Talk:List of Earth starships in Stargate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

The Daedalus will have a bigger role on Stargate Atlantis than the Prometheus on Stargate SG-1, so I think this separate Daedalus page should be kept and not merged. WayneC

I concur. The "story", so to speak, of the ship will certainly develope seperately. -b 03:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

2 or 3?

there are three ships, not two. we only saw one get hit and the front blow up.... there is still a possiblity that some of it survived. we dont know for sure... so i say we keep it as 3 current active ships... 206.113.23.187 14:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

one was destroyed. theres no doubt about that.MarineCorps 13:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

really? cause if one was destoyed then either mitchell and daniel die or teal'c dies... i say it got damaged, but i need to re watch the episode to make sure, i dont think the entire ship blows up. Xornok 19:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel and Mitchell were on the Korolev, Teal'c was on a Jaffa Ship. - 59.167.32.221 12:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Korelev

RJ: The oddyssy is still ok. The russian vessel got destroyed throu the first ori attack. This info is based on the facts which stands on gateworld.net about the 10th season.. but i would prefer to wait until its clear which one was destroyed.

I believe that the Odyssey was destroyed. Destroying the Korelov means risking the loss of up to three main(ish) characters: Colonel Mitchell, Daniel Jackson and Colonel Chekov. There weren't any main characters on the Odyssey. RG

Far as I'm aware nothing is known of the Korelev other then it exists. Has it said that it is a Daedalus class?MarineCorps 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Gateworld spoilers say it's Daedalus class 59.167.6.100 10:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing gateworld says on the Korelev is this"Carter radios the Ori ships in the hopes of contacting any survivors of the Korelev, an Earth ship apparently destroyed by the Ori (probably how Daniel wound up on board). Daniel finds his radio and responds, assuring Sam that he made it okay. He and Vala hope to zat Adria and capture her."MarineCorps 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to visit the blogs of the executive producers, not just read the simple spoilers the site admins left in the episode guide. 59.167.6.100 01:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have. Even googled the word korelev for gateworld and the only thing it turned up was the spoilers in the episode guide. So unless you can provide a link I can only assume this is speculation at this point.MarineCorps 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we had the preview of Korelev in the preview of Crusade (SG-1) after this Friday's showing of Arthur'S Mantle (SG-1). Korelev appears to be not a Daedalus class vessel, but a Prometheus class vessel. So I suggest moving Korelev to the Prometheus article. --Will74205 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also saw that. However that might have been a flash back. Wait till next friday before taking any action.MarineCorps 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the Korelev is somewhat between a Prometheus and Daedalus. Its Russian and doesn't have to be an identical design to USAF ships. Alyeska 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Gen. Landry specifically refers to the ship they had to give to the russians as a "304", unless they created a new prefix, an F-304 refers to Daedalus class vessels, while the Prometheus is an F-303. Cheezykins 10:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

F means fighter. The 304 and 303 are Battlecruisers therefore BC MarineCorps 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus has "BC-303" written on the side of it's hull, or at lesat it did until it's hull started orbiting Tegalus in a debris field. the letter suffix infront of a ship's numerical classification represents the role the craft plays. X = eXperimental, F = Fighter, A = Assault, B = Bomber, etc... Since this is an airforce show, and it's already been shown with Prometheus as a BC 303, that the Daedalus would be BC. Additionally, the simple fact that it's too large to be a fighter, prompts it to be called BC-304. - 59.167.11.69 09:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If the Korolev was destroyed and the Odyssey wasn't, remember, both ships have Asgard beaming capability, so they can beam all the crew of one ship to another, in which case Daniel and Cameron won't die. Sorani172 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Travel time

The article says 20 days, however in Season 2 Episode 2 of Atlantis (The Intruder), one of the opening comments is that it takes 18 days to travel from Earth to Atlantis. Does anyone wish to verify? Steven 03:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's 18 without ZPM, four with a ZPM. From Intruder. LD 01:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

In the second episode of the 2nd season of Atlantis it was stated they were 18 days into their trip and that they had an additional 2 days before they reached Atlantis. This is a twenty day trip. Alyeska 05:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently people are still a little confused on the subject of travel time. The Daedalus was stated to be 18 days into the trip with an additional 2 days to Atlantis. This is a travel time of 20 days, not 18. Stop editing 20 back to 18, its a wrong number. Alyeska 03:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems that people are still having a hard time figuring out the travel times. I've had to correct it once again. The travel time between Atlantis and Earth is 20 days, not 18. The episode in question had Daedalus 18 days from Earth, but still another 2 to get to Atlantis. Alyeska 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing that the number of times they say, both on Earth and Atlantis that the travel time is 18 days. The number in "Intruder" may have been a mistake in the script. in "Ripple Effect", "Prometheus Unbound" and "Critical Mass" the trip takes 18 days, or is the older BC-303 faster then it's sucessor? 59.167.6.100 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus Unbound said it would take about a month. In in the SG1 episode with the multiple SG1 teams, Prometheus was said to take 3 weeks to reach Atlantis. The 18 day figure comes purely from Intruder. The actual time length is 20 days, and comments of three weeks travel time fits 20 days. 18 days would be only two and a half weeks. Alyeska 05:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Other then that single statement of travel time in Intruder which states 18 days, can someone find me any other example of the stated travel time for the Daedalus? I've looked for the trascript of Intruder and found that the wording of 18 days could be interpreted as 18 days total, or only 18 days with 2 to go. I know Prometheus was said to be 3 to get to Atlantis, and in theory it should be just as fast as the Daedalus. Any other stated travel times of 18 days and I will concede the issue and accept it. But if this single statement from Intruder is all we have, and with a longer travel time for Prometheus (3 weeks is awfuly close to 20 days) I'm inclined to read the 18 days as 18 days traveled and then take the statement later in the episode which says 2 days to Atlantis left. Alyeska 05:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a transcript, perhaps the one you mention: http://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s2/transcripts/202.shtml

From right near the beginning:

SHEPPARD: Well, McKay says we're only at the edge of the Pegasus galaxy. You'll be fine once we get back to Atlantis. You know, it's funny -- I spent the past year wondering if I'd ever see Earth again, and as soon as I got there ...

WEIR: I know how you feel. It was extremely convenient to be able to step through the Gate and be at Stargate Command in an instant, and now this (she looks around the room) feels extremely inconvenient. It must be eighteen days cooped up in the ship to get back.

and only a little later on:

CALDWELL (interrupting): We'll be back in Atlantis in less than two days. You can do your diagnostic then.

I can see how this is ambiguous, Weir could mean either that they've been in the ship for eighteen days or that the trip takes eighteen days in total.

Here's a transcript for Critical Mass: http://www.gateworld.net/atlantis/s2/transcripts/213.shtml Prometheus Unbound: http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s8/transcripts/812.shtml and Ripple Effect: http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s9/transcripts/913.shtml - I did a search for the words "eighteen" or "twenty" and didn't find anything relevant to travel time, but didn't do an exhaustive search. Have I missed anything? Bryan 07:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Ripple Effect had the statement "about three weeks" and "next three weeks" stated. I hesitate to say that 18 days is 3 weeks. Thats 2 and a half weeks. 20 days is close enough to call it 3 weeks. Anyway, thats my gut call on the issue. From the evidence available, it appears that 20 days is an accurate assesment of the travel time. This does make the assumption that Daedalus and Prometheus move at the same speed. So if someone else wants to contest this, I can't really argue either. Alyeska 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Article name

This article needs to be renamed either Daedalus class battle cruiser or Daedalus (Stargate).
—wwoods 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is bizarre. If you watch the scene in the Odyssey 's briefing room in Off the Grid, the screen in the background clearly states: Deep Space Carrier. Since Odyssey and Daedalus seem to be identical, should we rename it Daedalus-class carrier? LD 16:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should rename the article to Daedalus-class Deep Space Carrier according to the what we saw in Off the Grid --Will74205 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just remember Lowercase second and subsequent words. LD 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Plural title

I know it's picky, but the article talks about /plural/ battlecruisers, doesn't it? -Cws125 09:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It talks about plural battlecruisers, yes, but the title is still supposed to be singular. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." Taking a quick look through Category:Ship classes, I don't see a single one of them that uses a plural title so singular is also preferred simply based on precedent. I'm moving the article back to singular again. Bryan 00:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BC-02

In the interests of verifiability would someone mind pointing to the screenshot that shows the BC-02 hull number? AlistairMcMillan 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that original research? At least you considered it original research when related to Trek. Alyeska 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start another argument here, but you left "Screen shot gives the Daedalus a hull number of BC-02" in an edit comment, if that is the souce then you should link to it somewhere so that if someone disputes your edit they can see where you got the number from. IMHO If the hull number was clearly shown in big clear lettering on screen, if one hundred people could all look at the screenshot and come up with the same number, then it isn't original research. If however it is blurry and indistinct, and it is likely that different people might see different lettering, then that is original research. Which is what I've been trying to explain all along on other Talk pages. Everyone looks at it, comes up with the same result == not original research. Everyone looks at it, comes up with different results == original research. AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should remove the "BC-02" reference until someone can supply a screen capture. From all my times watching Stargate, I had never seen any reference of Daedalus as "BC-02". --Will74205 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone end up finding a reference for this particular tidbit, or did it just get lost in the hustle? If there's no source then I'll go ahead and take the registry column out of the table. Bryan 04:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ill watch season 2 this week and look for it... -Xornok

BC-02 is a combination of things. The Daedalus has a hull number of 02. The BC was added in the front using traditional naval naming. Such as CVN-65. Ship number 65, CVN type. The BC part was inferred from the use of established military conventions without being directly seen. The same as BC-302 was inferred (and just so happened to be correct) before it was confirmed. Feel free to remove it if you want. I am starting to think the Deep Space Carrier might be the only real designation we can use. Technicaly, the ship was called a 302, not a BC-302. Given Deep Space Carrier, we could be left with DSC-302 and a hull number of DSC-02. Alyeska 04:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the BC part, is there a source for the hull numbers? Also, the class as a whole is designated BC-304 (We have a reference for that now. :) so I'm not sure where the "302" bit comes from - the 302 is a fighter craft. Bryan 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I had the numbers flubbed. And I don't actualy remember them saying BC-304. I just remember Landry saying "We gave them a 304" or something to that effect. The hull number 02 is clearly visible during the second battle against the Wraith when they bombed 2 Hiveships and then had to retreat. Alyeska 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Siege pt 3. I've inserted the ref, and removed the citation needed for the column as a whole since it widened it significantly. Anyone know if the hull numbers for Oddessey and Korolev are visible in any of their appearances? It's getting a bit nitpicky even for me, but it'd be nice to complete the set. Bryan 05:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Best place to look for hull numbers on either ship is episode 920. The problem is we need a real close shot of the hanger area to see. It required a near shot on the Daedalus to see its hull number. I don't know that such shots of the other ships exist. Alyeska 05:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

i didnt see it, then again, i dont have the best quality videos.... btw, where did the 16 f-302 stat come from?-Xornok 05:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

2 hanger bays. 8 F-302s confirmed in one hanger bay. Times 2, 16 F-302s. Alyeska 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

and the source saying 8 f-302s in 1 hanger bay? just want to clear it up, someone might bring it up... eventually... -Xornok 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Episode 202 from Atlantis. Sheppard and McKay are doing work in the hanger and we clearly see 4 F302s on either side of the bay. Thats 8 F302s in total. Alyeska 05:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

well, we clearly see 6, as two on the right are not in camera view, but it would equal 8... so, should we cite that? -Xornok 05:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible we'll never see other hull numbers for the Odessey etc as I doubt they use seperate computer models for each ship. It's perhaps why we haven't seen many close ups of Odessey yet. No Way Back 10:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the battle sequence that Alyeska says he saw he hull number and I didn't find it (I trawled through the scene at half speed to make sure). Until a screen cap can be provided showing the hull number, it should not be put up here. No Way Back 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You watched a terrible copy of the episode to miss something like that. The ship clearly has a hull number of 2. Alyeska 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Now now, assume good faith. I just broke out my copy and had a look, and the only time I saw it was really brief and tiny in the moment when it's visible. I saw it at the 26:00 mark (the timecode will probably be a little different when the DVD comes out); right after Daedalus takes a bunch of damage to one of its shields and is trying to maneuver to hide it. There's an external camera shot that sweeps forward along the ship and white text that appears to read "DAEDALUS· 02" in the middle of the upper sloped face of the left engine nacelle. It's only there for a few seconds and it's barely large enough for me to consider it useful evidence. The resolution of my copy is only 640 by 352 pixels so the DVD release should help clarify this matter. Bryan 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, here is the proof of the 02 thing. It's actually DAEDALUS 02 not BC-02. http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s2/201/linz/html/stargate17617.html http://www.stargatecaps.com/sga/s2/201/linz/html/stargate17621.html

It's a little blurry but you can clearly make it out. Faris b 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, he is right it says Daeadalus 02. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is news how? I already stated it was just Daedalus-02 Alyeska 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's news because you never provided an image for proof, you kept directing people to watch the ep. You were right, but all I did was back up your claims with images. And, I checked ep 920 "Camelot", there are no closeups of either ship. You can see the lit up section on the fighter bays but no closeups. I'll bet we may never see it say ODDYSSEY O3 because the ship is a CG model and although it would be easy to change it to a different name, I doubt they will do it in order to save costs. Just like the Prometheus remained "X-303" long after it was designated BC-303.

--Faris b 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get these stats from?

"The Prometheus general design is that of a battlecruiser, a defensive/offensive craft designed to provide fire support in a space combat situation, trading shots with Goa'uld spacecraft. The Daedelus, however, is designed more as a multi-role carrier/battlecruiser, carrying 16 F-302 space-fighters as well as the capability for over 400 soldiers. While it is a carrier structure it is capable of standing up to multiple Wraith Hive Ships or Goa'uld motherships." —Where, pray tell, did THIS come from? I've never heard it anywhere on the show. LD 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only is it considered logical just by watching the two vessels in action. But the producers of the show have said in blogs and in interviews why the Prometheus and the Daedelus are different (Ie: Prometheus carries 2 F-302s and the Daedalus carries 16). And dont forget that Canada has already season the rest of the second season of Atlantis. Daedalus is shipping troops to and from Atlantis in "Inferno" as well as delivering more F-302s. - 59.167.6.100 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is intresting: the length and width are the same (as those of Prometheus), and the Prometheus is relatively taller (just looking at pictures: its got a lot less width for its height). So if the stats are accurate, the Daedalus is a smaller ship with more armaments and more cargo capabilities. Just something to think about :) ----DUCK

• The Prometheus had five 302s in Ethon. As for "just logical", try not to use this again, on account of Wikipedia:No original research. Unless it explicitly says something on the show, or if it would be impossible for things to be any other way, it's sort of hard to justify. LD 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did the statistics on this ship come from? Specifically the mass and the PSL speed. They have to be made up. It's never been stated how much the craft weighs, and you could never do a mass interpretation from the size given that you don't have accurate schematics nor know the density of the materials. As for the PSL, the only statistic i'm aware of in this range was that the Prometheus could go 110,000 miles per hour. Isn't that somewhere around 60% the speed of light? That's way off 95%. Just a thought, anyone concur?Jordan.Kreiger 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The speed was derived from calculations Carter made on how long it would take the Prometheus to travel using sublight engines at a given and known distance. The speed required them to be going very nearly the speed of light. Alyeska 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Which episodes do these facts appear in? These could use some specific cites. Bryan 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the episode reference would be useful. But then that's a sublight speed. They have hyperdrive for FTL travel. And, that's the Prometheus, which shares very little technology with the Daedalus (Asgard and Goa'uld technology).Jordan.Kreiger 18:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The episode I believe was season 6 Memento. It was the episode that the reactor goes critical and they were stranded on another planet for a time. Same episode was the "charging main weapon" piece comes from. Alyeska 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The ship in that episode was Prometheus, not Daedalus. Daedalus didn't even exist yet, it was first mentioned two years after that. Is there any reason to believe the two ships have the same maximum speed? (Not that "maximum speed" is a particularly realistic statistic for a spacecraft, of course, but alas that's modern science fiction for you :) Bryan 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be a different ship, but the speeds are almost certainly comparable. We already know the hyperspace speeds were comparable. Alyeska 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather big assumption considering how different they were in other areas of construction and capability. Lacking any source I think it's best to take this out for now. How about those other stats? Bryan 04:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

We made the leap and used both Prometheus and Daedalus information for the Hyperdrives. The top speed should be similar for both. As to the other stats, no clue where they came from. Alyeska 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any information about hyperdrive speed in either article, and even if they do have the same hyperdrive speed I don't see how this would imply similar sublight speeds - the FTL and STL drives are separate mechanisms operating on very different principles. I don't see these leaps as being warranted. Bryan 04:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't remember that discussion as to travel time between Atlantis and Earth? Whether or not it was 18 days, 20 days, or 3 weeks? We used an example of the Prometheus being said to take 3 weeks to travel to Atlantis as support that the Daedalus could make the trip in aproximately 3 weeks rather then giving a solid figure. And while the hyperdrives and sublight opperate on different principles, a direct comparison between sublight should be near identical principles between both ships. There is no evidence that the Asgard were involved in this element of the ship and both would use the same human design concepts. They might have different acceleration rates (I expect they would), but any top speed one ship has would be the same top speed of the other ship. Alyeska 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I remembered the discussion, but didn't remember Prometheus coming into the matter since 18 and 20 days are both "approximately 3 weeks" anyway. As for the sublight drives, that's just not how physics works (hence my earlier grumbling about modern science fiction). There's no such thing as a "top speed" in space. And in any event, human technology has been advancing very rapidly in the Stargate universe and the two ships are designed for different roles so they might indeed have very different drive systems even though they were both built by the same contractor. A Yorktown class aircraft carrier and a Bagley class destroyer have different speeds despite being built around the same time and by the same country. Bryan 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Top speed in an ocean is far different from top speed in space. The incident with the Prometheus clarly wasn't light speed, but it was very close to it. I need to dig up the calculations on that. So for whatever reason they can't actualy make light speed. Probably the relativistic effects got to nasty. Either way, its a good starting point for the Daedalus which uses largely the same technology which should function under the same properties in the same scientific principles. Alyeska 05:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And top speed in slower-than-light travel using ion drives and inertial dampers is far different from faster-than-light travel using Asgard hyperdrive, wouldn't you think? :) The point of bringing those two ocean-going ships up was simply to disprove the statement that the top speed of one ship design should be the same as the top speed of a different ship design simply because they're built using the same engineering principles. It looks to me at this point that there is simply no source to indicate what the Daedalus' sublight capabilities really are, and so it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to just make up some number like this. I'm taking it out. Bryan 15:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. So we've established that the sublight speed is iffy. However, doing some elementary calculations from material presented on the show, I determined that the Daedalus must travel somewhere in the neighborhood of 73,000,000 times faster than light to reach Atlantis in twenty days. Maybe we can add this. Also, I think the mass of the vessel is a number pretty much pulled out of thin air. All ten of the Nimitz-class carriers add up to around one million tons, yet this vessel by itself weighs forty times a Nimitz-class. That sounds rather strange in retrospect. Concur or disagree?Jordan.Kreiger 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oydssey

The Oydssey is taking the place of Prometheus on SG-1, it's going to be appearing a lot more regularly in the SG-1 series during the 10th season, perhaps it should get it's own page? At the very least, it merits it's own section away from Korelev - Count23 12:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

And it has a powered captains chair. :P Shogun 12:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I have two things to say:

1. Spell it right. It's "Odyssey". "Oydessey" spells "Oi-de-see".
2. It now has the "USS" ship prefix; look at Emerson's badge in Off the Grid. Quite frankly, I would prefer it to be "USIS", (United States Interstellar Ship).LD 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I noticed on the ships seal it said the Odyssey was a space carrier not a battle cruiser.24.198.200.173 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I did, too: see above, under "Article name". LD 00:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know how it's spelt, i was in a hurry last night and jumped some letters together. I also noticed the USS, but i was convinced that people would change it to "USAF" and make up some crap about it being a mislabeled prop or something. HOWEVER, you all have missed the point of this discussion section, RE-READ what i wrote, and then reply. - 59.167.43.113 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. LD 04:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "USS" would be a better prefix because SGC is no longer manned by Air Force alone, as some of the SG teams are Marines. --Will74205 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Added a Picture of Colonel Emmerson (his first name is Paul, picked that up on announcement to the Lucian Alliance ships). I'm not sure whether it's in a good position or not, you guys sort it out i guess. - Count23 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the Odyssey get its own page? Alyeska 05:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

USS, as a prefix, is correct. It stands for United States Ship - which is, by presidential order, the standard prefix used for any vessel commissioned in the service United States.

From: [[1]] "In 1907 President Theodore Roosevelt issued an Executive order that established the present usage:

'In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters.' --Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907."

24.97.224.6 02:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Eliyahu

Personally, considering the fundamental difference between ships and spaceships, it should really be USIS (United States Interstellar Ship), but that's just my opinion. Lockesdonkey 23:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Move

You moved the page without consultation. That was uncalled for. While the designation is true, we also know that the Daedalus has a hull number of BC-02. Take a wild guess what the BC stands for. Alyeska 05:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we had discussed this Talk:Daedalus-class battlecruiser#Article name. And since no one else responded (including you) I just go ahead with the article move. Also, the BC-02 designation is not verifiable, as noted in the discussion. --Will74205 09:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will move the page by this Friday, Feb. 17. Of course, anybody else is welcome to move the page before then. --Will74205 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I object, it's been called a "Daedalus Class Battleship" in "The Ties that Bind" (Sg-1). It's also been called a Daedalus Class Battleship in "Avalon Part 1" and "Intruder". - 59.167.2.27 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm.....so what do we do about the "deep space carrier" info in "Off the Grid"? --Will74205 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a battleship with the ability to perform carrier duties and go into deep space, but it's still a battleship. Add a note about it being a Carrier if you all think its necessary, but the specifications are clearly laid out, i dont think any further claficiation is needed - 59.167.38.77 12:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the USAF the ones that are running the ships (except of course for foreign operated ones)? Would then BC stand not for battlecruiser but rather for bomber/transport via the current air force-navy-army designation? If anything, the class of ships fit a variety of roles, including carrier, transport, and combat oriented. I don't recall the class ever being called battlecruiser or, as the user above said, battleship, but this doesn't mean that either term hasn't been used. I think Wikipedia should default the term to either present military terminology (bomber/transport) or as the crew patches indicate, Deep Space Carrier, and not battlecruiser. - Rudykog 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The term Battlecruiser was stated repeatedly in relation to the Prometheus, and the Daedalus was sufficently similar at a point that McKay thought it to be of the same class. Its possible for the 304 to change from Battlecruiser to Deep Space Carrier, but the BC would never stand for Bomber Transport. If you want to use USAF naming conventions, it should be named the BCS-304. Bomber Transport Spaceplane 304.Alyeska 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know about the BCS convention since there is no S, but if it is called battlecruiser in the show, then I say we at least mention Deep Space Carrier in the article. - Rudykog 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, we can't use the actual military ship letter designations, because they are clearly not being used by the creators of Stargate as intended. They are largely going their own way, especially in regards to spaceships, vs. sea-going ships. We can only go with what we've been provided. As to the 'Deep Space Carrier' designation, I am in complete agreement with Rudykog. The designation has been seen on a large monitor in the conference room aboard the Odyssey (not unlike the screensaver for the SGC, only Odyssey-style). Alyeska suggested that it was a designation specific to Odyssey, but I don't believe that is the case. He mentioned its duties was probably why, but the fact is, both ships have been used extensively for deep space transport. I do not at all believe the designation of Battlecruiser applies any longer to either ship, but that rather 'Deep Space Carrier' is the preferred designation of the creators of Stargate. If it wasn't important to them, they would not have had it on the show specifically as such. Seastallion 02:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"...is the preferred designation of the creators of Stargate." Let me say, once again, that there is often a huge gap between the producers/creators of the show and the graphics department, which is usually outsourced to another company entirely. Those art departments make mistakes (such as the early schematics of the Daedalus class, which look very little like the on-screen model), and thus take a factual back seat when other information is specifically stated in the script; in this case, Battlecruiser, which has been in spoken dialogue more than once. Please see below to the Vote/Discussion for an expanded explanation. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You have it occuring on a single ship. Not seen on another ship. We have dialogue from someone who is knowledgable and this dialogue isn't contradicted by an asshole known to correct people who make mistakes who is also knowledgeable. Sorry, but it stays Battlecruiser. Alyeska 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

BC-304

Tonights SG1 episode called Daedalus ships 304s and specificaly said the Russian ship is a 304. So enough with the bullshit that the Daedalus isn't a 304. I stated it was going to be a 304 last year AND I WAS RIGHT. Alyeska 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

And now it's confirmed, fine. Before confirmation though it was only speculation^^ --SoWhy ^Talk 15:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats like saying when a question is asked (2+2) its speculation to say 4 until the question asker answers the question. When an obvious question ins infront of people, use your damned brains. I called the Daedalus on the BC304 and I was right. My reasoning was sound. If I was wrong, then it would not be a BC304. Meaning everyone else who sided against BC304 was WRONG. Enough with this speculation bullshit. It was sound reasoning bassed on established fact. Alyeska 16:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, i knew it was a BC-304 because i'm familiar with Air Force and Naval vehicle classifications and now they're done. Now that it's been publically credited as a "BC-304", we can END the debate on it's class designation once and for all. Oh, and to just nip this in the bud, the Daedalus is BC-02, it's of the 304 class, so it is a BC-304 not DSC-304 (Deep Space Carrier) - 59.167.38.77 10:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a debate over the class designation. I happened to agree that BC-304 was the most likely designation it would wind up with if one was ever established. The debate was over whether it was original research, and it wasn't much of a debate because Alyeska said right from the start that the designation didn't have a source. Bryan 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. You were not right, because at the time you made those statements it was original research and history doesn't change. I've gone over the original research policy with you so many times now. Even though you refuse to accept it, would you at least recognize that a lot of other people disagree with your interpretation and so you're bound to keep running into conflict if you don't try to take that into account? Now that I'm comfortable with the cite episode template I'm going to be doing a lot of referencing within Stargate articles, I don't want to wind up in a fight every time I run into speculation. Bryan 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If I wasn't right, then it would not be the BC304.Alyeska 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you assuming the 304 is a BC? Landry simply stated '304', not 'BC-304', so you cannot assume that it is since it's a different ship from Prometheus. There might be some evidence from a shot or two of the Daedalus itself that I've missed, but you can't infer BC (I think this feeds into the Battle Criuser/Carrier debate - show me where it says BC on the Daedalus). No Way Back 07:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Daedalus Class Battelcruisers" - Cadwell

"304's" - Landry.

By following the simple logic of 1+1 = BC-304.

Reasoning:

BC stands for Battlecruiser (I dare anyone to find information out there that contradicts this fact).

The Prometheus was a Battlecruiser and it was a BC-303.

- 59.167.47.235 01:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to cite your Caldwell reference? It doesn't matter if you could since it's already pointed out here that 'Battlecruiser' is a generic term the writers like to throw around. How do you know BC stands for Battlecruiser? (I dare you to prove it - the burden of proof is yours to defend). I agree it's most likley the case that BC stands for battlecruiser, but it may well be something else and you cannot cite your own reasoning. Find me a canon source (be it from onscreen or reliable production notes) that says the Deadelus is BC-02.

It *is* Deadelus 02, I've already conceeded that much since it says this on the hull - it does not say BC-02.

And if you want to get picky about the Prometheus' combat role, it was described as a defensive weapons platform more often than a battlecruiser (Memento and Prometheus spring to mind, but there are probably other refs if I do some digging).

304 is a different ship from the 303 (otherwise, why chnage production numbers?) and so you cannot assign the values of one ship to the other. No Way Back 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're wrong there, the burdon of proof is yours, following the standard naming patterns and designations established already in the series as well as military designations, BC = Battlecruiser is logical, YOU are required to prove that it means otherwise, not the other way around.

Now, as for the reference, my apologies, it was at the beginning of season 9 of SG1 and was the balding accountant that General Landry had to convince to keep funding the SGC. - 59.167.1.77 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FISHER:

"The Stargate Program has succeeded in acquiring alien technology. So now it's time to devote our resources to exploiting those technologies for planetary defense, namely by building more Daedalus-class ships."

(excerpt from SG-1 Solutions)

So no, that is not you're source. Logical doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia; according to WP:V and WP:Original Research you have to find 'BC' somewhere in Stargate canon (or as I've already said, production notes) that both support BC = Battle Criuser and that Deadelus-class ships are also 'BC-0x'. You don't seem to understand the difference in what I'm saying - I agree with you, BC probably means Battle Cruiser but until you can find a reputable source other than 'logical' assumptions, it cannot be included in Wikipedia per the policies above. You have to be able to cite something like this before it can be included. If you're as certain as you appear to be that it's been mentioned somwhere in SG-1 that these assumptions are true, then surley it shouldn't be too hard to find evidence, that's all I'm asking for. No Way Back 01:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was some grumpy old man who said it, i've found the exact quote:

"How are you going to get it here? You needed the ZPM to maintain the wormhole from Earth" - McKay

"As we speak it's being shipped up to the Daedalus, our new battlecruiser" - Col. Everett

"Sistership of Prometheus, I didn't even know it was finished" - McKay (The Siege Part 2)

- 59.167.1.77 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That still does not mean BC is BattleCruiser although it likely is it would be an assumption. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What it does rule out is calling it a "Deep Space Carrier" and makes it definently harder to dispute that two types of ships called "Battlecruisers" have BC in their register numbers, suggesting a correlation between teh registry and the vessel type. - 59.167.234.52 03:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This needs to have a conclusion. You all are going around in circles, no offense. I say let's go with what's been proven. Sure, the Daedalus has been called a battlecruiser in a few eps, only "The Seige, pt II" comes to mind but that was back when no one in Atlantis had seen the Daedalus so they were assuming it was a second Prometheus class ship. The Daedalus has no indication at all, the patch only says DAEDALUS on it, the Odyssey, although and identical ship to the Daedalus clearly says "DEEP SPACE CARRIER". Why not just change the page title to Daedalus Class Carrier or something like that until something to the contrary is shown?

It can't be both. They are clearly designed to be carriers it seems. Daedalus carrys supplies and troops to and from Atlantis and the Odyssey does the same so why not stick with what was proven?

--Faris b 06:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly designed to be carriers but in every single reference to them verbally or on screen (the only instance of Deep Space Carrier was a mission patch), call them Battlecruisers, Attack ships or Battleships. Besides, Prometheus had fighter bays too, you could call it a carrier if you wanted to. Simple fact is, it's a Battlecruisers and the page wont change. - 59.167.234.52 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I find it painful to agree with anon users, I must in this instance. Yes, this situation does need to be resolved, but resolve it by keeping the Battlecruiser reference until something else can be proven. On another note, look at Carriers historically. Carriers are vessels that are almost entirely devoted to flight operations. Even their defenses must be provided by it's carrier group. The Daedalus is anything but defenseless. It is a warship, plain and simple. In the end, perhaps Daedalus was designed to be the best of both worlds, but it still fits the battlecruiser role far better than it does the carrier role. Take away its fightercraft, and it could still put up a fight and perform normally. Take aways its weapon systems, and you limit her operations considerably. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What it does rule out is calling it a "Deep Space Carrier" and makes it definently harder to dispute that two types of ships called "Battlecruisers" have BC in their register numbers, suggesting a correlation between teh registry and the vessel type.

Once again, show me where it says Daedelus is BC anywhere on it's hull, bulkheads or mission patches and I'll happily concede this point. It does not rule out Deep Space Carriers, how can it? DSC has been seen on screen - not just mission patches but on monitors too, where's you're similar level of proof for BC? I'm not saying don't call it a battle cruiser, I'm not saying BC doesn't stand for Battle cruiser. What I am saying however is that to call it BC without any verifiable evidence except linking it with the 303 is wrong, as is making the connection between BC and battle criuser. I don't know how many different ways I can phrase that, but the simple fact is Daedelus as BC (or BC standing for battle criuser) is not verifiable and does not belong on wikipedia until it can be. No Way Back 17:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What we have proven to us is that it's a Deep Space Carrier on the patch of the Odyssey. Maybe since the Daedalus was the prototype of the new class it wasn't assigned that name but since the Odyssey is the 2nd one, they went ahead and gave it the title. If we see a 4th ship that also says Deep Space Carrier, I guess we can assume that is the correct title. That's right, the Daedalus does NOT say BC-02 as so many believed for a while but in fact it says DAEDALUS-02 instead.

On the show, they call ships by many names. Take "The Pegasus Project" for example. Teal'c called the Ori ship an "Ori Vessel" and the Hive ship a "Wraith Vessel/Wraith Ship", Zelenka may have said the latter, though these being general terms for the ships this is my point. So what if they called the Daedalus/Odyssey a Battlecruiser from time to time? It could just be an extent to this whole naming generalization that seems to be going on.

Also, in "Allies", the Daedalus did rely on it's fighters to better fight the Hive ships that were going to Earth remember?

--Faris b 18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

You know what? Lets leave ALL spoilers out of the articles until they have actualy aired onscreen or been shown in an offical teaser/trailer by the franchise owners. For all we know, the information on the Oddessy and Korelev could change before the next season airs. Alyeska 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Kvasir

Kvasir is not the engeneer for the Odyssey. You can clearely see in Camelot that he has his own Jack O'Neill-class vessel. Further more, in Allies, the season finaley for Atlantis, McKay ironically states that Hermi is not that important on the Deadalus and was probably put there for the Humans to Get used to controlling the advanced Asgard Sensors. And another thing, not related, it seems farfetched that in one week, the russians were able to construct a Deadalus class ship. in that rate, Humans could have an armada in a couple of months. And another thing, in Camelot, on the main viewer, the vessel seems more like a BC-303 but when it exits hyperspace you can clearely see that it is a deadalus class. Oh and the prometheus could cary 8 F-302s

The russians didnt build their BC-304, the Americans gave them it. They said that the ship wasn't going to be finished for another 12 months in Crusade, when Daniel and Landry were discussing the deal, in Camelot, Colonel Emmerson explained that they rushed the ship into service. Korolev was an incomplete BC-304, under Russian control. - 59.167.11.69 09:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kvasir not being an engineer on board the Odyssey. He was never referred to as such in the show and in Camelot he arrives in his own (maybe not his but an asgard) ship and beams onto the Odyssey.Feral Mutant 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Table

Why have you modefied my correction of the table of the ship list. It was accurate according to Gateworld spoilers for the first episode of the tenth season of Stargate SG-1?

Why have you not read the discussion page and noted the little bit asking people to stop posting spoilers? Just because Gateworld reported it doesn't make it fact. It can change before aired, and there are people who avoid spoilers. Alyeska 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Season 10 ALREADY SAID

(PLEASE DONT READ THIS IF YOU DONT WANT TO BE SPOILED)

Gateworld has already said for the spoilers for season 10 that the russian ship was destroyed because in the first episode if you go to gateworld and read "flesh and blood" it says the Oddy is looking for people who where still alive from the russian ship. The Oddy is also suppose to be in a fight with the lucian alliance in the first episode so I didnt want to change it untill some of you read this and saw for yourself and since im new to the Stargate Wiki community I figured it talk about it here first :)

Yes it does say that but it could wrong. At the end of season 9 the LA were fighting alongside us yet in the first episode of season 10 we are fighting them. So I would't take the spoliers for granted.MarineCorps 19:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

That the Korelov is destroyed according to Gateworld is entirely irrelevent. It is both spoiler material and comes from a non-canon source. We can keep information out of the article until we see it on the screen. Alyeska 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Any and all season 10 spoilers posted before we have information airing on TV will be deleted by myself on the main page. Until its shown onscreen, it is subject to change. It is also done to intentionaly avoid posting spoilers for people who don't want to read it. Alyeska 01:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if it can be cited from other reliable sources (interviews, Gateworld, etc.) then there shouldn't be a problem with including it. The key is to ensure that information is cited, not just that it's "canon". Bryan 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Deep Space Carrier?

In the episode "Off the Grid" the plaque behind Col. Emerson said USS Odyssey Deep Space Carrier. So, would it be more fitting to call the Daedalus class line of ships Deep space carriers instead of battlecruisers?Tegalans 20:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

do you have a timecode for that? id like to check it out. if true, then yeah, i guess it would be more fitting to call them Deep Space Carriers. Xornok 20:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As Xornok has corrected one of my (premature) modifications to this page, I hope this helps him and other SG scholars alike: In episode 190 - "Off The Grid", the scene begins at timecode 22:32 (min:sec), the animated video-plaque is first visible at 22:35, which reads "U.S.S. Odyssey" in white block @ top, where it shows the Odyssey's profile rotating every ~5.5 seconds CW about it's origin's y-axis @ centre. The blue text @ bottom is legible from 22:47, with the lower half of the plaque reading "PB3865 - DEEP SPACE CARRIER" at 23:04. This can also be read in full as the plaque's negative is the (still-)image printed on the patch sewn-on below the right-half colar of the front of the "U.S.S. Odyssey" uniform, best viewable at 23:20. Anonymous 03:39, 06 April 2006 (UTC)

It can been seen when they are in the briefing room after SG-1 was saved. I believe it was on Col. Emerson's patch also, but I can't be sure.Tegalans 21:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And the Daedalus was described as the Prometheus sister ship, and we know Prometheus was a Battle Cruiser. Outright designating the Daedalus class is wrong. A notation is sufficent for now. Alyeska 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But you(Alyeska) are designating it as a Battlecruiser what makes you right and the show wrong.Tegalans 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The episode "Off the Grid" desginated the Odyssey as a Deep space carrier. The term battlecruiser is a generic name which has little or no evidence,other than word of mouth, to back it up. Weither the Prometheus and Daedalus are sister ships or not isn't irrevelant. It has been stated on the show that the Korolev is a 304, and if the Korolev is a Daedalus class ship then the Odyssey and Daedalus are 304's. The Prometheus may have been called a battlecruiser but the Daedalus is a new class. Surely the 302 and 303 are different classes so the 303 and the 304 must be different and the desgination for the Odyssey is Deep Space Carrier not battlecruiser. Either the Odyssey is an new class of itself dirrerent than the Daedalus and should be moved to a new site stating it's difference. (Remember, Gen. Landry stated that they gave the Russians "a" 304. "A" indicting pural amounts of 304's exist.) In such case then the Daedalus is a 303 making her Prometheus's sistership as Carter said(which I do not believe to be the case)which makes the Odyssey the first of her class. I believe that this article should reflect the name given to the Odyssey and rename it's title Daedalus class Deep space carrier.Tegalans 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Tegalans is right. There is undeniable proof that the Daedalus class series are Deep space carriers and not battlecruisers. 1st: the show designates the Odyssey as a Deep Spae Carrier. The show is right no matter what it has said in the past, for the present is what matters.Shows change and have plotholes. 2nd:Gateworld.net has an article stating that the three daedalus class ships are Deep space carriers. They get their information directly from the people who work on the show.

It has been sometime since a merge was called for, as there was no objection i have merged some data from the DSC article and setup a redirect to this article and removed the merge tags. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Solution

This relies on Wikipedia being capable of doing it and having a Wiki editor who knows how to do this. Is it possible to use a format where white text is presented on a white background and you highlight the section to read the spoiler material? Alyeska 03:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

yes it is, but im not sure how to do it... -Xornok 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Like this? I notice the links still show.

—wwoods 05:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sample text in white so it can't be seen without higlighting, though the hyperlinks still show

And the article becomes a lot harder to print out as a result. I think this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Wikipedia users are warned that there are spoilers and we should only go so far to protect them from themselves before the hassle becomes too much of a detriment to the article itself. Really, I don't understand why this one particular grotty little spoiler has resulted in so much consternation. Why does it matter so much? Bryan 06:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to create a compromise on the issue rather then an outright yes or no. Alyeska 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we've got a multi-user edit war going on now with uninformative edit summaries. Would someone on the deletion side please explain here on talk: why it's so abhorrent to have this particular tidbit of information present in the article? Wikipedia contains spoilers, there are other spoilers present in many other Stargate articles that haven't sparked this sort of response. And Wikipedia contains non-"canon" information too, this information is cited and verifiable so I don't see a problem on that end either. What's going on? Bryan 16:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind the spoilers so much except for the fact that people who want to read informative information can still be clobered with spoilers when they don't want to. Keeping out spoilers because the information itself has not aired yet and is technicaly un-canon is one aspect. The other is people who would otherwise want to contribute or read wikipedia don't because of the spoilers. Spoilers actualy make Wikipedia exclusive, not inclusive. I know many people who avoid spoilers at all costs, and that means they wouldn't even read Wiki articles. In the very least my possible solution allows the posting of spoilers without catching people by surprise. They have to actively highlight to read the spoilers.

Example

Highlight Below to Read Spoilers

Darth Vader is really Like Skywalkers father!

Alyeska 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It needed another "|", to separate formatting from the actual contents of the cell.

Bloody hell, I copied the damn example above me and it won't work. Alyeska 16:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another way; same limitation.

Some blogs have hidden text. You click on a link to "See more" or whatever, and the full text appears, expanding the page. I don't know if wiki software has that capability.

—wwoods 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But how does any of this solve the printing problem? And in any event, if spoilers are to be that heavily obscured then the whole entire article's going to wind up that way since the whole thing's wrapped in a spoiler alert. I really don't like this. Bryan 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For articles that are primarily about spoilers, just reading the article itself is considered reading into spoilers. The notes that the article is about something in production and has spoilers alerts people that the entire article is spoiler material Alyeska 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me but, if the spoilers are clearly marked with at big season 10 spoiler warning, with the end spoilers mark added, and the source of the spoilers are clearly labeled... what's the problem? If people don't want to read it, they just have to skip until it says "Spoilers end here". Sorry, but spoilers have been used before, and without as many labels and I don't understand what the problem is in this page in particular. --Andromeda 08:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless every spoiler is always at the very bottom of the page, people will have to go through the spoilers to read more material. Alyeska 17:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since everything in this article is a spoiler for season 9 already, one might say that all the spoilers are already at the very bottom of the page. :) BTW, Xornok, get over here into talk: and actualy talk, please. I have yet to see any explanation of what your problem with that paragraph actually is. Bryan 17:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Its one thing to say spoilers for already aired material. Its another for spoilers of material not even aired or released in any offical means by the owners of the series. Alyeska 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

thats exactly my point... spoilers have been used before, true, but on things already aired. they spoil it for anyone who hasnt seen the episode. here, the fact is, NO ONE's seen the episode, so it cant be a spoiler. its in the future, its speculation... -Xornok 17:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not speculation. It's reporting news from a reliable source, and clearly labeling them as so. I think the warning is big enough for the people who want to skip them, and interesting for the people who don't. --Andromeda 08:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And there are entire articles on Wikipedia about things that haven't aired yet. Check out Category:2007 films, for example. Plus there are plenty of places in the world where season 9 of Stargate SG-1 hasn't aired yet, probably a bunch where seasons 1-8 haven't either. The material that's being added is something that is verifiable by non-episode-watching means, as Andromeda argues. Bryan 17:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely irrelevent. The entire concept of those articles is relation to spoiler materials. That is a red herring example because the article in question is not the same thing. Alyeska 23:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, and you can find dozens of pages, websites, etc about every single movie... here, the only source is ONE website, but i will agree to add it if you can find other websites stating the same thing that DID NOT get their information from gateworld. -Xornok 18:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S, seasons 1 - 9 have aired before, whether they have aired everywhere doesnt matter. the episodes are out there and there are different means of watching them. they exsits. no one has seen the final versions of episodes in season 10, even tho according to their filming schedule, they should be around episode 7 now. so i say its speculation until the episode is aired somewhere, so that the general public is able to watch it. -Xornok 18:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Xornok, I agree with you on the use of spoilers and I couldn't find where it mentions, on gateworld, that kvasir is the ship's engineer. All I could find is that kvasir is helping to repair the systems, and if we infer that helping to repair the odyssey makes him the engineer then we must use the evidence that he did come into battle with his own ship to neget that possibality. If there is proof then it should be stated that kvasir is the odyssey's engineer for gateworld gets their information directly from the source.Tegalans 16:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, leave Kvasir out of this. He's not the problem here. About the spoilers. As I said before, it's NOT speculation, it's reporting information from a reliable source that a) is CLEARLY labeled as spoiler b) it's source is clearly stated and c) its status is also clearly stated which means 1) people who don't want to read spoilers can easily avoid them and 2) those who choose to read them, are perfectly informed of their nature. Spoilers have been used in lots of other articles, both Stargate and not like, for example, the lists of episodes and several character profiles, and it's the first time I see people having a problem with clearly labeled spoilers. The warnings are big enough to make avoiding them easy. I think the big warnings are the clearly stated status of the information is a good enough compromise between those spoiler-phobic and those who like to read spoilers. --Andromeda 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is how the spoilers are shown in the thread. Indicating in the ship list which ship is destroyed and which isn't is a spoiler without warning. Alyeska 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The spoilers aren't on the ship list, but on the "First battle of P3Y-229" section. --Andromeda 13:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting "destroyed" or "active" in the ship list is a spoiler without warning. Alyeska 23:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it is, but ive noticed its mostly anon's who put that info up (people without an account and it just uses their IP address) and i doubt that they check out the talk pages -Xornok 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Saw this on RfC: under no circumstances should we begin to fiddle around with white-on-white. Or rather, this should be a policy proposal and not done to a particular article for particular reasons. Is the material notable? If so, include it and let it be marked the usual way, if it is not vital to the article and a really huge spoiler which would just be too bad to let out (and it is already out there in the eather for those who want it), don't include it. Lundse 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough already

Are you two done with the pissing contest? Your both acting rather childish. Alyeska 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's up to Andromeda, I have no problems with reverting. -Xornok 01:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It takes Two to tango. Understand? Alyeska 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you're hallucinating. Understand? -Xornok 02:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't play stupid with me. Fixing this mess is up to BOTH of you. Your not going to shift the burden solely onto Andromeda when fully half this mess is YOUR fault. Alyeska 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how? I said that we should wait until the episode airs, just to be safe. According to the Principle of least astonishment, viewers know that Teal'c and Mitchell were on the Korolev, so they would deduce that the Odyssey was destroyed. By putting up that the Korolev was destoyed, viewers (who come here for information) would be shocked. Until it is known how Teal'c and Mitchell survive, I still say we should keep it off. Not to mention, you don't actually see the Korolev completely destoyed, just the front, and because Teal'c and Mitchell were on the bridge, it means that they could (and do) survive.

and yes, I do know that the Principle of least astonishment is for computer interfaces, and yes, I do know that I may not have used it correctly in this context, but still. -Xornok 02:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

None of which is actually relevant to our job as encyclopedists, though. We are not here to ensure that Stargate SG-1 fans recieve an optimal viewing experience, we're here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia article based on sound, verifiable information - both on screen and off screen. Between the spoiler warnings and the cited references I don't think you've got much of a case for removal of this information. Bryan 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

there, i think thats a fair compromise -Xornok 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And now I have hoplessly messed you all up, since as per WP:SW, we are not allowed to use white text on white background (and please don't accuse me of wikilawyering). I also hold two things: first, the Principle of Nationalist Chauvinism dictates that the Russian ship sink first, and second, we must act on the assumption that if there's a spoiler warning, they will do the best they can to avoid reading it. If not, that's not our problem. LD 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Korolev's Fate

Speaking as the person who initially crusaded against the changing of the Korolev's status to destroyed based one one spoiler, i think there is now sufficient information to say the Korolev was destroyed in action, both Major Marks and Colonel Emmerson appear to be in at least 4 episodes this season, not including the opening two parter. Perhaps it's time we remove update hte status to reflect this, or at least, remove the speculative comments from the spoilers and leave them as pure spoilers.

My initial comment about Season 10 was that it only had a 12 month old spoiler for the opening of season 10 with a throwaway line about the Odyssey facing down the Lucian Alliance. Now if you read recent reviews posted, after production has been finished, we see that Emmerson and the Odyssey take a much larger role in the episodes that follow. Obviously showing that Odyssey wasn't destroyed with sufficient evidence to prove it. - 59.167.33.205 03:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

go ahead, change it... at least you put something on the talk page about it... plus, its too much trouble to keep reverting nearly every other day -Xornok 03:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why "FIRST" battle of P3Y-229?

Ok. I couldn't find any reference to a second battle at P3Y-299 so why is it referred to as the first battle? I checked Gateworld and such and found nothing. Why not just call it "The battle of P3Y-229"?

Also, I am in favor of changing the page name from Daedalus class battlecruiser to Daedalus class Carrier as it is NOT a battlecruiser but a carrier, the USS Odyssey patch says "Deep Space Carrier" on it and since it's identical to the Daedalus, I'd say all of them a DSC's. What ever happend to this issue?

Faris,

Because, for all we know, there's going to be another battle at P3Y-229. It makes sense to leave the comment as specific as possible until we know for sure. Dont forget the Odyseey and Lucian Alliance ships survived the battle. AND the Orii Supergate isnt going anywhere... -59.167.19.238 00:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's more of a continuation of the battle since the shown ended. The next season will pick up where Crusades left.

They had to retreat, teh gate is still intact, when they get around to it they're going to have to attack the gate again, hence there will likely be a "second" battle. - 59.167.47.235 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats unknown currently so it's just speculation MarineCorps 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we dont know if that will be the only fight, so until we confirm that it was the only battle, the "First" qualifier remains. - 59.167.47.235 14:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should be the other way around. During World War I do you think they called it World War I? No, they called it the Great War or World War, then when WWII happened they renamed it, so for now it should be called the "Battle of P3Y-229" and then if another major battle happens we go back and change it to the "First Battle of P3Y-229". If we went with your naming requirements then all wars, conflicts and battles in fiction and the real world would have to be called the "First" because there could be another battle or war in that location some time in the distant future. I'm changing it to "Battle of P3Y-229" and unless a good reason can be given, or another battle happens, it should stay the same. Konman72 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning

Please see Template_talk:Spoiler#CSS_class_good_solution_to_complaints. Armedblowfish 21:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy is explicitly clear here. Please read the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Spoiler warning under the heading "Unacceptable alternatives". AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Find an alternate means to hide the text from immediate view. For someone browsing the article, the spoilers are not located on the bottom of the article and in an attempt to get other information and avoid spoilers, they wouldn't. The current setup works well enough because it hides it from casual view but lets people still read it. As of yet I haven't heard of a SINGLE complaint about people not being able to read the material by highlighting. Alyeska 02:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Finding an alternate means to hide the text would cause the exact same trouble - it's the hiding of text itself that's the problem. This silly argument's been going on for months now, how about we start an RfC or something? Bryan 02:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature AlistairMcMillan 02:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Or you could go and discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. Armedblowfish 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it, why hide it from immediate view? What possible point could hat serve except to irritate a reader trying to find info? And it doesn't matter if you haven't heard a complaint about it. If there's a vandal, and no one complains about him, does he still have the right to break policy and vandalize? No! The same applies here. American Patriot 1776 03:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are implying that Alyeska is guilty of vandalism, I would have to strongly disagree. It is only vandalism when someone intentionally wants to reduce the quality of Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case, as Alyeska, though he or she disagrees about the best way to do it, does care about the quality of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should read WP:Vand. Armedblowfish 15:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. AP1776 wasn't saying he thought Alyeska was vandalising this page. AlistairMcMillan 15:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about Alyeska's unkind comments in the edit summaries towards you. Not that it was really my fault, seeing as I'm not Alyeska's sock puppet. (See my edit history to confirm this.) But everyone is getting emotional right now. I had hoped to help people to assume good faith by pointing out that no one (including Alyeska) is actually guilty of vandalism in this situation. Armedblowfish 21:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my above comments were viewed as calling Alyeska a vandal. If you took it that way, I am deeply sorry. I was merely pointing out that you must follow all policy, not just pick and choose which ones you want to. Once again, I'm sorry if those comments were taken the wrong way. American Patriot 1776 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. Hopefully Alyeska will agree. I actually agree with you that Wikipedia consensus, at present time, is against white-texting spoilers, but I don't want Alyeska to feel unwanted. Armedblowfish 18:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also chip in at this point with an apology for my recent edit summary which said that the repeated removal of the information was "starting to edge into vandalism territory." I still think it's wrong to be removing this tidbit, but not all wrong things are vandalism and I shouldn't have bandied the term around so freely. Bryan 19:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Mayhaps the page should be protected. I think the 3 revert rule may have accidentally been broken by more than one person. Just to give people time to reach a nice, happy consensus without further edit warring. Armedblowfish 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you even know that people are reading this content with a white background? AlistairMcMillan 03:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't. In text-only browser like Lynx, the colors specified by the website will be ignored. Many other browsers also have customizable colors that can override the colors chosen by the source code. In fact, W3C recommends that, "If you pick one color, pick them all." Armedblowfish 21:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that removing the information entirely is unwarranted? The sources provided for it are reputable and the information is properly qualified as being based on casting information, and Wikipedia does contain spoilers. Bryan 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

actually, i like they way you reworded that and switched some of the stuff around. it seems fine to me now. its saying there is a possiblity it was the korolev, where as it used to say it was the korolev... -Xornok 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think my edit changed the meaning much, I just wanted to get that italicized parenthetical "note:" line out since IMO it looked inelegant, but if it helps find a compromise on a dispute then I guess yay me. :) Bryan 19:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

well, to me, it seemed the entire article read "we do not know which ship was destroyed" and that thing at the bottom in italic, then that spoiler said "oh, wait, we do know" and it just kinda went against the rest of the article. now it says "well, we dont know for sure, but a reliable source says this, but still, dont write it in stone yet"... i dont know, maybe its just me, i tend to be weird like that -Xornok 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Has the dispute of white on white text been resolved? It's quite clearly not acceptable on WP:SPOILER. If so, please remove from RfC. Thanks. Tyrenius 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's been stable for a couple of days now, but the underlying argument's been going on for months so I guess all we can do is hope. :) Bryan 01:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Weapons

Daedalus-class vessels, at least the Daedalus, are armed with weapons that Caldwell has called 'Mark Eight Tacticals'. (Ref: SGA Siege Part III) Why is this marked as Mark VI here? Jordan.Kreiger 04:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Both sources cited clearly say mark 8. --Tango 11:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Asgard Engineer

Perhaps it would be best to remove that column from the ship chart, and thus stop the reverts that have been going on for some time now. Hermiod is the only Asgard known to be attached to a particular ship; has it been stated that each ship carries an Asgard engineer, or might the Daedalus be an isolated incident? If so, then this column is extraneous. ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 05:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just remove the column because it was stated in I believe it was "The Intruder" that Dr. McKay explained to sheppard that they needed Hermoid because "Intergalactic hyperdrive is fairly new to us".

Faris b 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Someone added Kasvir again, so I got rid of the whole column. --Tango 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But for the sake of accuracy, I've added a note on the Daedalus section of the article stating that it has an Asgard engineer onboard for the sole reason of operating the intergalactic hyperdrive. Is this addition ok? Feel free to rework it if need be.

Nice addition, though correct me if I'm wrong in that the Asgard engineer also was responsible for assisting the Tauri in learning to use the advanced Asgard sensor systems as well.... -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. I think the reason that Kvasir keeps being added back is because about 90% of those edits were by unregistered users who probably don't check the edit history. I even sent one of them a personal message stating that Kvasir was not the engineer and they wrote back to me and said "Kvasir was not the engineer, Vasir was". Can you believe it? --Faris b 02:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe it? Oh yeah...new folks here tend to operate on autopilot, not thinking things through when they make edits. That's why it's so important to have a large number of experienced users who know what to look for, so they can correct those mistakes. Thankfully, the new users add a large amount of very useful material as well...tis one reason why anon edits haven't been banned ;) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Odyssey vs. Korolev thing

Ok, I'm sure we all remember how a lot of people were going on and on about how it was the Korolev that survived because key people were onboard and the Odyssey was destroyed because no one in a pivotal role was on it.

Ok, no offense to anyone but..

HOW COULD ANYONE THINK THAT? One look at the track record of the Russians and you'll see that their things are destroyed, their teams are all killed usually how could anyone think they'd get to keep a ship on this show? Obviously, their first (and most likely the only) ship will surely be destroyed. We all know how the SG-1 team has more lives than a cat and combined with the fact that the Russians always get screwed on the show, how could anyone think they'd get to keep the only ship in the Milky Way galaxy? Anyone have any thoughts on how people came to this conclusion? I knew immediately it was the Odyssey that survived (not because I read the spoilers) but because I knew what happens with the Russians on Stargate.

Faris b 07:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps some of us aren't so cynical. (Although, I certainly am, and still didn't spot that, so maybe I'm just an incompetant cynic...) ;) --Tango 11:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue was more an argument for argument's sake. It is an American TV show, so of course if a choice had to be made between a US or Russian (or other) team, the US is almost always going to come out on top. Doesn't make it right, but you have to appease your demographic :) ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I mean. So how could so many people think that the Korolev suvived especially seeing how the SG-1 members have cheated death in the past, why should this time have been different in their opinions? I mean, I was surprised when everyone after Camelot aired were saying "Oh, the Korolev survived because Daniel and Mitchell were onboard".

Faris b 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It stretched the realms of reason to assume both characters somehow managed a miricle and left the ship in time. It might have been interesting to have to only ship in the Milky Way under Russian control, but I imagine that's not a viewpoint that would be terribly popular.No Way Back 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Because, and mistakenly enough, some of us thought that when the writers said they would "shake things up" they may have changed the status quo when it comes to space-combat superiority between Earth nations, which would have made for interesting stories in the future. Also, teh simple fact was, we DIDNT know which ship was destroyed, simply put, and this is an encyclopedia of fact, not conjecture or anticipation. - 59.167.1.77 13:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus distance and speed

I saw under the history section of the Daedalus, that with the ZPM, it's speed was 1215 LY per min. Where did this figure come from? That would mean that Pegasus is 7 million LY from the Milky Way. Has this been stated somewhere?

Faris b 04:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus is a real galaxy in this universe, only problem is there are two of them, so we can't say where the galaxy is for definite. Is there a cite for the 1215 lY/min? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.No Way Back 13:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already know, I did a search for it on here. But both Pegasus galaxies are not even close to 7 Mil LY. One of them is 2.5 Mil LY and the other is 3.5 Mil LY not even close.

Faris b 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Daedalus specs

Ok I think I found an accurate way to get the true size of the Daedalus. http://www.thescifiworld.net/img/zocalo/sga_2x06/sga-2x06-449.jpg That pic shows a few blue rectangles which appear to be windows at the bow (front) of the ship and there are people visible (average height is around 5'8" or so), so using this, I managed to get 118 ft or 35 m for the front of the Daedalus's height, the back end of the ship is bigger but I haven't worked on that yet. Can this be used as a serious way to measure the Daedalus's size? I can also work it to work for length as well? Because I don't want to do all this work and then have it be reverted. If anyone else wants to work on this as well, they may do so.

Faris b 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a fantastic picture, but is it official? I've never seen it before. Also, while those shadowy things in the windows may be people, they may just as easily be fixed equipment inside the ship. So I do not think it would be wise to use this image as a size reference until something can be proven. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe so as it is copyrighted to MGM. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that would almost certainly count as original research. It's very good research, but unless it is published somewhere else first, we can't use it here. --Tango 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's from an ep. It's from "Trinity" when the Daedalus was protecting the jumper to go through the orbital gate when the weapon was firing everywhere. I also believe there is another episode shot of this. In "Flesh and Blood", when the Odyssey came to scoop up Carter in the fighter bay, she seemed to be about the same size (compared to the USAF letters which I double checked the size of compared to people) as what I got in the "Trinity" pic.

--Faris b 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing how far Carter was from the side of the ship, so an accurate comparison to the size of the decals is impossible. I've just checked my copy of Trinity and this pic appears very similar to the scene there, but I'm not convinced they are the same. In every frame in the episode that the picture could have come from, there appears to have been weapons fire visible from behind the ship. It also appears that the Sci-fi singage has eihter been removed or cropped out of the picture, so I don't think we could use it anyway. No Way Back 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I missed your message and didn't check until today.

Anyway, I'm not a new member who doesn't know anything, I wouldn't use fake images, that site, www.thescifiworld.net does have a lot of fan CG artwork and wallpapers but I'm sure this is from the screenshot section.

Here http://www.thescifiworld.net/zocalo_images_sga2x06_05.htm

I also compared it to a small scale pic from www.stargatecaps.com and it was pretty much a match when I shrank the image. Anyway, I never noticed that the scifi logo was missing but you're right but it's possible to remove those things nowadays.

Incase you all decide my work is acceptable for use here is what I came up with

Length 1416 ft = 431.60 meters

Width 615 ft = 187.45 meters

Height 210 ft = 64.01 meters

I used the Odyssey blueprints from the Stargate magazine for reference.

You may need to check my measurements in meters because I'm not good with the metric stuff but my stuff in Imperial units is correct based on what I came up with.

--Faris b 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for accuracy, but since we have no actual proof of the specs, can I replace the current ones with the ones I came up with? I mean, if we have unproven data from an unknown source, wouldn't it be better to have data that is more likely to be correct?

--Faris b 20:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Better to have no data in this case than unverified and possibly false data. I say just put "Unk" or something in place of the figures. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Vessel class text formatting

Okay, someone please confirm whether or not a dash is permitted between Name and class, aka, is it Daedalus-class or Daedalus class? I'm seeing it both ways, and haven't noticed a concensus on this issue when there should be one. Based on the whole of the 'pedia, it looks like not is the verdict, but, thoughts? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that without the dash would be better.

--Faris b 04:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go with no hyphen unless someone can find it written with a hyphen somewhere official (transcripts of things official people have said don't count - it needs to have been typed by someone official). --Tango 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)#Ship_classes. This should answer all questions. Thanks to User:Emoscopes to pointing it out to me. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More ships

I heard that there will be more Deep space carriers in service later on in season 10, is that true?

Also, why aren't other countries building their own ships? They supposedly got the plans for at least something like the Prometheus as stated in season 6.

Faris b 03:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia has the plans for the 303, yes, but the 303 has already been discontinued in favor of the Daedalus, and Russia didn't possess the facilities to build their own Prometheus class vessels even when it was still not obsolete. JBK405 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but then why did they want the plans if they couldn't even build them? Not to mention the fact that they never even made the seemingly mass-produced F-302.

I'm thinking if we see more ships they'll probably be other countries' ships because the Korolev was supposed to be the 3rd US Deep Space Carrier and it was still a year away from completion so they're starting on the 4th one from scratch no doubt so it'll be a while unless the show is introducing ships that belong to other nations.

Faris b 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And just what is this Deep Space Carrier? Its been called a Battlecruiser in dialogue. End of story. Alyeska 03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I consider them Deep Space Carriers because that was written and clearly visible on the Odyssey patches and their insignia, although it wasn't written on the Daedalus anywhere, my explanation is that since it was the prototype for it's class it wasn't officially called a Deep space carrier, "battlecruiser" is pretty much an umbrella term on the show it seems, they call anything Earth-built a battlecruiser, until I see WRITTEN evidence to the contrary I will know them as Deep space carriers. We'll see in season 10 if they have anymore ships what they're called, I'm thinking it'll be Deep Space Carrier like the Odyssey if it's a US built ship.

Faris b 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The ship is used for the exact same missions as the Prometheus. The Prometheus is a Battlecruiser. The Daedalus has been called a Battlecruiser and conducts the same missions. Deep Space Carrier is a worthless description and its not been actively used. Alyeska 04:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to this: You can personally call it Deep Space Carrier (or whatever) if you want, but please don't use that term on Wikipedia. This issue has been well beaten into the ground. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not going to call it something I believe is a big mistake on here.

Here is how I see it, things that are shown on screen are usually taken as the truth, take the spelling of Naqahdah for example, for YEARS everyone said it was spelled "naqua" but eventually the true spelling that was shown on screen became known as the correct one, as far as I know, I was the only one to spell it correctly (No, I'm not trying to say I was the one who made that happen) before anyone else finally started to pick up the correct spelling when that screenshot started to be more widely known so why isn't it the same here? Why is something that is spoken being taken as the truth when we have written, factual evidence of the term Deep Space Carrier? Would it make a difference to you all if it had a simmilar thing on the Daedalus patches as well? What happens if there is a 4th ship and it also bears "Deep Space Carrier" in some way or another?

Also, the Ori ships were never called battlecruisers but that's what they're called on Wiki, they've used the term "Ori Vessel" and "Ori ship" but the only true name for them, at least from the peasants of the Ori galaxy is Starcraft yet we don't call them "Ori Starcraft" so this is why I am saying that the use of the term "Battlecruiser" is a little bit of an umbrella term.

Faris b 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I took a look back at the discussions above and it was a majority vote that the page should be renamed Daedalus Class Deep space carrier so why is it that you are claiming that it was the other way around? Or is it that the people in charge just like the name "battlecruiser" better and are refusing to let anyone change it? Unless there is another discussion that I'm missing the majority vote is to change the name to Daedalus class deep space carrier.

Faris b 06:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Naqueda is a red herring. There was no dialogue to contradict the spelling in universe. The Daedalus class has been called a Battlecruiser by McKay, someone who knew a lot about its construction. It was considered the sister ship to the Prometheus at one point. It conducts the exact same missions as the Prometheus. You have but a single incident with the DSC while I have overwhelming weight of evidence as to the ship being a Battlecruiser. Alyeska 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If by 'overwhelming' you mean one throw away line from Everret, I'd say you have a penchant for hyperbole :) Check every other episode, ever. I think you'll find that there isn't any other reference to Battlecruiser (nor were the 304's ever reffered to as 'BC'). I beleive the Prometheus was reffered to as a defensive weapons platform more often than Battlecriuser:

CARTER: Prometheus was designed primarily for defensive purposes.Memtento Transcript

Gateworld entry mentioning it's status as a defensive platorm for Earth

Niether of these are obviously roles of a Battlecriuser. Did you also notice that the Prometheus was only ever sent on one attack mission? For the majority of season eight, the ship was in fact in Earth orbit defending the planet, it was only ever sent out during the events of Ethon (and maybe, 'Unatural Selection' although this is mearly used as transport) on an attack mission.

So the Prometheus was never very Battlecriuser-esque to begin with. This is where your logic in connecting the 303 and the 304 gets a little fuzzy, since (in past arguments on this talk page)you link them via the 'BC' prefix on the registry. The 304 has never been linked with this term and the two series of ships must be fundamentally different both in design and purpose for a change of production number. The Odessey has only been sent out on missions so far because it is the only ship remaining for Earth to use, perhaps if the Prometheus was still around it would get used more often, but it's not.

DSC has two reference point on SG1. The first is obviously the mission patches worn by each Odessey mission patch and the second here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v351/the_timmsv2/sg1cap.gif

Two different departments using the same information? I could see you're point if it was just one or the other, but two implies that someone sat down and thought about this rather than an artist taking a little creative liscencing.

Back to the BC issue, it's never been canonically stated that BC even stands for Battlecriuser. You cannot assume it does because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore needs reference. Everything I have said here, I have backed up, you cannot deny there is at the very least enough evidence to warrent more than a passing reference to this term. No Way Back 01:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Never canonicaly called a BC? When the BC303 first got mentioned it was called BC303, BC, and Battlecruiser multiple times by various people including a general in charge of the program. A colonel calling the Daedalus a BC and having McKay near by who is known to correct people for mistakes (McKay knew enough of the Daedalus to know how much the Asgard helped out and knew its systems pretty quick) didn't say a word. The patches ultimately don't mean a lot because it doesn't necessarily contradict Battlecruiser. It can easily have a different meaning. We know the ship is a Battlecruiser from dialogue and we have a nebulous designation with no real meaning behind it. Alyeska 01:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The 303 was called BC, yes. But it's never been linked with the 304, nor has it ever been shown that BC stands for Battlecriser. McKay not correcting him is a fairly weak defence too, since there were numerous more important things happening (like the city on self-destruct) when the stakes are so high, McKay has demonstrated an ability to focus on a task before. No Way Back 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? When the BC303 designation was first given, we hear several people use the term BC303 and Battlecruiser interchangably, including the general in charge of the project. BC was directly tied to Battlecruiser canonicaly. Alyeska 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Energy weapon dillema

I know the Asgard have a policy of not putting any weapons on any Earth ships but why not retrofit something from an Al'kesh or Ha'tak, surely they could have gotten their hands on one of the Ha'taks after the battle with the replicators or at least have a team study their design or something like that, why not ask the Free Jaffa Nation to let a team study the weapons on a Ha'tak, it obviously woudln't risk their security because they have way more ships than Earth probably ever will and the fact that Earth wouldn't dream of attacking them like that, they have no problem letting SG personnel onboard them if need be so why not?

I'm tired of this, why are the writers are afraid to make Earth ships too powerful or at least more effective than targets with great shields? The missiles are limited and the railguns, while they do pass thru shields (this WAS stated because of the fact that they travel at Mach 5, the same reason that SG-1 could run thru shields in "Upgrades"), they aren't very effective unless you hit something like a fighter bay

Or is it a power thing? Like the reason that the Asgard hyperdrive and shields are only being powered at 25% of their max output? I got these figures from the Daedalus taking 4 days to get from Earth to Atlantis with the ZPM which can give full power and it taking 18 (YES, I am one of those who think it's 18 not 20 days) to travel from Earth to Atlantis which is just a little over 4x the amount of time it takes to go without the ZPM and the same reason the shields give out so easily under constant fire. So I guess weapons fire would do little good at 25% yield? But didn't they say in "There But For The Grace Of God" that the weapons of a Ha'tak are as powerful as 200 Megaton warheads? So at 25% that would be 50 Megatons so I don't see power being a problem especially because the Goa'uld systems use Naqahdah generators but Asgard systems use Neutrino Ion generators (Mentioned in "Nemesis").

Faris b 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Daedalus class battlecruiser → Daedalus class (Stargate) – Hopefully this should settle the dispute over page name.

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 07:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks, great idea. But "Daedalus Class (Stargate)" sounds ambigious, if it's not too much trouble, how about Daedalus Class ship (Stargate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faris b (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated the move req to "..class ship". MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Daedalus class has been called in dialogue a Battlecruiser. This page is just fine. Alyeska 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support No Way Back 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, plain and simple. This page covers more than just the Daedalus itself, covering the entire class (so we need some kind of class identification), and it's been identified as a Battlecruiser in dialogue. JBK405 00:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, if it is to be Daedalus class ship, Support if it's just Daedalus class. I'm sorry, but "ship" is superfluous. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose leave the blasted title alone. - LA @ 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the latest line in constant whining and dispute about the classifcation of the ship. Those involved couldn't get the page changes they want, so they want the page name changed. Leave it be. - 59.167.38.13 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There is absolutely no reason to move this page. The ship has been called in Dialogue a Battlecruiser pure and simple. Alyeska 15:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now i support battlecruiser but i'm pretty show theres been some visual representation as dsc. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Wait a second, how is "Daedalus class (Stargate)" in the least bit ambiguous? It is obviously a ship, and its obviously from Stargate, thus removing ambiguity (and if it is ambiguous, then Prometheus needs to be renamed to something else as well). I would *only* support a move to "Daedalus class (Stargate)", and only then because it fits better with Prometheus' entry, and because I believe all things Stargate related should be tagged with "Stargate" instead of just the name to avoid any confusion (as should any television, film, etc material). (2) Now, in terms of the battlecruiser debate, I believe spoken dialogue outweighs visuals, since we know that the special effects department does not always do a good job of keeping with continuity. Not to say that scriptwriters are perfect, but dialogue is typically taken, in my experience, as a matter of fact. This begs the question (as I don't remember it being mentioned), has it ever been verbally described as a Deep Space Carrier, and even then, how many times compared with it being called Battlecruiser? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're obviously not thinking in accordance with Wiki's NPOV rule. These articles are as much for people familiar with the show as they are for people learning about the show, to someone familiar with it, "Daedalus class" would signify the ship, but to someone unfamiliar with the show, it wouldn't make sense. That is how I see it. I mean, if I didn't know much about the show and I searched "Daedalus" and found "Daedalus class (Stargate)" it wouldn't seem like it's a ship to me, don't ask why, that's just how I think but if I saw "Daedalus class ship (Stargate)" it would make sense. Personally,

Also, Alyeska, what is your deal with insisting that it be kept as "battlecruiser"? Are you not reading what I'm saying about the show calling EVERY Earth-built ship a "battlecruiser"? Do you think every SG team is told the whole specs on the ships? To them, anything's a battlecruiser, just like most people see someone in the military and think of them as an "Army guy" when they know the Army isn't the only branch, I see it as the same way with the term "Battlecruiser", just because it's been stated on the show, doesn't mean it's correct. Do you have ANY other reason aside from the fact that it was spoken onscreen? If not, I think that you are just liking the name "battlecruiser" better and just don't want it to be changed for some reason I have no idea what it is. And why is that your sole argument? I can think of at least a couple of reasons why Deep Space Carrier is the correct name other than the fact that it was shown in the background.

Faris b 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your mentioning NPOV is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Why do I insist on it being called a Battlecruiser? Lets see. The Prometheus was called a Battlecruiser and was even designated as a BC. The Daedalus originaly started out as the Prometheus's sister ship and was going to be a BC. McKay was very knowledgeable in the construction of the Daedalus because he knew the Asgard were helping out alot. He called the Daedalus a Battlecruiser. This is a LOT of evidence in support of Battlecruiser. Your position relies on a SINGLE piece of information from a single episode. Weight of evidence supports Battlecruiser. I don't mind a comment being made in the article about DSC, but for the moment we don't have much information to indicate the classification has changed as of yet. Alyeska 00:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
__

"As we speak it is being transported up to the Daedalus, our new Battlecruiser." - Col. Dillon Everett, Stargate Atlantis episode 1x20, The Siege (Part II).

Everett is a military man and would not make the mistake of calling a Carrier a Battlecruiser because of ignorance over classification. He has been thoroughly briefed, and a thorough briefing would include something as basic as general information about the sole hope for saving Atlantis, so he wouldn't have simply assumed because he'd never been told the ships true title.

This particular quote has probably been hashed and rehashed, but I still think it speaks pretty plainly. The Daedalus has been identified as a Battlecruiser and, as such, it makes sense that the page be titled as such. JBK405 00:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point but I have a counter-point:

http://www.stargatecaps.com/sg1/s8/819/ninie/html/Moebius1x0001.html

Take a good look at that pic. Notice anything? It's a Prometheus class ship! Sure it was called "The Daedalus" but it seems originally the Daedalus was to be PROMETHEUS class then it was changed to an entirely new class probably just to be different as the creators so like to do between the shows.

Differences:
*1. It has that "ring" like thing on the aft tower like the Prometheus and the Daedalus clearly doesn't have it.
*2. It has a fatter front bit while the Daedalus is overall slimmer.
*3. It only has 2 rear engines like the Prometheus instead of about 8 on the Daedalus.
*4. It's fighter bays are slimmer like on the Prometheus and we all know the Daedalus has double the carrying capacity of the Prometheus because the bays are twice as large.

Thus, it's a writing mistake because the Daedalus was ORIGINALLY supposed to be a PROMETHEUS class ship but before they made the 3rd part for "The Seige" it was changed to a new class so SGA could have it's "own" ship in most ways.

So that was a mistake made before the Daedalus was actually shown, therefore, if between seasons, the ship class was completely changed, it's designation most likely changed as well but it was never commented on.

Also, isn't it possible the Daedalus wasn't assigned the title of DSC because it's the first of it's class, like a prototype ship of it's class so the next in line was named DSC, if the Korolev survived for more than 1 ep or was in the hands of the Americans, I believed it would have been a DSC.

And what does the Daedalus primarliy do?

Ferry supplies between Earth and Atlantis, sounds like a Deep Space Carrier to me. It doubles as a battlecruiser of sorts when it goes up against the Wraith but it doesn't do well, that was even stated by Caldwell just last week thus it's design was a carrier, not a battlecruiser. It seems the show always refer to them as 304's so unfortunately that doesn't help us with the battlecruiser vs. DSC argument.

Faris b 01:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to talk people to death? The Daedalus got called a BC in dialogue by a military person who is briefed on the ship and someone knowledgable in its construction who is known to correct people did NOT correct him. You have a SINGLE piece of evidence that the Daedalus is a DSC. We have dialogue and past history. Alyeska 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A well-written counter-point (Including visual aids, which people so often forget to show despite their claims of possession), and it certainly does look like that picture is of a Prometheus rather than Daedalus class, but we're still at a crossroads of implication and presentation. It certainly does appear that they originally intended the Daedalus to be a Prometheus class (Supported by McKay's statement that it was the P's sister ship), but regardless of their intentions, they changed it to a new class without any official in-show change. Sure, I'll bite that the writers changed their minds, but until it is commented upon within the show (Maybe something like "Ever since we changed over from the Battlecruiser to the Carrier design with the Daedalus, we've seen...") it hasn't happened within the shows universe, and the pre-change dialogue is still supposed to be dead on.

Also, why would its status as a prototype effect its title? I mean, I know how that would effect its title, but why would it effect its title like that? Why would it be called a Battlecruiser instead of a DSC just because it was the first? If it was a prototype name I would have thought that would be "Daedalus class Experimental Battlecruiser/DSC" (Or something along those lines), reflecting its status both as a prototype and its role. Besides, even if that's accurate and it's planned for future ships to be called DSC's, that hasn't happened yet and right now it's conjecture (Your own words: "if the Korolev survived for more than 1 ep or was in the hands of the Americans, I believed it would have been a DSC.")

In addition, I've actually taken issue with Caldwell's statement from Sateda. True, the Daedalus has suffered rather extreme damage at the hands of the Wraith, but the Wraith have taken quite a bit more. The Daedalus has taken down three hive ships singlehandedly, damaged others, and survived in combat against many more. I think its actions are actually quite suited to a BC, since it's done rather well considering it's almost always outnumbered and outgunned. However, even that's not very relevant to this discussion, it's performance is a moot point. Regardless of how well it does in battle, it was designed for battle, built for battle, and used for battle. Naval Battleships are still called as such, even in todays age when they are largely rendered ineffective due to aircraft, submarines, and long-range missiles. Perhaps the SGC will change their name to DSC because of its lack of success as a BC, but until they do that's still its title. JBK405 01:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the notion that we should move it because Everett might be wrong to be absurd. It was stated on-screen, and until it is disproven on screen, it is a battlecruiser. I'm also quite certain that he would have been briefed on someting like that. That would be like saying, we can't say the Stargate is made of Naquahah because it might be wrong! We can only go on what is said, and until someone says that the Daedalus is not a battlecruiser and is indeed a Deep Space Carrier, then the article should remain here. American Patriot 1776 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Everett made a mistake, I'm saying the writers goofed up by originally having it be a battlecruiser but on a whim, they decided to change it to a DSC before season 2 started, so the information about the Daedalus being a battelcruiser WAS correct until they decided to make the ship look different, therefore, as of season 2+ of Atlantis and season 9+ of SG-1 the term DSC would be correct by this logic then.

Basically, they are both correct terms, but the BC term WAS correct and the term DSC is currently correct.

Faris b 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But you've yet to give any support for that statement. An interview with a writer, commentary on an episode, etc. Until you get somebody actually saying that it is a DSC, it's still just conjecture. JBK405 00:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Faris, what you are proposing is based upon "selective hearing"... In other words, as someone said above, you are ignoring the mound of evidence for Battlecruiser and latching on to the single bit that said Deep Space Cruiser. And as I mentioned above, I don't recall the term DSC actually being spoken in an episode (please correct me if I'm wrong). Spoken dialogue always takes precidence over visuals: again, scriptwriters and editors normally have a much higher degree of fact-checking than the folks in graphics do (in fact, graphics are usually outsourced to a separate company...one can simply look to Star Trek series to see the number of times their outsourced starship models and graphics got screwed up because of a lack of communication or misunderstanding between producer and design company).

Simply put, graphics are in every way secondary to script. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I never said I'm ignoring the evidence it being a battlecruiser but I'm talking about things proven on the show, the fact that the Daedalus ferries supplies, does not do that well against hives and yes, my favorite, the Odyssey insignia but you can't deny that the show generalizes the terms for ships, right?

Yes, you’re right, they never called it a DSC-304 but they never called it a BC-304 either, they always selectively call it a 304, nothing else. If they DO call it a BC-304, I will no longer pursue this but it hasn't happened.

So what happens if another Daedalus class ship appears and also says Deep Space Carrier somewhere on it as well? Will this page be renamed or will it be ignored again? I understand your viewpoint, it was only on 1 out of 3 ships, but that should be 1 out of 2 because the other one (Korolev) didn't exist long enough to have been given a title.

Faris b 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if further evidence is presented which pushes the Deep Space Carrier concept, I'll gladly support it (I actually feel this would be a more interesting and somewhat appropriate description of the vessel, but I'm not in charge), but as it stands, I know too much about visual effects work to call those displays irrefutable evidence. I would reason they are a mistake made by a graphics artist who saw, or heard about, the large fighterbays and made an assumption.

I would point out that just because it can carry cargo and is a ~400 meter vessel that doesn't do so hot againt four kilometer Hives (...yeah...) doesn't make a difference between it being a battlecruiser and DSC. The fact that it survives at all, and has taken out a number of hives paints it as something more than just a carrier, which traditionally are almost entirely defensive in terms of weaponry. Either way, I do feel this is an issue that needs to be put to rest, at least until further (and stronger) evidence is presented. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, its performance is irrelevent. It is not our place to judge or make a decision based upon its performance, since that would be our opinion and thus not allowed on the main page. Also, it's performed very well (Taking down three Hive-Ships singlehandedly and damaging/surviving against others), so if it was our decision I'd still vote to keep it at BC and not DSC.

Anyway, none of the ships has once been referred to as a DSC except (apparently) by props, which are significantly less important than dialogue since, as has been said, props and script often contradict one another and the scripts are of higher authenticity. Your evidence has been its performance (Which is irrelevent), and props (Which take a back seat to dialogue). I understand where you're coming from and get what you're trying to say, but the facts simply weigh in favor of the official and In-Universe classification being Battlecruiser since it has been addressed as such in dialogue. It is not our position to change its official title because we feel that it doesn't apply, since Wikipedia is meant to give the facts, not what we think the facts should be (Sorry for sounding harsh, but we've been saying the same things back and forth for a while now). JBK405 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I havend had the patience to read all that is written in this Discusion, I only have one Argument, a rather large one, ok maybe 2. 1: The Daedalus was given this name from the greek engeneer that constructed wings for him and his son. It is also stated that the daedalus is the first ship to be designed to bridge the gap between the two galaxies where humans have settlements. Now the odyssey was called the sistership of Daedalus or a Daedalus class Ship and we could see the designation on Odyssey's emblem or whaterver that was. Combine this (Deep Space Carrier) with the name of the Class (Daedalus) and you have Daedalus class Deep Space Carrier (it carries people into deep space for the help of Atlantis). The term battlecruiser is so generic it scares me. The Daedalus class was created not to defeat the goa'uld or any other race because it was over with them so all they had to concentrate upon was going to pegasus and I think that is why Daedalus class has no energy weapons, it had no reason to, there was no rush, goa'ulds were down replicators down end of story. and another thing, A shield or anything including an energy weapon and hyperdrive is only as strong as it's energy source so that is why the daedalus was so much powerfull with the ZPM. IT all depends on how much energy you can sqeeze out of the naquadah. One last thing The battlecruiser obsesion is the same as it is with spaceship on star trek. It does not designate a class, it's just something general, Althought I have to admit it does give you a head aiche.

jameshowlett 22:41, 31 August 2006

Korolev or Odyssey in image?

So which is it in the image for the Battle of P3Y-229? The Korolev or the Odyssey? I always thought it was the Odyssey. Can anyone comfirm the ship positions?

Faris b 06:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It was the Odyssey; The Korolev was on the right to the Asgard vessel and the Korolev was still on the right when the weapon hit the Odyssey. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)