This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 8, 2006	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Command structure]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

SG-7

The article says that of the Sg-7 that was killed on Hanaka, no one was ever named. However, the sign shown in "Singularity" read "John Smith Commanding".

==

When was it stated that SG-22 was a marine unit? To my knowledge, only SG-3 and SG-5 are marine units. Anyway, Marine units on Stargate wear camo instead of solid green and SG-22 was in solid green and was never stated to be a marine unit.

Faris b 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SG-25

I put SG-25 down as an Army unit because they were wearing Army ACU's in the episode so please don't revert it back to unknown.

Faris b 06:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faris, I changed it to the generic Military to better match the format of the rest of the teams. Not intended to impinge on what you wrote. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. But they are the very first Army team since SG-11 who disappeared on PXY-887 (Spirits), I think it should have some extra annotation of some kind. Faris b 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but for this type of entry, broader terms are probably more useful, especially until we can better break down the different teams by military branch (something I cannot do, as I'm not familiar with the intricacies of uniform and identifying marks. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but I am well versed in many different military uniform appearances. SG's 12 and 3 are Marine, SG-25 seems to be Army and the rest are Air Force. Faris b 19:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you have this information; consider, however, that it might be better to note their branch and other specific data in the Members section, and leave Military up as a generic reference under Type (and for the appropriate incarnation), similar to how the generic Science, Engineering, and Diplomatic tags are used. I'd even like to see the "Marine Combat Unit" tag placed under members instead of type, but I'm not about to touch that one :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but would it be possible to add an additional column that states military branch?

Faris b 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible, but I'd advise against it. Given that there are so many teams that are of non-military origin, I'm not sure it'd be wise to start a whole new column for a secondary information type when it fits more easily under Members. Remember, you want to condense information, not keep growing and growing... Add too many columns and it becomes unreadable. (not saying that would happen, but when you add "just one more" it rarely turns out to be just that) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at that and it seems incomplete and sloppy having their military branch in the members section but I'll think about it before adding another column.

Faris b 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many teams?

Why have they gone up to 25 SG teams? Don't they have enough? Also I thought their budget was cut and was being partially supplemented by the IOA so why are they still making new teams? They had at least 22 back in season 9 now it seems they have up to 25. Is it just me or does anyone else think having 25 SG teams is excessive?

Faris b 01:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat agreed, though remember that each team comprises only about four personnel, so even 25 teams is only 90-110 or so personnel, mixed between military and civilian specialists. Budget can always be cut from other divisions, such as R&D, which could be outsourced to other agencies or companies. They'll never give an explanation on the show (as much as folks would like one, about many things), so no sense in worrying about it :/ -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some SG numbers get "retired". If I were in charge I would retire an SG number in the event of a total party kill, evidently SGC doesn't do that but perhaps they do it for other reasons instead. Bryan 03:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if SGC retired team numbers for total kills, they'd be up to SG-70 or so by now :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case maybe I'd rename them SG-7B, SG-7C, etc. whenever I had to reuse the number. Though this may be somewhat disheartening for the members of SG-7J... :) Bryan 06:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work because there isn't enough room on the patches, there's barely enough room for 2 digits. Faris b 07:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd only be able to have nine teams at any one time (SG-1 through -9, though I could expand that slightly by having an SG-0). I'd need to send a team on a suicide mission whenever I wanted to induct new troops. Probably a good thing I'm not in charge after all. Bryan 07:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant when it comes to bigger numbers, like SG-10 and above, SG-10B would not fit on a patch unless they completely redesign them. Faris b 08:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did I. Limiting the team number to a single digit leaves room for the letter suffix. Bryan 15:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]