Talk:Earth starships in Stargate/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Roman numerals

Please provide a citation for where Roman numerals have been used in the show, they've been referred to as three's and eights but not "Mark eye-eye-eyes" or "Mark vee-eye-eye-eye" - not everybody is Roman numeral savvy - Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for where arabic numerals have been used for the weapons on the show. They have said "Mark eight", without any stating any specific way of writing "eight". This is not a matter of facts, it's a matter of notation. We don't need a citation for how to spell "star", for example, we just use the standard spelling of "star" in every other context. The standard notation for "Mark eight" in every other context is "Mark VIII", so that's what we should use. --Tango 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Where have Roman numerals been used in the show for weapons? They haven't - the job is yours to prove they have. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
um, they are military... military uses roman numerals for weapons... why dont you prove they use arabic numerals... -Xornok 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You haven't listened to my point - there is no need to show that it's used that way in the show. In the show, it is never written down. The only thing we have to go on is that "Mark eight" is always written "Mark VIII" everywhere where it is written down. Your comment about the burden of proof is flawed - we're not talking about adding or removing anything, we're talking about how to write something which no-one has an objection to including. If you can find a reliable source to support your view, then we'll change it. --Tango 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You are the one that needs to present a reliable source, you've failed to show this "everywhere" and also do you see any Roman numerals here?. Also not everyone reads Roman numerals, this is not the Roman Wikipedia, rather it is the English Wikipedia. The burden of proof is yours. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do I need to provide a source? It's a style issue, not a facts issue. Why do you consider arabic numerals to take precedence over Roman ones in a context where Roman is standard? As for people not reading roman numerals - should Henry VIII be moved? Roman numerals are part of the English language. This isn't the arabic wiki, but you're still advocating using arabic numerals. --Tango 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Because they've never been referred to as "vee-eye-eye-eyes", they have been referred to as 8s and 3s. Also how is Roman "standard" unless you can back it up it is an invalid claim. Although I wouldn't object my self to writing it as three or eight, that would still be correct. (addendum: I wouldn't object to moving: Henry VIII of England → Henry the 8th) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"VIII" is pronounced "eight", not "vee-eye-eye-eye", so why would they say that? They also haven't said "Mark two-circles-one-on-top-of-the-other". Your claim that 8 is correct is also invalid by that logic - where is your source? --Tango 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
My source? Oh my, you can't of been reading my messages - my source is the show - the primary source. Also no they've said eight, and it would actually be non-numerical "eight" per cMoS/MoS thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The show is spoken, not written. "8", "eight" and "VIII" are all pronounced identically. --Tango 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark (designation) uses Roman Numerals. And the page you linked to is talking about MK, as in MK47, a type of gun, where Mk here stands for Mark, and the link i just presented uses roman numerals as Mark I and Mark II... -Xornok 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) - hopefully someone there can help settle this. --Tango 22:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... Xornok, I don't know where you got the idea that the military uses Roman numerals. Coming from someone who's been in the Air Force (that's right, the same AF as in the series), for 4 years, I can tell you that we do NOT use roman numerals. I work on A-10s, not A-Xs. They are loaded with AIM-9s, not AIM-IXs, and AGM-65s, not AGM-LXVs. The weapons used by the military personnel in the show are M-4s and M-9s, not M-IVs and M-IXs. Please, if you have never served, don't make baseless assumptions based on what you think you "know". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GateWorld people. Mark IX SG-17 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And GateWorld is not an official website, and cannot be used as any kind of source. Huntster (t@c) 08:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe this is an issue. It's obvious, the show uses real world systems so it would be Roman numerals. Since we can, why doesn't someone ask Joe Mallozzi about this. I would but my questions never get picked.

Vala M (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to find an official transcript of the appropriate episodes. We link to them for some episodes, but I'm not sure where to look for them. --Tango (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deep space carriers... or not?

I know, I changed my mind. They're apparently not. It seems each ship serves a different perpose.

Daedalus : Possibly battlecruiser
Odyssey : Deep Space Carrier
Korolev : Unknown as the Russians ended up with it then it got destroyed
Apollo : Advanced Tactical Deployment

So I'm thinking, should this article just be renamed Daedalus Class or Daedalus class ship then? It says DAEDALUS CLASS on the bottom of the Apollo patch.

Faris b 05:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just keep them named like the rest of the ships in the series? Just call them Daedalus Class (Stargate) that's more then enough. - 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but let's see what everyone else thinks before we go renaming it.

Faris b 05:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Leave as-is. I don't know precisely where this Battlecruiser term came from, but it seemed to be agreed upon early in. Similar to regular naval vessels, whilst a particular ship may be performing duties outside of its "normal" role, its core mission and capabilities would remain the same. For example, an Iowa-class battleship, no matter where she sails or what mission she is currently performing, is still a battleship. The Daedalus-class vessels would be no different. Other equipment may be tacked on or personnel and aerospace assets assigned, but they all have a primary mission, and that is Earth defense (yes, even in the Pegasus galaxy :) -- Huntster T@C 09:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Dillion Everett states the Daedalus as a battlecruiser in The Siege Part Two thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Then, for the reasons stated above, let's leave as-is. -- Huntster T@C 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone quotes that phrase all the time, for one, that line was written before the actual ship was shown, and at the time, the only look we had at at the Daedalus was in SG-1's "Moebius" and it looked like the Prometheus, that was changed when season 2 started. Secondly, it seems each ship serves a different perpose. Maybe with this new information only the Daedalus is a battlecruiser, Odyssey is a Deep space carrier and Apollo is an Advanced tactical deployment vessel. This supports the renaming of the page to "Daedalus Class (Stargate)".

Faris b 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That quote is used because it is the only real, spoken descriptor that has been applied to the vessels. Calling them otherwise treads into original research. Like I said above, it doesn't matter if different individuals vessels serve different purposes, they have the same basic capabilities, which is the primary deciding factor. Basically, until something else is spoken in the show, we should not label them as something else. If you'll recall, we basically have been through this already with the "Deep Space Carrier" bit. -- Huntster T@C 08:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

just start a vote already, vote to change or to keep and let the people descide, instead of arguing about it here where noone's mind is going to be made up. - 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A vote is not necessary or beneficial since Wikipedia is not a democracy. We are here to state facts, and facts are not determined by mass consensus, even here. What we do have to decide is whether or not we follow policy, and one of those policies is no original research. If the show called it a battlecruiser then that is what we have to call it regardless of what it looks like or acts like. Until something is said in the show to contradict this it is what we have to do regardless of our own personal opinions about the matter. Konman72 14:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, "battlecruiser" fits because it also matches the missions which daedelus always serves. it is never seen serving in a fleet with any other ships, and it is almost is never seen with any ships at all. so it clearly does not play a supporting role, and it is really not a "carrier" either as this implies a specialized ship serving mainly to provide fighter support, within a variety of missions. The Daedeklus is mainly designed to curise alone, pure and simple, as the Atalantis base has almost no ships to utilize otherwise. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


I've just noticed that most of the Daedalus and Apollo crew don't have the standard SGC point of origin patch. But they have a different symbol rather than Earth's point of origin. Why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The don't go through the stargate, so I guess it makes sense for them to have a non-stargate logo. I think it is standard for ships in the US Armed Forces to each have their own emblems. --Tango 16:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, But the crew of the Odyssey have the patches with the stargate point of origin logo, and they don't go through the stargate on a regular basis. Also the crew of the Daedalus had the point of origin logo in early season 2 of Atlantis.

It's the Atlantis Point of Origin. Both ships are tasked to the Atlantis expedition and the Pegasus Galaxy, while Odyssey is Milk Way/ Stargate Command based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No Way Back (talkcontribs) 14:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the Atlantis POINT OF ORIGIN. The Constellations in Pegasus are completely different than the Milky Way. The Constellation on the patch is "Pegasus" which is the first glyph in the 8 Symbol Milky Way address to get to Lantea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Apparently, we will be seeing a new Earth ship called the Phoenix in the Atlantis season 4 finale. Pics released from Joseph Mallozzi's blog seem to show a slightly different bridge layout with an Asgard console where the star map normally is. Should it be included somewhere in the article or in another one? Vala M 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until there is something more concrete to go on. Looking through the first page of his blog, I see only one mention of the name and a picture of a bridge layout that is not directly connected to the name. Blogs are generally not considered a citable source...even though he is one of the top guys, things can easily change between now and when the episode actually airs. -- Huntster T@C 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do you know which day those pictures were from? I want to see what the new ship looks like. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
here ( (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Has anyone got a link to the entry in Joseph Mallozzi's blog?--Heruur (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, found the links: Phoenix Bridge Phoenix Walkthrough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruur (talkcontribs) 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Apollo & Daedalus - Asgard Weaponry

We already know that the Odyssey is now equiped with Asgard directed energy weapons, it appears from spoliers on the Gateworld site that the Apollo and Daedelus have been equiped with Asgard directed energy weapons. Should this be added to the article now or should it be left out until it can be confirmed (viewed on screen)? --Heruur (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't add material until after an episode airs. Everything is subject to modification for various reasons, and fansites such as Gateworld cannot be used as references. -- Huntster T@C 02:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but material is commonly added to these articles before it airs. Anyway, it was confirmed tonight. Alyeska (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear that it aired finally. My whole apartment complex is without cable television for some time due to a line break...grr. As for material being added, doing so violates Wikipedia policy, the "verifiability" portion. If no episode has aired, it is not confirmed (unless specifically stated by a reliable person or publication...and no, not Gateworld or other fansites). I prefer to follow this policy. Huntster (talkemailcontribs) 05:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up?

Ok the article is getting kind of long, with many parts not being sourced, and many parts are just covering the story line of an episode and going into alot of detail that isn't necessary, so perhaps a cleanup is in order? Also there is very little on the interior of the ship, things about the different rooms, i have added a list of known rooms on board the various ships, however it require changing, i think we should discuss what infomation is key to the ships and try to cut out the unnecessary over detailed recaps of episodes and focus on what are the most important features onboard, key things that are revealed and what exactly the ships are used there and capable of. ( (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

The ships of the line chunk could be compacted down into a table, with headings for: ship name, ship co(s), episode 1st seen, special features/weapons, assigned base (atlantis or earth), current status. The ship design section could be fleshed out a bit, inc (where appropriate) a photo.--Heruur (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean, the entire ships of the line section? That would be rather extreme in my opinion, given that there is quite a bit more information presented than what would fit in a table. I think that events could be summarized better to make a shorter article, but there's nothing wrong with the length per se. As for photos, we have more than enough. Remember, fair-use photos should be used as sparingly as possible. Huntster (talkemailcontribs) 21:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We already had a table for the ships last year, but problems with the format lead to it's removal in the "Ships of the line" section. Go back into the history of early 2007/middle 2006 to see what I mean.

I think that the ship-specific infoboxes should stay as each ship has it's own perpose rather than all ships doing the same thing. Vala M (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well at the moment there is loads of details about every single move any of the ships have made, we really don't need all that, people can just read about it in the episode part, all we need is key things that have happened, like the asgard upgrades, horizon weapons, info about different areas of the ships, the captains, so a large (very large ha) table might be the best thing to do, or something along those lines for the actual ships themsleves, but for the actual details of areas on the ships we could have more infomation and pictures. ( (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC))
Tables really should be avoided unless the material cannot be presented any other way. Yes, the material should be pared down (while still presenting an informative overview of the events), but that critical information that you suggest should be tablised is best left in prose format. Huntster (talkemailcontribs) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hull mark

The Daedalus has the mark 02, but the Odyssey has the mark 03. And you see that you has seen 02 in the hull of the odyssey, this is because CGI used the same 3d model for two ships, and they forget change the hull mark -Alberto14 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, in "Unending" the ship said ODYSSEY 02. Apparently, 02 means the second line of ships built, not the individual ship numbers, so the Odyssey is NOT 03.

See it for yourself:

Vala M (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it means niether. Since both of your interpretations are assumptions and not grounded on verifiable statements either from the show or the producers :) No Way Back 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


After destroying seven ships, the Apollo detects that the 30 remaining ships have If I remember the quote, it's Atlantis that detected the ships not the Apollo Terryrayc (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was Atlantis, using the device the duplicate Keller gave them. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, I changed that section to reflect the correct information Terryrayc (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Asgard power core

Ok, let's work this one out once and for all. There definitely *is* a power supply as part of the Asgard upgrades, it's mentioned at least twice during Unending. It only powers the Asgard components, but they still part of the ship. For example, the brilliant new weapons are presumably powered by the Asgard power core - surely we should include the power supply used for the most impressive thing the ship has? --Tango (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm of two minds, I'd like to include it(I created the Power Core Wiki Page) however, I think the quote was that the Computer Core had it's own Power Core, I'm not sure if it powers anything else except for the Asgard Computer core which makes it a very small part. Now that being said, the power core was used to help keep them out of phase with time so it is a major power system......who knows. Terryrayc (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is already been discussed higher up on the page under "Clear it up" and I got the transcript of the episode from Stargate solutions at:

"The Asgard computer core is equipped with its own power source that will not infringe on your ship's ZPM. However, when the upgrades are complete, the core will be fully integrated into all the ship's systems."

Those were Thor's exact words. The first sentence proves that the computer core has it's own power source and it's not an extra power source for the ship. I know the last part makes it sound like it powers the ship but it doesn't, (Note he said that the core will be full integrated not the power supply) what it means is that the ship will be able to access the power core in a way like a networked computer or something like that.

Vala M (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Once the computer core is integrated, it is part of the ship, so its power source is powering part of the ship. It's not powering the whole thing, certainly, but it is a power source for the ship, so should be included. --Tango (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That isn't what the quote is saying, though. It's saying that the power source is powering the core, not the ship. The computer core will be integrated into ship systems. Huntster (t@c) 15:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
And what I'm saying is that the core is part of the ship (that being what "integrated" means), so it is powering (part of) the ship. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
But then you are making an assumption by saying that because the core is integrated, that the power source will be as well, and thus will be powering non-computer core systems. Or am I misreading your statement? Huntster (t@c) 17:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying the core is part of the ship and the power supply is powering the core, thus it is powering part of the ship. --Tango (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't power the ship, just the core. And power sources mean power sources for the ship, not something powering part of the ship.

Vala M (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's powering the weapons and time dilation device (which I think it probably is), then it's powering a very major part of the ship and should be included. If it's purely powering the computer and not any of the other components, then you may have a point, but if that was the case, why was it drained in 40 years? Asgard tech lasts longer than that, does it? --Tango (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the point, we don't know. The only quote we have is, apparently, that it is powering the computer core. Perhaps the core is extremely power intensive, perhaps it isn't, but assuming one way or another is certainly original research. I'm just saying that if it cannot be determined, then it probably shouldn't be included. Huntster (t@c) 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We know it's a power source and it's part of the ship, so why can't it be included under the heading "Power"? We're not saying what it powers, just that it is a power source. That's all we know, so that's all we should include, but there's no reason not to include it. I'd say not including it is original research - you're assuming it doesn't power the rest of the ship, and that was never explicitly stated. We shouldn't try and guess either way, we should just include what we know, which is that there is an Asgard power source. --Tango (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have anything to offer in terms of how it was powering the time dialation field, maybe in all that time, Carter managed to rig it to draw power from the Asgard core, I'm sure she could do it but that wasn't it's original intended use, and the time dialation field was the most powerful one ever used on the show, 40 years passed inside the field while less than a fraction of a second passed on the outside. Even moreso than the "Santuary" in "Epiphany" which was a 250:1 ratio. I don't know the ratio of the "Unending" time dialation field but I'm sure someone could figure it out on here. McKay also said that they would experience a whole lifetime inside the field within a week of normal time while as I stated above, 40 years passed in under a fraction of a second in normal time, meaning the power requirement is much greater.

Vala M (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

40 years in one second would be a ratio of 1.3 billion to 1, so I imagine it's even higher than that. The one the Asgard kept the Replicators in was a ratio of 1:10,000, modified by the Replicators to 100:1, so the one in Epiphany is one of the smaller fields we've seen. However, 250:1 would be roughly 5 years inside per week outside, a lifetime (80 years, say) in a week would be about 4000:1, so I'm not sure what was going on there... --Tango (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice work with the ratios. Thanks.

And in regards to the power source issue, it says Power source, meaning power source of ship in the fields on the page, if there was a field for other power sources/devices, then it would fit.

Vala M (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is a power source for the ship, just not the entire ship. By that logic, the ZPM shouldn't be listed since it only powers the parts of the ship that aren't the Asgard core (as explicitly stated by Thor), and not the entire ship. --Tango (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a fallacious argument...the Asgard core is a subsystem; the Asgard power source is powering that subsystem, and thus is not critical to the operation of the ship. The Naqadah generators, and optionally the ZPM, are powering all other systems aboard ship, making them mission critical. The ship will run fine without the Asgard systems, but will be dead in the water without those core power sources. Actually, thinking about it now, I have no problem with removing "ZPM" from the listing, since it too isn't critical compared to the Naqadah generators...only the Odyssey carries one, doesn't it? Huntster (t@c) 12:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Once the core was fully integrated, the ship wouldn't work without it without disconnecting everything (that's a key plot point in Unending), so it is quite critical. How about having two fields "Primary power source" and "Secondary power source(s)"? The first would be the Naqadah generator(s), the second would be both the ZPM and the Asgard power source. --Tango (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding a secondary power source field. The Computer core is ment to be tied into the entire ship. It's controlling the weapons, the beaming system, the engines...which is why they had to cut it off in the plot of the ep. The the power core is powering the computer core which is controlling several major functions, so it's a secondary power source...not required to operate the ship itself but required for full functionality of the ship. Terryrayc (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoenix is a 304?

i saw a video of bridge of the Phoenix and on one of the monitors or screen, it shows the layout of a 304. so the Phoenix is gonna be a daedalus class cruiser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azncolonel (talkcontribs) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Until the episode airs, or another source positively confirms it is Daedalus class, we have no way of knowing what it is. It would be an assumption to call it Daedalus class based strictly off a photo of the bridge. Just be patient and wait for the won't be that much longer. Huntster (t@c) 07:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Odyssey weapons system?

what does it mean that the Odyssey has been seen with ventral hull emplacements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Double Sections with the same informaiton

I see the same information regarding the refit of the Daedalus and the Apollo can be found. one titled 'The Asurans' and the other titled 'Refit and campaign against the Asurans', these mention both ships, the same refit and the same battle. We might want to either remove one of add these to it's own section. Terryrayc (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps break them into one section called like Daedalus class refit or something since these upgrades affect all current and future ships. No reason to mention it for each of the existing ships. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Variations of deadalus class

In the alternate time line of "the last man", in general lorne's office there is a picture on the wall of a sleek and refined 304. defiantly NOT the standard Daedalus class. Is it worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really since we don't know anything about it. Good catch though...I didn't even notice anything different about the picture. Huntster (t@c) 15:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In addition, since it was featured in an alternate timeline and 25 years in the future, it isn't worth mentioning. And since McKay was successful in sending Colonel Sheppard back in time, that ship might never actually exist in the normal timeline. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Do you think it would be a good idea to add a picture of the individual ships? or is the picture at the top of the page enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss9999 (talkcontribs) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is too necessary since all the ships look the same. - OracleGuy01 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:NFC, non-free images should be kept to a minimum. Per OracleGuy01, this means that one image is more than enough for the general look of the ships. – sgeureka tc 09:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok. Ss9999 (talkcontribs)

Ship ranking

These ships have now proved themselves to be without a doubt the most powerful ships in active service in the Stargate universe. They have been seems destroying Ori motherships, Ancient battleships and Wraith hive ships with almost comical ease. The ships are equipped with shields that appear able to deflect/absorb Ancient drone weapons (something which only Ancient shields have been seen as capable of previously) and they are equipped(especially now) with arguably the most advanced hyperdrive technology witnessed in the entire series. Something should definitely beentioned about these facts because the small fleet of 3 ships that Earth currently has is certainly sufficient to protect the planet against any threat that has been encountered thus far. Rajrajmarley (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're almost certainly right, but it sounds like original research to me. We should stick to reporting things other people have said and not try and draw our own conclusions. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Most assuredly OR, which is why this has been previously removed from the article. If it is stated that they are decidedly more powerful than X or Y or whatever, then we can report that. Otherwise, we don't know if it is the ships that are more powerful, or if they are simply utilized in a more efficient manner, or something else. Huntster (t@c) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
While it can be assumed that this is correct, there has been no offical word from either the makers of the show or any dialog spoken. While I think you are right, without any offical word to back it up then we're getting into original research. However it has been stated in action and in words that these ships are more powerful then the Ori's, Ancients, Goa'uld, Wraith and the Asuran Replicators(Unknown about the other Replicators). So in regards to the shows current main races it is the most powerful. Now that doesn't mean there isn't anyone else out there more powerful....which is why we cannot state it as a fact. Terryrayc (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


under design it says a daedalus class is roughly the size of a ha'tak. isnt tat impossible? i mean a daedaus class is likly half the size right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not know. There has never been anything stated In the show with regards to the exact size of the ship. Terryrayc (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If thats the case, shouldn't we remove that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss9999 (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Your are correct, I've removed the statement. Terryrayc (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)