This is a complete list of episodes for the TV show Stargate SG-1, the longest running scifi show in US history. Because of that, I want to make this point right now: yes, the article is long!. We discussed splitting it, but came to these conclusions:
- That would disrupt the list and make it inconvenient for a reader trying to find an episode.
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which is why this kind of list works well.
- Most of the apparent article size (in KB) comes from the multitudinous table code, not from the content.
So I am submitting this list to be a featured list because I think it is:
- Absolutely complete
- Very clear and well laid out
- Is referenced, has small episode summaries for each episode (and the individual episode articles have references too)
- Is well illustrated
- Provides a spoiler, image-free version of itself at a subpage for reader convenience
On the point of the illustration. In the past people have complained that the images are being used inappropriately, however this is a misconception easy to make if you're not a watcher of Stargate. The pictures are not used for decoration; on the contrary they have been selected (and appropriately Fair-use tagged, see WP:FAIR) because they encapsulate the episode they correspond to particularly well. Hence they add to the list's informative power significantly.
I humbly submit this list to be featured. -- Alfakim -- talk 08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Picture problems now sorted out -- Alfakim -- talk 14:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - pictures. You cannot use fair use pictures for decoration which pretty much what is done here. And in any event you need fair use rationalles to use a fair use picture anywhere for any reason in WP. Sorry, awesome list, but... Renata 13:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I point to the last paragraph of my submission above. The pictures are not decoration, although it's easy to construe as such. The rationale is that they are particularly illustrative of their corresponding episode, and add to the informative content - not only do they remind a reader of that episode (by depicting something unique to it), they also provide an illustration of the mini-synopsis that goes with the list-item. Furthermore - they are the same as the images used in the actual articles, hence the correspondence is natural, and their use in the articles is certainly fair-use as a low-res pic for illustrative purposes (like any TV mag). See other featured tv lists. -- Alfakim -- talk 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle the picture use is no different to at here, just that to an outside viewer its not as obvious that the pics are more than decorative (because you dont know the episodes).
- If you look at the pictures linked from the featured List of South Park episodes, you will see that each of them has a fair use rationale for their use on the list - see, for example, Image:Ep 113 cartmangangster.gif. My view would be that these pictures would be acceptable if they had a similar fair use rationale. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to deprecate the use of the "TV Screenshot" licensing category. By placing the screenshots into the TV screenshot licensing category isnt it implicit that we believe they are not breaching copyright and are fair use for illustration? Also, if we really must provide such explicit rationale, can it not just be said in one place rather than at every single one of the 194 images? (considering in every case it's "picture illustrates the episode very well") -- Alfakim -- talk 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the reason it's not deprecating the "TV screenshot" category: fair use is completely different to the use of licensed images in Wikipedia precisely because the image is not licensed suitably for general use in Wikipedia and the only type of use that would avoid copyright infringement is one that is compatible with the rationales given at Wikipedia:Fair use. We are on the face of it commiting a copyright infringement unless we can show that we aren't, and that goes for every single page that makes use of that image. I can use a PD picture as often as I like in as many pages as I like, because that image is inherently free for use in Wikipedia articles; the only restrictions on where and how the image is used are basically editorial (E.g. is it appropriate/informative/relevant?). If I use a fair use image, the restriction on its use on any given page is not only editorial but also legal - we have no right to use an image in a way that breaches copyright. Using a fair use only image in a completely irrelevant page would clearly be a breach of copyright but at any rate editorial restrictions would prevent it any way (just as we wouldn't add a completely irrelevant PD image to a page). This leads many people to confuse the two types of restrictions. However, it may be considered editorially desirable to use an image decoratively - this is often the case in a list that needs livening up. If an image is PD then there is no problem here, so long as there is editorial consensus its use is appropriate. However, if an image is fair use only, then this use is legally impossible - decoration is not an instance fair use. So while the PD image can be used anywhere we like, and no particular legal rationale needs to be given for any individual use, a fair use image can only be used in instances where fair use applies, which means its use in one page may be fair use and its use in another page may not be fair use. This means that its fair use character needs to be justified in each instance that it used. In turn, this requires an individual and specific rationale given on the image page for each and every use. The fact that a screenshot hits all the conditions on the screenshot template doesn't guarantee that it's fair use, it merely indicates that it is a copyright image of a certain type, which may be "fairly used" on some Wikipedia articles. This is why the category itself is not deprecated: its purpose is to say "here are a bunch of copyright images which may potentially be fairly used in articles - someone needs to keep an eye on them to make sure they aren't being used in a way that violates copyright" not so say "these images are copyright, but feel free to use them anyway, their only screenshots". TheGrappler 19:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Object until (1) image copyright sorted out. In addition to previously noted concerns, the use of images for Series 10 is certainly decorative and that at the very least needs to stop. Unsure about the rest of the images. (2) References need sorting out properly. Why not pay a visit to WP:CITE to find out how to do it "properly"?1 TheGrappler 19:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I couldnt be bothered to read that huge rant up there, I was already persuaded we need to sort out the images. What's wrong with the references?-- Alfakim -- talk 21:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong Support I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object until the issues with the images are sorted out. Please read the Fair Use Policy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-vote recinded. Issues about image fair use conceded, will resubmit when this is sorted out. -- Alfakim -- talk 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Resupport: self-noming again - I added rationales to all the pictures. Work in progress to make the rationales more detailed but I think they currently suffice; further work will be an extra. -- Alfakim -- talk 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong Support [moved from above section so in context:] I have been waiting for this to become featured for a long time. One of the greatest pages on all of WP. Tobyk777 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, many of the plot summaries from Season 10 are identical to those at GateWorld.net. Many of the plot summaries are simple and could use a more descriptive exansion (to at least two sentences — almost every episode has a main plot and a sub-plot/side-story) while strategically hitting key words of elements (technology, ship names, special characters, ie. naqahdah, Thor) used in each episode (to allow for easy searching using Edit->Find in the browser). While there is no original research in this article, one of the references, "Wikipedia users who've watched the episodes themselves", does not conform to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Peer Review 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned the point of the copies to the listmakers. However, they didn't think it was a copyright infirngment since the site was linked to. However, I think we should modfiy them to make ourselvevs unqiue. It is treu that a primary ref is wikipedia users who have watched the episodes. Whether it's proper or not, its a ref. Tobyk777 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time, we didnt have the "Wikipedia users whove watched the episodes", we were told we needed it. Anyway i'll remove it. As for season 10, it hasn't aired yet, so we cant add anymore information than that: that's all that's known (refs in the actual articles).-- Alfakim -- talk 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are fine as I am able to find all the information in this page in them. The official site (MGM's StargateSG1.com) gives the official title sequence and episode number, GateWorld.net gives air dates and both give plot outlines of each episode. There are quite detailed episode summaries at each of Season 10's articles (see Flesh and Blood (Stargate SG-1) for example) so an original plot outline can be written from them (remember to use careful, strategic wording).
The See Also section is unnecessary as the SG-1 and Atlantis links (and its episodes) are in the Topics in Stargate template below and the DVD link is prominently linked in the intro. I'm ok with the images but continue to work on finding ones that better fit the plot outline. For example, what is the image for episode Need (205) supposed to be illustrating. A better summary of what the screenshot is showing would be useful at the actual image page too (those image pages are often neglected). Also the intro could use some improvements (the second paragraph is gold, but avoid "is considered..." in the opening sentence and addressing the reader with "anyone wishing for a...". Peer Review 05:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. the Need image illustrates the mining ship/thing, the sort of central location for the episode and the first time we'd ever seen such a thing. could be better, yes, although what's needed really is just more of an explicit rationale at the individual image page. I'm in the process of making all the rationales more detailed, but it's going to take me a long time. however, I dont see why that should hinder the article, considering they've all been fair use tagged now with an explicit rationale (its just an extra that i go and make the rationale even more explicit), so i think the image problem is solved. As for the Season 10 episode summaries, I'm not entirely sure we want to be any more revealing than that - considering the plot outlines at gateworld aren't 100% official and could change. -- Alfakim -- talk 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you cite references in an improper manner. Please use ((cite web)). Renata 04:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Converted citations as appropriate. -- Alfakim -- talk 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First, references are still not cited properly. They are still cited as simple external links. Second, please do not strike/remove comments by others unless they specifically ask you to. Renata 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't remove it. Striking is quite standard practise actually. Go look at FAC debates - you strike when someone has made a small point that you've addressed.
And I don't see what you mean. I have used your requested citation template - what is a "proper" citation? -- Alfakim -- talk 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Finally worked it out and converted to ((cite web)). -- Alfakim -- talk 23:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now, after rationales were written. May I also ask you not to refactor the nomination page to avoid confusion. Thanks. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you'll hate me... but the pics also need sources... Where did you get them from? I just noticed it now. Also, you missed one pic while adding fair use rationales (Image:Stargatesg1season3dvd.jpg). Renata 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's on that pic too now. Tobyk777 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes I missed that one - solved. As for the sources.. uh... you could have mentioned it before. I'll add them now.-- Alfakim -- talk 08:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Source information fully added. -- Alfakim -- talk 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support enough torture ;) Renata 09:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- lol... your points were valid though of course, so thanks for pointing them out, and i'm glad i could bring this up to your support. -- Alfakim -- talk 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If-this-doesn't-pass-I'll-shoot-myself-with-a-Zat Support how can you not, its so pretty... American Patriot 1776 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This list always was my standard for episode lists, so I'm happy to support. Staxringold 14:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Perfectly fixed, it should be used as an example for featured lists of that kind. --Tone 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well laid-out, and the image thing is totally within copyright bounds.--Zxcvbnm 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]