Talk:Stargate: Continuum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleStargate: Continuum has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
November 13, 2009Good article nomineeListed

RDA in Continuum - but how much?[edit]

One of the last edits put RDA as the first person in the starring list. However, no articles so far indicate that he'll even play a significant/major role. RDA said about two weeks ago [1] that even he doesn't know, so I put his name back somewhere at the end of the list. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! Also, I've deleted some Original research and speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgeureka (talkcontribs) 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

We already know Anderson is in the movie, Anderson comes prior to Browder, I also do not see anything stating the starring section is a "ranking of importance". Matthew
My point was more that we don't know (for sure) whether he was starring at all. For all we know, he could just appear in the first 30 minutes in the setting up of the story, similary to "Rising". Until the producers say more about his involvement, he should not be listed as the first person starring. Just my opinion. (Sorry, forgot to sign the last time.) – sgeureka tc 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That's one thing I hate when people start to try putting actors/actresses in definitions, RDA is in it thus he stars in it, there's no need to split it up in to a multitude of rankings and then put them in an order of importance, if anything it violates WP:NPOV, not to mention it then violates WP:ATT. Matthew
Sorry, non-native speaker here. I thought "starring" refers to "being the star of [a movie/TV show]". wikt:starring seems to back up this interpretation of the word. Again, my point was/is, we don't know at the moment whether RDA will have a lead role at all. (Although it's likely. But likelyhood status, as you said, still violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATT) – sgeureka tc 17:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the last revert put the original research about Don S. Davis and Teryl Rothery back in. If everyone is fine with that, I'm going to leave it in. But I think it should be deleted. – sgeureka tc 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The starring section is not a "ranking of importance". Credits in movies and television series are not based on that, they're based on contracts. Until we know more about both RDA's role and how he'll be credited in the movie, we should not put him first. I've reordered this list based on the credits for The Shroud, using the normal SG-1 credits first, followed by the guest star credits, substituting Cliff Simon for Morena Baccarin. In those credits, RDA is the last to appear (credited with a Special Apperance). — BrotherFlounder 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Who cares if he "appears last" in the credits of "The Shroud"? Matthew
Because that's likely how he'd be credited in the movie, with an "Also Starring" credit. See Bill Shatner's credit in Star Trek: Generations as the first example that comes to mind. Also, why is there no need to tablulate the cast list? — BrotherFlounder 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since O'Neill is no longer an official member of SG-1 (i.e. as of S9, S10 and The Ark of Truth), he should be treated like any other guest star on SG-1, at the end after all SG-1 main characters. Therefore, to list him in the same way as on "The Shroud" seems reasonable. Also, I'd like to suggest to go back to the Cast style we last had in [2]. (It looked less confusing and more orderly.) – sgeureka tc 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: using the alphabetic order like it was suggested in the March 18 edit. That would also mean Bridges should be listed before Browder, Judge, Tapping, and Shanks, too. For the time being, that would give a worse impression of the (unknown) contract/involvement status than what we had before. – sgeureka tc 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If we're not going to go with the tabular format, then the cast list should be like that, according to WikiProject Film' style guide. — BrotherFlounder 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since there even is a guide line, I was bold and changed it back. – sgeureka tc 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

May I state that RDA plays a very important role, being the original leader of the team and that Carter, Teal'c and Jackson should appear right behind him. Then it should be followed by Mitchell and Vala. But in all reality I don't even see why it matters, as long as all of the information on the page is correct. Another suggestion; why not make a poll to see who the SG-1 fans think should be listed first. They have the right to decide. And that is my theory on the debate. Truthfully though, as long as its a good movie that represents SG-1 (the whole team and all of its past members) well I'm very happy, and won't even care what charactors listed first.-Random Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.177.165 (talkcontribs)

RDA doesn't have any relevance in the plot and could have been replaced by anyone. The 1337 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RDA was important to the plot, being the fact that he was the leader of a special ops team earlier. (That itself serves to establish a couple of things in the alternate timeline and establish a few other minor, but notable things.) But regardless of that, he should still be named as a "Guest Star", considering it says, "Also starring Richard Dean Andersan" in the opening credits. Zenchi (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ranks in cast list?[edit]

I'm not certain about the idea of putting ranks in the cast list, since we're not sure what the ranks will really be. For example, since it seems the plot will be the SG1 team being sent to an alternate timeline, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only time we see O'Neill is within that alternate timeline when the team goes to hunt him down as somebody they trust to help them. So for all we know, he's a fishing boat captain again and not a General at all. Of course, this is all unsourced speculation but then strictly speaking, so is including him as a General... so should we just remove ranks entirely? --Maelwys 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about leaving out the ranks for the time being, but I wouldn't really care about leaving them in either until we know more. – sgeureka tc 17:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should leave the ranks in. It's only Gen. O'Neill and Gen. Landry who would be affected by this (we know Carter and Mitchell will appear before entering the alternate timeline), and Landry will likely appear before the alterations occur. — BrotherFlounder 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Don't forget Sam Carter! I think the names should be listed in the order of people who have been on the show longest, that means Carter, Teal'c, and Jackson all go first, followed by O'Neill, Mitchell, and Vala. Or it should be by rank. Either way works for me.-Random Contributor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.177.165 (talkcontribs)
While at it, why not remove the name as well ? Maybe his name is also different in an alternative timeline.
The rank is a part of character's name - a part that changes more frequently than the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.66.2 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

This is just a note, I'm not suggesting you geeks change anything. Mitchell is going to be a Col(O-6) in Continuum, I was watching an Air Force Report and in an interview with the costume people a woman was holding the Mitchell flightsuit which had Colonel insignia on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.83.90 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Either Mitchell is going to be a Full Bird Colonel or Sam gets demoted. I just changed it but previously it was Sam as a Colonel which would destroy the enite structure of SG-1, Cam being the SG-1 Team Leader. Also putting ranks in the cast list is a good idea, it shows the positions each actor will be playing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.106.126 (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Richard Dean Anderson will be in the movie as General and Colonel.
Amanda Tapping's alternate timeline caracter is already dead. She's said to have been an Astronaut and died in a shuttle accident. (We probably won't see her in the movie)
Ben Browder's altermate timiline caracter never existed. (Probably because of the event taking place in 1939, as Mitchell's grandfather is the ship's captain who saves the day when ball's bomb it)
All this information comes from an intervied title: "Breaking the ice, part 1"
I believe this information answers the questions about ranks, except for Beau Bridges and Don S. Davis.
It should also be noted that Daniel Jackson will still be a "Doctor" working on his theories of the Great Pyramids.--Jerem © 2002-2006 (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
See O'Neill's rank below for more detail. —MJBurrage(TC) 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline?[edit]

I know this will happen after Ark of Truth, but when will it happen with regards to the Atlantis timeline? Will it be before Season 4 like the other movie or will it take place at a different place in the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.113.89.191 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reportedly by production team members, it takes place about the time Atlantis's Season 5 starts (Amanda Tapping implying something in the early episodes, possibly just a tease, might pull her off of Atlantis and leading into the movie). Nothing I've seen yet, though, qualifies setting that timeframe in stone.
I think we can expect that the SG-1 and Atlantis schedules will continue to lose sync, though TPTB will probably do their best to make it somewhat still so to avoid confusion.Thinkbui (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


The timeline for the movie is just before the start of Atlantis season 5. Tapping gets pulled off of the Atlantis team by the end of the season premiere (replaced by Wolsey). Originally, she's heading back to Earth for a debrief and a ceremony because the last of the Baal clones have been caught. 83.226.223.63 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

To be more precise, she's pulled off at the end of the first episode of Atlantis season 5, wich means the events on Stargate: Continuum happens at least after this episode, maybe a little later. More information about the timeline might become available as the show gets more and more epispdes broadcasted.--Jerem © 2002-2006 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the movie could have taken place between the opener of season 5 and its second episode, a good couple of days at least (with the ZPM) to two-three weeks (without), because she Sam was allowed off world and not quarenteened...although, the fact that she didn't go all Zerg-ie during that 'One Year Later' would imply that it is probably after 'Seed' (s5e2). Ironwolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.191.85 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Teal'c's tattoo[edit]

I'm assuming we've all seen the press photos by now. Anyone know if the slightly altered Ba'al design just for T in those is the final design?
On a side note, I do like the more realistic looking Jaffa armor.Thinkbui (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Internet[edit]

SG:Continuum has been leaked to the internet as of today, go figure. I personally dislike it when such news goes up on wiki articles for movies, but here you go for anyone who decides otherwise. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the dislike, which is why I put up the WP:DUE tag next to the leak note on this and the AoT article. It certainly is something us Stargate fans easily get really excited by, which is why Stargate forums light up when it happened to AoT and now for Continuum, but considering that leaks happen all the time to movies with psycho fans like us, I really don't understand why we should consider any particular leak (except if resulted in lawsuit or media circus, etc) as singularly notable. Plus even if there was any now, it certainly would descend to nil after July 29th when Continuum becomes officially and legally available anyway. I'll agree to leave it up for now, but I don't see the rationale for leaving it up longterm.Thinkbui (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is *not* a news site, and unless there are some circumstances that make this leaked release any special from all the others (e.g. the recent Fringe pilot, or Stargate Ark of Truth, or almost *every* DVD movie these day) it is certainly not encyclopaedic content. Not noteable, and Wikipedia is not the news.
Since I doubt very much that there are guidelines that warrant the inclusion, I'll go ahead and remove it. If there is consensus here that it should be included, I'll be fine with it, but with controversial stuff like this I have the strong opinion to remove it, if in doubt, and then talk about it, and not the other way around.
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's a work copy different from the final release, like Atlantis two first episodes, or Ark of Truth, it could be notable. But considering the time remaining till the release, it's unlikely. WarKosign (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK just like with Ark of Truth, any material unofficially released such as the apparent DVD rip that found its way online last week is considered *stolen*. Edits cannot be made based upon anything unofficial or stolen unless it is 100% confirmed officially (ie Chronus, Yu, etc appearing in press photos). Any details, no matter how big or small, that haven't shown up in official material should *not* be added to this page.Thinkbui (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the movie shown on Sky One and someone recorded it? The 1337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to my information, Sky One hasn't yet and won't until August 12 as a buildup to the DVD release in the UK.Thinkbui (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don S Davis[edit]

Hope it's dedicated to Don S Davis, who died last week. It means they'll have to kill off General Hammond at some point as well. Digifiend (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The internet release isn't, and that's apparently a DVD rip, maybe some of the later prints of the film will have it edited in. scatman839 (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that the SKY ONE transmission in the UK on 12th August will be .Garda40 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to say how they'll handle it as the amount of time it takes and the cost of burning DVDs has reduced significantly over the past few years. It is possible for MGM to halt DVD production in order to append the dedication/memorial message at the end of the movie to include Don Davis or to add a special featurette or even just a bonus CD in the earlier releases to be merged with the DVD in later release, but I have no idea what the difficulty level would be to execute those.
The timing of the leak raises an eyebrow too. It being only two days after the announcement of his passing makes me wonder if that was done intentionally planning to make a couple minor changes to the movie, even after it's officially declared "done". All this is just speculation though.Thinkbui (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack's death[edit]

I keep trying to post that Jack is killed by Ba'al before the rest of the team escape. This is an important distinction into why he is not running with them, as long as we are describing the film. It's one sentence for crying out loudObriensg1 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

O'Neill's rank[edit]

The actual credits specifically list: Mjr. Gen. Henry "Hank" Landry, General Jonathon "Jack" O'Neill, and Major General George Hammond. This directly implies that O'Neill is now a full (four-star) general. Having said that, his stars are never shown on screen, and verbal references are no help since all ranks of general are usually just referred to as "general" in speech.

The credits do have errors in that Hammond is shown on-screen to be a lieutenant general, and both Carter and Mitchell are both credited as "Lt. Colonel" but shown on-screen as full bird colonels (in the latter cases this is due to production changes when they moved the film to happening after Season 4 of Atlantis rather than before). Most logically O'Neill would actually be a lieutenant general, based on the shows concept and history, but such a claim is wholly speculation and uncitable.

Based on all of this it is wrong to list O'Neill as a major general, his rank should either be linked to General (United States) (based on the credits), unlinked, or linked to an overview article on generals. I would suggest the first option since the credits support it, and nothing in the film contradicts it.

MJBurrage(TC) 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Hammond, the error isn't in the credits. Without the Stargate program, Hammond would have retired years before as a two-star, like Landry.
—WWoods (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Hammond was already the leader of the SGC when it wasn't doing anything. Maybe without that dead end post he got a position where he shined and things could have happened like maybe his wife died in an accident etc... and he stayed in the military and wound up with Hayes. Obriensg1 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's actually a big error for George Hammond, since he was a Lt. Gen. since Season Eight (9 July 2004) in the original timeline. Therefore he is three-stars (or retired as such) in both timelines. —MJBurrage(TC) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could Ba'al actually have survived?[edit]

Although what may have been the real Ba'al died when going back in time since the timeline was changed would that open the possibility that the real Ba'al somehow lived (supposing that actually was Ba'al and not a new type of clone)? Mitchell was not stuck back in the past even though he went back then because the timeline was changed. If that was actually the real Ba'al and not a clone (which cannot necessarily be assumed to be true) then is there no way Ba'al is not dead or could some "loop" have occurred which means he might still be alive? He is probably more popular than any other of the Gou'ald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If Mitchell did not go back in time in the final time line (which can be discerned directly from the movie) then it would seem like Ba'al could not have died in the final time line. Mitchell had to go back in time for Ba'al to die at his hands. Thus Ba'al may have been killed by Mitchell once but did not die in the final time line because Mitchell did not go back in time in the final timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.115.144 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If we were to assume there is only one timeline with a strict linear progression, yes that would be a paradox. However one of the ideas behind the story is the Multiverse Theory where every possible reality could exist simultaneously and that when you are time travelling, you are actually jumping from one reality to another and here we're dealing with three different timelines.
In addition, the writers have said again and again that their conceit in this story is that the wormhole would protect Mitchell, Daniel, and Sam from the shift in the timeline. As part of that conceit, since Mitchell never existed in the second timeline, he'd be unaffected when the second timeline was shifted to the third timeline. At the end, we see two Mitchell's from two different timelines, one of which went back to kill a Ba'al while the other remained at the SGC.Thinkbui (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What if they used the other Stargate?[edit]

Wouldn't it be much cooler if Sam, Mitchel and Daniël would've continued their search for a ZPM or if they actually visited the Outpost, with the gateroom intact? When I first heard that plan I got all excited. Even after both surface outposts were destroyed they could've still gone there.

It was way to easy that Teal'C had the Goa'uld - DHD/Power - device. They should've all gone to Antartica with the ship and use the rings to go down to the outpost and use THAT Stargate. Just wondering what other people thought when they brought up the Antartica outpost again. And if they were bugged by the fact the writers completely dissed the going-to-the-outpost scene.

Also .. they totally rushed the explanation for the Goa'uld/Ancient hybrid time-machine thing. That really sucked. Although I liked the idea of a time-travel gate.DarthYotho (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


What I dont get is how could Camron Mitchel gate to 1929 earth? When in 1929, one stargate was covered by a stone to stop such activity and the other was buired deep in the ice of Antarctic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.235.113.2 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the first rules of science fiction is that not everything is shown or discussed on screen. Mitchell most likely did not gate directly to Earth from Praxia since he first needed a very specific wormhole to time travel. After arriving in 1929 at whatever planet he wound up on (of if the time travel looped the wormhole back to Praxia as it did in 1969), he could have easily stolen a ship and ditched it somewhere on Earth or hitchhiked.
Now let's stay away from any discussion other than maintenance of the article on the movie.Thinkbui (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IRL sourcing[edit]

[3]: I don't know how long this link/video will stay live, but it's an Air Force News publication meaning it's (a) reliable and (b) public domain, if any of the media within can be used (mayhaps the original, which I cannot find?). — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Budget and Revenue Figures[edit]

Budget $7,000,000 Revenue $6,353,675 (US)

Could this be changed to add a third category, "Profit". I am confused as to the profits. the budget and revenue figures can be interpreted two ways. 1) that there was a $650k loss, Revenue - budget or 2) There was a $6.5 million profit. The 1st interpretation makes it seem as though the movie did quite badly but the 2nd interpretation is not natural IMO. Could that be cleared up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballChaos (talkcontribs) 13:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


A couple of things:
  • It's industry standard for "revenue" to mean raw earnings without accounting for costs (or in this case called "budget"), so it is the Revenue - Cost = Profit formula.
  • The movie actually hasn't done that badly since that figure is only for US DVD sales and earnings elsewhere are likely to far exceed $650k. Even if it were the figure for worldwide, low-budget DTV movies don't always have an expected ROI timeframe of less than one month.
I'll add to the note to make it clearer.Thinkbui (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really need clarification. Revenue means just that... revenue. If someone is having difficulty wrapping their head around a the word perhaps looking it up would be the best option.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast List too long[edit]

I think everything under Cliff Simon as Ba'al should be deleted as it's mostly cameos, anyone disagree? Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Still, could we make a short paragraph listing all cameo appearances in prose? – sgeureka tc 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we could do thatJedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I deleted everything under Hammond, because it's his last Stargate appearance. The rest were cameos, the only one that wasn't was Cronus and he had like 5 more seconds of screen time than the rest. Martin Wood as Wood??? Come on! Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As a side note/ question about cameos, is the cab driver who takes Daniel Jackson to his apartment played by Antonio Banderas? or is it another actor who looks surprisingly similar? Thanks. Than523 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not Antonio Banderas. In the DVD commentary, they talk about the guy as someone who's also played a background character on Atlantis. I think he was an esso, but it's been a while since I've listened to it.Thinkbui (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Europe release date[edit]

Don't know if this should be added (although it might be wise to because it will clear up some confusions) but the release date for a large part of mainland Europe (Belgium, Netherlands especially) the release date of the DVD/BR is October 1st (as can be seen here: http://www.fox.be/dvd/coming-soon/). Extortioner —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll get my official copy this Friday (Germany), so it seems there is no system in the European release dates. Therefore, I'd rather not add any dates other than as date ranges, because that would make the article just more confusing. – sgeureka tc 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stargate: Continuum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The V-Man (Said · Done) 15:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any questions, comments and other reviews below. Thanks! The V-Man (Said · Done) 15:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, I have been busy IRL. The review is forthcoming. The V-Man (Said · Done) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's okay. --TIAYN (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I won't be able to complete a review at this time. I hope another GA reviewer will come by and complete this. My apologies, and regards, The V-Man (Said · Done) 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm taking over the GAN here. Here are the issues I found:

  • Refs #6, 7, and 8 don't work (the postcard ones)
  • What does Ref #4 mean? Doesn't look like there's a source or date or anything.
  • "The production budget was $7 million and the film grossed over eight million USD," I'd keep the usage consistent with either $ or USD the whole way through (linking the $ to go to USD in the first use would be my preference)
  • The file size of the dvd cover is rather large and high-res; reduce the size so it fits better with nonfree guidelines.

I'll put this on hold for a few days and pass upon completion. Wizardman 17:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it tomorrow. Don't have time today... Okay? --TIAYN (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. Wizardman 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Refs #6, 7, and 8 have been fixed with links to archives at web.archive.org. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 10:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Resized DVD cover image to 360 × 488 pixels. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 10:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed ref #4 with web source. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 10:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Fixed currency formatting issues and updated broken ref. The four issues above should be fixed now. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 11:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks good now, article passed. Wizardman 15:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. [SCΛRECROW]CrossCom 2.0 05:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stargate: Continuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stargate: Continuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stargate: Continuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stargate: Continuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Stargate: Continuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Box office" in the infobox[edit]

I clicked on the link in the reference for the box office entry. It indicates that it is DVD sales, not an actual box office figure. Can that be removed? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)