", they should be merged, creating a cohesive whole without redundancy. A fictional device in a fictional universe, the properties of which are not even consistent across the literature of that universe, deserves a separate article least of all. With real objects, you do not have the problem of there being manifest inconsistency that invalidates the aggregation of information on the fictional object into a single article. In order to be accurate, this article cannot do anything but qualify its statements with the context ("the film", "Stargate SG-1", "Stargate Atlantis"), in which case the information belongs in the respectives articles of those works. It is also not appropriate to ignore the properties present in less popular works like the books, which from my reading of these articles it seems considerably vary from each other and from the film and series. - Centrx 21:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not following. In what way are the articles Stargate and Stargate (device) redundant as they currently stand? What information is repeated in one that also belongs in the other? Should the warp coil and photon torpedo articles be merged into the article Star Trek, since those devices have been used far more inconsitantly than the Stargate has? You seem to be suggesting that all articles about fictional things that cross series boundaries should be merged into those series' articles, which _would_ be redundant (in addition to being hopelessly unweidly). Bryan 01:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the article is not currently substantially redundant because it is incomplete. It is not currently appropriate for inclusion in a formal encyclopedia. As for warp coil and photon torpedo, in the Star Trek universe their properties really don't have bearing on the story. This is the reason they are referenced far more inconsistently in the stories. It simply doesn't matter what their specific properties are. In the context of the story they are nothing more than "engine" and "missile" or "torpedo". In the photon torpedo article, it refers to quantum torpedoes used on DS9 and plasma torpedoes used by the Romulans; these "different" torpedoes are rather identical in the context of the story. Having different articles for each of these "different" torpedoes would be pointless. The Stargate is different in this respect, its peculiarities often have a substantial--and rather consistent--effect on the story. Wikipedia is not the place for everything. If you like, go to www.everything2.com and see where that has gotten them, you may like it. This is an encyclopedia, which should (not, see below comment) include a delineation of the plots and peculiarities of every fiction, which is what you have with articles that must reference the specific series or episode for every statement in the article. - Centrx 01:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I see several such attributions in the current article. If you think there need to be more, then by all means go ahead and attribute more. I can't see how you can call quantum torpedos and plasma torpedos "rather identical" while thinking the differences in Stargate behavior between series is so drastic you want to treat them as entirely separate entities, though. Compared to photon torpedos Stargates are marvels of consistency (and I note, BTW, that there is indeed a separate article for plasma torpedoes - which do not behave similarly to photon torpedos at all). Bryan 02:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, typo, I meant it should not include a delineation of the plots and peculiarites of every fiction. I meant the following: when it is necessary to reference specific series or episodes for statements in the article because the statements would not be true of the whole fictional universe and are specific to that series or episode, or conflict with events in other episodes or series, then you have a situation where you are associating different things as the same thing. Indeed, you are doing the opposite of what you assert above: you are closely linking two different things (note that this does not invalidate my above argument about putting "different things" in the same article, because in this case we are talking about different, conflicting, things. The respective properties cannot both be true of the same object, which is different from a case where you merely have unique things that do not purport to be the same thing, and are consistent with each other. We are not going to create the ridiculous situation of creating different articles like "photon torpedo in TNG ep. 5" and "photon torpedo Voyager ep. 9". A separate article on the Stargate that describes the common qualities of all Stargates in the Stargate fictional universe would only be a stub with a couple lines which would clearly belong in the general article about the universe. Indeed, most of what can be said about the common Stargate already is in the general article Stargate. As I haven't read the books, it might even be reducible to a single line or just a statement of it being a "wormhole". As it stands, most of what is said in the current article cannot be said about the film or--I don't know--the books or the cartoon series, and the story of it may change again or further in the upcoming Stargate Atlantis. In fact, based on the story of the new series, it will probably change significantly, expanding the scope and invalidating what has been stated in the SG-1 series.
As for quantum and plasma torpedoes, they are rather identical in terms of the story. These are not real things; they only have an "existence", and a justification for being here, in the context of the story. Their minor technical properties do not have an effect on the story. In some cases where minor technical properties are referenced, they are not consistent with references in other episodes or series. In other words, as far as technical properties goes, the episodes are referencing different things. As far as that goes, the only apparent difference with the plasma torpedo mentioned in the article is that their guidance systems don't work well, and that difference only means it is "dumb missiles" and "guided missiles". Anyway, I don't recall the photon torpedoes following their targets anyway. Many different races in Star Trek have different weapons, but it is not appropriate to have a dozen different articles for them all. In the context of the fictional universe, they are merely "torpedoes" with the same qualities. Using minor technical details that are referenced often makes weapons of the same race and name as different as weapons of different races.
These things belong in the articles about the series or film. In the real world, their properties were written by different people with different ideas who were loose with continuity. As for the Stargate film, it is simply false to assert that the Stargate of that film has properties which were never mentioned in the film. In the story, they do not exist. - Centrx 21:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A heck of a lot of verbiage is being exchanged about this without it being very productive, IMO. I'll summarize my position on the matter:

  • Wikipedia has tons of articles about fictional things that exist only within fictional universes, most of which are perfectly capable of being written in an encyclopedic manner. Check out Archive of fictional things for thousands of examples. You're swimming against a lot of Wikipedia cultural inertia in this case and I think you're wrong to be doing so.
  • Plasma torpedos are so different than photon torpedos in story terms. I suspect you don't remember the TOS episode Balance of Terror very well. Rather than go into detail here, though, I'm going to go expand those articles a bit by putting the details there.
  • Could you explicitly list what characteristics of the Stargate you think changed from the movie to the SG-1 series? The only ones I'm aware of are the ones listed already at Stargate, and they're all trivial. I'm not familiar with any of the books or Stargate Infinity, but those sources are all non-canon anyway.

Bryan 06:47, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I rather agree that this isn't so productive. However, I do think it is counter-productive to do things wrongly so I consider preventing that productive. More significantly, this discussion has tremendous scope that makes it more productive than it seems you think. As you say, Wikipedia has tons of articles on fictional things, so this discussion has a great pertinence, and I do think it is a problem that there are so many fictional articles that aren't truly fit encyclopedic propriety.
As for the plasma torpedoes, yes, they do have an effect on the story in that episode. But that shows my point. It has that effect in that episode, but the properties of plasma torpedoes are not consistent across episodes and series. While it may have that property in that episode, it does not elsewhere. This is especially true because it seems that that was a relative property. There's nothing to say that, for instance, the Federation torpedoes improved considerably and inconsistently in other episodes or series, or that the type of torpedo the Enterprise had is simply not the same type as is used elsewhere. So, you cannot write a consistent article about the single self-consistent thing "plasma torpedo". The information is appropriately in the article about the episode where it had an effect on the story.
As for Stargate, I'm not saying so much that SG-1 is substantially inconsistent with the film, but that SG-1 introduces new things that simply were not in the film, and it cannot be said that those new things are a property of the fictional universe in the film or are a feature of the story envisioned by the film's creators. The non-canonism of the cartoon series and the books sort of proves the point. They have a different universe, yet they do take place in something you could accurately call "Stargate fictional universe". Are we to have different articles for these different universes, and if so, why would it not be more appropriate to put the information in the articles about the series and the films and the books, where I think it belongs? Indeed, I would bet that many of the books are consistent with other books, and you would have a "Stargate universe" that is consistent across multiple pieces of literature, yet inconsistent with the supposedly canonical Stargate universe. - Centrx 20:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you'd like to change the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia as a whole, this article is probably not the best place to do it; I'd suggest browsing around Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and related articles looking for an appropriate talk page, or possibly starting a section about it on Wikipedia:Village pump. As for plasma torpedo inconsistency, as far as I'm aware Balance of Terror is the only episode that they've ever appeared in so I don't see how it's even possible. Where else have they been used? And finally, I do not consider revealing previously-unknown information about the Stargate to be a change from the film to the series; it's only a change if it actually contradicts something that was previously known to be otherwise. If there's significant information about the Stargate from a non-canon source such as Infinity I'd suggest including it in the Stargate's article either making sure the source of the information is well-referenced (if it's just a few tidbits) or as a separate section titled something like "The Stargate in Stargate Infinity" (if there are huge amounts of detail). An example of an existing article presenting both canon and non-canon information about a fictional object in a multi-series setting is Coruscant. Bryan 00:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I don't expect much to change in either of our arguments at this point, so if you still feel strongly that this article should be merged into the universe articles I'm going to have to ask that we get some other editors involved to establish a consensus on the issue - possibly at one of the policy pages, since you are proposing a widescale change to Wikipedia policy beyond this one particular article. Bryan 00:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
as far as I'm aware Balance of Terror is the only episode that they've ever appeared in so I don't see how it's even possible
I am certain it has been in several other episodes and series, although properties of it may not have been explicitly stated. This is my point though. If it has only ever appeared in that one episode, than it cannot properly be called an object of the Star Trek universe and so only belongs on the article about that episode, not a separate one. If it has appeared in other episodes where its only distinction was as the "green torpedo from the Romulan ship", then at the very most it belongs in an article about "Romulans" in general, not in a separate article to itself.
An object that appears in only one episode isn't part of the universe as a whole? I find that a strange approach. In any event, please provide actual episode titles where plasma torps were used subsequent to Balance of Terror if you want to point out specific inconsistencies. There's no point in discussing this further without some actual facts to base the discussion on. Bryan 23:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
TNG: The Defector and TNG: The Pegasus both have plasma torpedoes. I'm sure there are several others, and if there are not in the 5 series, 10 movies, and myriad books, then the object doesn't warrant an article about it anyway. They are also used in the many Star Trek games, which have examples where other races (The Gorn in Starfleet Command, for instance) have plasma torpedoes. Note here, for instance, that in these games they have certain properties, like damage effects and speeds, and that those properties are inconsistent across the games. Are you thinking that these properties should be listed in an article on plasma torpedoes, because they have no relevance to any of the series or movies--those properties are not in the universe of them. I will have to view some episodes and observe closely in order to have a precise example of plasma torpedo inconsistency, but I find it highly unlikely there there would be any consistency across 600 episodes and 10 movies, in Star Trek of all places, which has some of the most inconsistency of any "fictional universe".
For instance, at the beginning of the TNG series, the Ferengi were an absolute, almost swine-like evil that trapped the crew and used energy whips and had none of the qualities of the traders and the clever plotters that they were later in the series and in DS9. I also know for a fact that the games are not consistent with each other regarding plasma torpedoes and other weapons. Another is how the computer of Voyager, which was during some of the same years as the Enterprise (stardate), has 75 trillion times (VOY: Drone, 47 billion teraquads) the capacity of the Enterprise-D, which is the largest mobile computer known to exist by the Federation, (TNG: 11001001). Voyager is also ridiculously capable at evading and destroying Borg ships. It is a single, smaller vessel far from home and yet it easily handles the Borg. At the beginning of Voyager it's established that they have a limited supply of photon torpedoes and shuttles and must conserve them, yet they considerably exceed this limit and used many times the number of shuttles in the ship's complement. I could go on forever about the inconsistencies in Voyager, there is even one I know of within the same episode. Others: In TOS: Metamorphosis, the universal translator translates by detecting brain waves, yet in TNG and in the canonic TNG Technical Manual, it translates by analyzing spoken communication, so it has somehow become less sophisticated? Nevertheless, it's not the same device. There are numerous times, in TOS, TNG, and DS9 where it is explicitly stated that there is high risk in going to warp in a solar system, yet there are numerous times, at least in TNG, where the Enterprise goes to warp from right above a planet, as in TNG: 11001001. The Trill in TNG are all-dominating (which makes it absurd why a humanoid would consent to the combining) yet in DS9 it is a mutual, symbiotic combination. There are others that are more related to production, like the Klingon forehead change after TOS, and the fact that all the ships meet head on at the same orientation. There are others that are more related to the timeline of history. The history of the Federation and Earth is significantly different in TOS than in the later series', aside from the fact that, for instance, there were no Eugenics Wars in 1996. I will not go into Enterprise because it is absurdly inconsistent with the rest of Star Trek, for instance the Romulans have warp drive a century before they do elsewhere (like in Balance of Terror where they don't). However, the common explanation for this, that there is a lot of time travel in the series which messes up timelines is a disproving of the idea that these objects should have their own articles: the very universe is different and there cannot be said to be a single "Star Trek universe" here. This is also a reason why other explanations, like the Q Continuum messing around with things, are insufficient.
As for the "plasma torpedo", in looking these things up, it looks like there was no reference to a plasma torpedo in Balance of Terror, but rather a "plasma weapon", and this plasma weapon does not even look anything like the plasma torpedoes that the Romulans use in later series' and movies. If these weapons look different and have different names, and indeed over the course of technology being improved and considerably modified, how can this data be agglomerated in the same article and under the same title. In Reality, we don't usually have the latter problem, for instance, because when things become significantly different they have new names, and general terms, like "pistol" are well-defined. In this comparison, all the torpedoes of Star Trek are more like "pistols", and upgrades over the course of centuries are more like different models, which have different names in Reality, but which do not get new names in the Star Trek universe, even though it is over the course of 3-4 centuries. We don't call our rifles "muskets", because they're different things just like the objects of fiction. - Centrx 03:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Re: Stargate the film:
It may not strictly be a "change", but nevertheless it is simply not a true statement that "X is a facet of the fictional universe of the film Stargate" if it was not at all a part of the film or its creation. So, information in a general "Stargate universe" article that was not in the film must be prefaced with something indicating that it is from the SG-1 series or whatever. Doing so is a must, because the series and the films are the only concrete things where there is a true source. Compiling a universe from the facts of each episode and disregarding certain ones in the interest of congruity is original research and does not belong on the Wikipedia. Distinguishing between what is and is not canon is subjective, and in the case of the Stargate, exclusive. All of the information in the article currently is from Stargate SG-1. That is the fictional universe this article is about, and it cannot be accurately said that the information in it is true of the film, the other series', or the books. - Centrx 21:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is hardly "original research," the creators of Stargate themselves have declared SG-1 to be canon and Infinity to be non-canon. Furthermore, which facts are being "disregarded" in the interest of congruity? If there are inconsistent facts then they should all be presented, with notes indicating their origin and how they're inconsistent. See the list of retcons between movie and SG-1 on the main Stargate page for example. Anyway, until you present some actual examples of these inconsistencies or disregarded facts that you're complaining about (and note that I do not count facts that are consistent with previously-established ones but which were merely not mentioned or known before to be "inconsistencies") I think I'm done with this branch of the conversation too. Bryan 23:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First of all, what do you mean by the "creators of Stargate themselves". The writers and producers of the film, who according to IMDB have never been directed or written for Stargate SG-1 and who aren't even credited as creators in the series' credits? Or do you mean the creators of the TV series, which doesn't really mean much. It's easy for someone to say that the series they made themselves is what's canon. No matter, though, this is an objective encyclopedia and just because they created it doesn't mean they are the ultimate arbiters of the facts of things in the world. It also doesn't change the fact that statements of things in the so-called "Stargate universe" are false statements when regarding the film. It has it's own story, and it should be accurately represented. It also doesn't mean that the collection of factoids in various episodes is not original research. It means we can accurately say that the creators of ... have said this (which would be a stupid thing to add if it's just the Stargate SG-1 creators saying it), but the statements in the article are still rather ad hoc. It is original research to say that "X is true of the film" when it was only stated in the series and there was nothing about it in the film. Disregarding the main point I have been making, why should this not at least be included in the article on Stargate SG-1 when this is the canon the article is about and the other things are not--they would be different and not of the canonical Stargate SG-1 universe (note it is not the "Stargate universe"). At least, why not change this article to say that it is in the context of "the fictional universe of the television series Stargate SG-1" and some other things? If something is not mentioned in the film, it cannot be said that it occurred in the film or is a feature of the universe of the film. It is, if not original research, false, as it is information invented by the creators or writers of Stargate SG-1, and no more valid than an invention by the creators of the cartoon series, or even by myself: for instance, there are numerous fanmade Star Trek episodes all over the place. - Centrx 03:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're still not listing any specific instances of these inconsistencies that you're complaining are being glossed over, as I requested above. I'm done with this conversation, IMO it's a waste of time at this point. We obviously have very different philosophies about this subject and if you want to dramatically reorganize these articles I'll want to see some sort of widespread consensus developed before going along with it. Bryan 05:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are three inconsistencies right in the article Stargate, and you have not addressed the fact that it is false or original research to make statements about the "Stargate fictional universe", of which the film is supposedly an instance (if it is not, then saying "Stargate SG-1 fictional universe" is better instead), which are not demonstrably true in the film. Also, I would like to know why the universe of Stargate SG-1 is so definitively canon yet Stargate Infinity, the books, and especially the film, are not. Also, if Stargate SG-1 is the canon from which these articles should work and the statements of the articles are not true and accurate statements about the other Stargate products, then why shouldn't these articles refer to the "universe of Stargate SG-1" rather than the "universe of Stargate", which is only pertinent to the film (Stargate) if anything. I will soon begin edit the articles to ensure that they indicate an accurate context and do not make false statements. - Centrx 05:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I've already addressed the ones listed on the Stargate page. I consider them trivial, but if you think they're significant I'll add mention of them to this page. As for the canonicity of the various series, I'd suggest taking that to Talk:Stargate. It's an issue of much greater scope than this article addresses. Bryan 06:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer the original question, Stargate (device) deserves its own page because there is enough to say about the device, and the Stargate page has other things to talk about, introducing the universe as a whole. I'm not crazy about the word 'universe' in this context, but it's a common usage and I don't have a better idea.

Since there are almost 200 hours of TV and only 2 hours of film, the information about the Stargate universe necessarily comes mostly from the TV. The film is canon, though of a lesser degree than SG-1. Canonicity is ultimately a legal matter: the owners of the film and TV get to say what writers must accept as established fact for the show. They authorized the people who made SG-1 to reuse the setting and characters -- and to make various changes. As I understand it, Emmerich and Devlin weren't happy about this but MGM made the decision and they haven't tried to fight it.

All this stuff was at Foo(Stargate-SG-1), but with a new TV series about to start, Bryan and others realized that it needed to be reorganized. Given the names, the choice of 'Stargate' for the overall name was obvious. The differences between the film and the TV deserve to be noted. There's a section on the base page -- if you've got more inconsistencies, add them. And Talk:Stargate is the place to discuss this further.
--wwoods 09:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)