Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Screen Capture for SG-1 S10E19

I know there's been a lot of talk about getting rid of the screen captures due to possible copyright violation, but in the event they are left on, or at least until the decision is made, may want to consider getting a new screen cap for episode 1019 - the current one is an obvious plot spoiler. Had a friend who was a bit upset about seeing that before he saw the episode. --DarkLink2135 12:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an episode list, it is meant to contain spoilers. There is a reason for the spoiler warning on top of it. The screenshot of an episode should sum up it's content if possible (so that people searching for an episode might find the episode easier), not just a ornamentation. The image does that quite well imho, so there is no reason to change it. Actually, most images are spoilers in some way. If your friend was upset, then that's his fault for not heeding the spoiler-warning. You can't ask us to save people from their own choices ;-) --SoWhy ^Talk 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's talk, yes, they won't be going anywhere though. Regarding 10x19: All I can say is diddums, he should heed the spoiler warning next time.. it's comments like "it spoiled x" that make it plainly obvious that {{spoiler}} is just a placebo to keep the spoiler trolls happy. At the end of the day Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, if your friend doesn't wish to be spoiled then he shouldn't read/look at an encyclopaedia ("WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" — Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Matthew 12:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing with that is, though, is there's a big difference between the synopsis of an episode and an actual spoiler...Adria being taken host by Baal is a very big pivotal plot point that you otherwise wouldn't know about from the brief summary on the episode list page. I'd expect to see that on the page about 1019, but not in the episode list. Although you do make a good point about people searching specifically for the episode. I suppose that would be the more frequent type of user browsing through the list. W/E, just thought I'd bring it up :). Regardless I think it's far more important to think about the users viewing the page rather than just defaulting to the "well there's already a spoiler warning there" escape route. --DarkLink2135 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We do think about the viewers that's why we put a spoiler warning there.. and it's comments like yours that prove it's a waste of time. Wikipedia *is* an encyclopaedia, you can expect spoilers.. I truly don't believe it gets any clearer :-\. Matthew 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In Addendum to Matthew, whose views I agree on, you have to consider the goal of these episodes lists: They are for reference and encyclopedic purposes, not as a replacement for a TV guide. As said above, their purpose is for people who already watched an episode to find the episode name and number with only knowing the content. The image allows to identify the main plot of the episode without having to read the subsequent article about it or the text associated with it, a huge timer-saver with more than 200 episodes. --SoWhy ^Talk 13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee Matthew, sorry to barge in during your PMS. But maybe you can work on not being such a tool in the future. As my friend, and especially you prove, I guess you can't please everyone. And as you will see, in my second comment I agreed with SoWhy, who at least has the intelligence to be civil about things, instead of running off at the mouth calling people trolls. Excuse me for daring to bring up something and causing you to waste so much time in reply. At any rate, I agreed that almost all users are going to be going through the list to find episodes they have viewed before. At the time of my original post, I wasn't thinking about that, just about the specific event I was familiar with. Having an image like what is already on 1019 makes the task of finding a specific episode easier. But don't worry, in the future, I'll be sure not to think about the possible improvement of any little corner of your "encyclopaedia." EDIT: Wow, I've been going back through the rest of the page and I'm not sure why I just wasted so much time with you. Apparantly you have been a right little troll on this page yourself. At any rate, thank you SoWhy for pointing that out to me. I haven't been a registered user of Wikipedia for very long, so it helps when civil people such as yourself point out things on a larger scale.--DarkLink2135 14:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Any admins or other people in a higher position (not sure how the system works specifically) feel free to delete this portion of the discussion. I'd rather not do it myself because I know overall it goes against the wiki philosophy and I don't feel that I'm in a position to make that sort of decision. Doesn't necessarily contribute to the improvement of the SG-1 episode list overall, and as SoWhy pointed out, it's not supposed to be a TV Guide replacement :).--DarkLink2135 14:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. At any rate, consider that it is kind of contradictory calling other people trolls while insulting them. Matthew's reply was not very civil, but you have to consider his position. He is working with Wikipedia for a long time now and such posts are not unique, so it can happen that sometimes he just loses patience if someone complains after ignoring a spoiler warning.

But now that this has been resolved and I could point out the reason for why the image was used, maybe we can just go back to improving Wikipedia and not waste more time on such disputes. :-)

As for deleting the discussion, Wikipedia does not have a hierarchy with admins deciding to delete stuff out of their own will, they serve as advanced users who just can do a bit more but really are more like support techs than chiefs. Anyone can and has the right to decide if things should be deleted but if someone else disagrees, a consensus has to reached. In this case, I think we just leave it as it is, as a reminder and for references for other users. For your reading I suggest Wikipedia:Administrators, which explains the Admin-system in Wikipedia quite well. --SoWhy ^Talk 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to create precedent disallowing individual episodes

There is discussion at WP:AN/I#Fancruft_issue_again, and an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man that is attempting to create a precedent disallowing individual episodes. Matthew 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Peregrine Fisher and User:Matthew are attempting to vote stack this AfD by telling other users that this AfD will effect unrelated episode articles. This AfD is only about this set of articles, and stands on it's own. AfD is not a vote. Editors coming here to support a different show's set of episode articles should take the time to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept Man situation individually. -- Ned Scott 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Airdates

I've changed the second half of season 10 to reflect the two different initial airdates of those episodes. I'd like to point out that there is precedent for this (such as the above mentioned Battlestar Galactica). Hopefully we can eventually convert the entire page to this or a similar format. Please discuss. --Scorp Stanton 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

but BSG was partly funded by Sky, stargate is funded entirely by an american channel... there is no need to list all the airdates of other countries unless you're gonna list all the countries... -Xornok 05:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. It was funded by an American channel, so should the airdates reflect when it was shown on that channel? --Scorp Stanton 06:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're still with your idea. Dear Americans, stop believing everything must relate to America. Sci-Fi didn't want to air the episodes earlier, so their loss- the British got to see the final episodes earlier. It's okay as it is, we don't need an original American airdate, an original British airdate, an original Australian airdate and so on. Original airdate says it all- the first time it was aired, ever. What do you care if it's the first time aired in the US, the UK or elsewhere? In a couple of months it won't matter anymore, at all. byeee 17:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Extras/Special episodes

There aren't a lot of extras for SG-1, so they could easily be added to the list. There's a slight problem with finding out the airdate (and thus where they fit), but I hope it's not so tough. Here goes (in no order):

• Stargate SG-1: True Science [Jul 14 2006 US / Jan 31 2006 UK - 10x00] also called `Science of Stargate`?
• Sci-Fi Inside: Stargate SG-1 200th Episode [Aug 18 2006 - 10x05.5] IMDB
• Behind the Mythology of Stargate SG-1 [Apr 13 2007 - 10x10.5]
• Stargate SG-1: The Lowdown [Jun 13 2003, before season 7] IMDB
• Sci-Fi Lowdown: Behind the Stargate: Secrets Revealed [Jan 17 2005], IMDB
• From Stargate to Atlantis: A Sci-Fi Lowdown [Jul 5 2004, before season 8], IMDB
• Ten Years of Stargate SG-1
• Sci-Fi Inside: Sci-Fi Friday [Jul 11 2005, before season 9] IMDB
• Urban Rush visits cast and crew of SG-1 [before season 10]

I've no idea if the airdates are correct, please help me find them all. Added links to IMDB where available. Unfortunately, IMDB does not list the most recent of the extras. The Futon Critic also lists some of the extras. If you can find anything else, feel free to add. I'm fairly sure the list is complete, but I might have missed something (note: don't be tricked into adding DVD Extras to the list). byeee 15:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Screenshots for some of them can be found at stargatecaps.com if we need some. Diabound 08:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With the new rule abolishing images, I'm not entirely sure. It's a useful link, although it doesn't list all of the extras. And I'm currently trying to find out if The Lowdown (the one before season 7) is or is not a DVD extra, since I've found that somewhere. byeee 05:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Lowdown, DVD extra on UK/European SG-1 DVD #31 (last of Season 6), released on September 1 2003. It had aired several months before in the US on the SciFi Channel when Season 7 began airing there. The SciFi ads within The Lowdown were cut from the DVD extra, although the DVD was roughly 15 minutes longer (mostly behind-the-scene scenes with Chris Judge, who marked them as "especially for DVD"). Hope that helps (all from memory and my personal statistical info lists, but it might help tracking down more info). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I only really wanted to know if it was aired. If it was, then I think we should consider it an extra. Having it included on the DVD set is just a bonus. And if it was included only in the european release, more the reason to consider it. I guess that's the complete list there, but I'm still missing a few airdates. Anybody else have any luck?byeee 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that Lowdown aired, just like IMDb says, on June 13 2003, immediately before the first ep of S7 aired. (I know because I needed to download it because I don't live in the US, and it was not clear then that it would be released on European DVDs later.) I also remember downloading/watching the other TV specials that you listed above, and I'll get back to you what release dates they had if I find the info. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My take in bold:

• Stargate SG-1: True Science [Jul 14 2006 US / Jan 31 2006 UK - 10x00] also called `Science of Stargate`? - US date is about right. I don't know about the UK date, although I know that it aired several months earlier on SkyOne in the UK. I found it listed as "True Science of Stargate" and "The Science of Stargate"
• Sci-Fi Inside: Stargate SG-1 200th Episode [Aug 18 2006 - 10x05.5] IMDB - true, on US SciFi Channel
• Behind the Mythology of Stargate SG-1 [Apr 13 2007 - 10x10.5] - true, on US SciFi Channel
• Stargate SG-1: The Lowdown [Jun 13 2003, before season 7] IMDB - true, on US SciFi Channel, also released on Sept 1 2003 on (UK/European) DVD #31
• Sci-Fi Lowdown: Behind the Stargate: Secrets Revealed [Jan 17 2005], IMDB - date seems about right, on US SciFi Channel, also released on June 13 2005 on (UK/European) Atlantis DVD #1.4+1.5 and two weeks later on SG-1 DVD #42+43
• From Stargate to Atlantis: A Sci-Fi Lowdown [Jul 5 2004, before season 8], IMDB - date seems about right, on US SciFi Channel, also released on Feb 2 2005 on (UK/European) DVD #38+39
• Ten Years of Stargate SG-1 - first download link showed up on Nov 5 2006, likely aired on Canadian SPACE: The Imagination Station (per channel icon)
• Sci-Fi Inside: Sci-Fi Friday [Jul 11 2005, before season 9] IMDB - date seems about right
• Urban Rush visits cast and crew of SG-1 [before season 10] - ???

– sgeureka ^t•c 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, finally found some more information on that last one, which is rather obscure, I might say. It was aired on Shaw on a Friday (judging by the bottom bar), possibly called Urban Rush SG-1, one of the producers has something with 'Season 10' written on it but the presenters say Season 9 is currently being filmed. Now, according to ShawTV, it was on Tuesday December 27th, 2005, but SDJ links to MSO which calls it 'Behind the scenes' and where the bottom shows the day of Tuesday.

MSO also tells of other specials.

• A Japanese AXN Stargate SG-1 special (most likely during season 7)
• Another SPACE special set during season 9 (and aired Nov 2005) - it's definitely not '10 Years of SG-1'
• A CTV special for the 200th episode (April 2006)
• A SpaceCast special for the 200th episode

Curiously, the '200th episode' special by SciFi listed in the previous list doesn't appear, but two new ones appear - I'm still not sure if they are rather short (5 minutes) or truly a 'special' (at least 30 minutes). I'll keep looking for sources though. » byeee 11:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove images or lose featured list status

There is a discussion about Fair use images in featured lists at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Fair_Use_images which may result in this list losing its featured list status. - Peregrine Fisher 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of images in LOEs

There's presently a discussion at WP:AN in regards to image usage in LOEs. With several having gone as far to edit war in the hopes of removing images. You are invited to participate and give opinions, so that another consensus (of many) may be reached, again. Matthew 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to effect this list more-so being an FL, 'n all. Matthew 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the consensus there and the desire to retain this list as featured, I have removed all fair use images besides the title screen at top. Do not re-add them, this is a foundation and legal issue, not a consensus one. -M^ask? 19:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above seems to be felgercarb. There's no actual evidence that they fail the foundation policy, just pure matter of opinion. Matthew 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: There is no official policy against images in lists, no consensus but only a discussion, yet you simply act on behalf of one of the viewpoints discussed there, without discussing it? --SoWhy ^Talk 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. -M^ask? 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, you are. Matthew 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just new to wikepedia but i kinda liked the pictures next to the episodes list cause i could pick the epsiode i wanted to watch easier not to mention more visually pleasing....frankly i dont care if the list is featured or not....if something is working why fix it especially when you just have a sea of text on the screen which looks god awful..kinda looks lame now. hope someone changes it back.

We took out the images because they do not comply with fair use. That it looked nicer is not an answer to it being illegal under copyright law. -M^ask? 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As said above, PLEASE tell me, where in the policies it says that FU images in LOEs are not acceptable. "You are incorrect" is no answer... --SoWhy ^Talk 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. I told you that, it is an answer. Fair Use is not up for debate, no matter how much you wish it to be. It is a foundation issue. Forget about this and go contribute to some articles, it has already been decided. -M^ask? 08:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC says only use what you need, and we don't need screen shots. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Ned. Matthew 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep saying that Matthew, just keep saying that. Maybe one day it will be true.. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, it already is. It's purely subjective opinion, you believing yourself to be right != right. Heck, perhaps I'm wrong -- I don't believe I've yet to be proven wrong though. Nobody has presented anything that supports actual reduction, except the word "minimal"... which is again subjective. We both have differing opinions on this, it's not really worth arguing about -- there's already enough growing tension. Matthew 08:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, you're getting awfully close to a disruption block. Friendly reminder. -M^ask? 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It really seems we can't all get to an agreement so consider this: YouTube and DailyMotion are searched thoroughly almost every few days by MGM, and they make copyright claims, taking every video down, even if it's a two-minute clip from an episode. They only look over previews and fan-videos, not the tiniest parts of an episode. If that's so, they would have definitely made copyright claims if anything had been suspicious about the images on WP. Thus, I don't see a reason why one screencap from each episode could not be kept. Do you? byeee 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is against wikipedia policy. Do not add them again. -M^ask? 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, it's no policy. Just a bunch of users agreeing with the removal and a bunch not agreeing with it. byeee 22:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate interpretation for you. -M^ask? 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, where is it then? I haven't seen the policy anywhere. byeee 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to know where this policy is. This is a featured list and if there were problems before they would have been noted during the voting. This seems to be a very arbitrary decision along with a single admin with a chip on their shoulder. Chotchki 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself informed that this is far from a single admin enforcing the rules in this manner. --Cyde Weys 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Then give him the correct interpretation. mike4ty4 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please point me to where this policy is written so I can read it myself? Sportafake 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All: It's at WP:NONFREE. All other Featured list's of episodes have had their images removed. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes and User:Cyde/Cleaned up lists. -M^ask?

Okay, User:Cyde/Cleaned up lists is just a list of articles, no mention of a policy let alone what it might be. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes is just an extension of this same argument, again, no policy, at best it's a very, very disputed consensus. I had a look @ WP:NONFREE and nothing stood out. It strikes me that if it were a legal issue it would be written in very direct way, i.e. "DO NOT do this, it is illegal and therefore not up for debate", but there's nothing I can see to that effect. Again, could you please point me to where this policy is written. Spell it out for me. Which section? Which sentence? Thanks. Sportafake 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's just endless pages of disputes, NOTHING clearly stated whatsoever. But I don't want to start an edit war with some paranoids who read the policies their own ways. Let them be. It's not my loss, it's WikiPedia's loss for letting some wonderful articles be destroyed. As I said above, if MGM had ANYTHING against it, they would have LONG AGO discussed it with the administrators of WP. End of story. It's NOT a copyright issue, it's a bunch of users reading the policies their own ways. byeee 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (an actual policy) I intend to setup a survey/discussion hybrid soon (if I'm not beaten to it) at a centralised location to try and come to an idea of general opinion. I think we've gone past the point where mediation would work, and I do wish to avoid arbitration. Personally my opinion is that the dispute all boils down to the word "minimal", like I've said previously the word "minimal" is matter of opinion (or consensus). Matthew 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This attempt seems to stem from a mistaken belief that consensus can trump a foundation issue. It can't. Make the attempt at Dispute Resolution. It'll either be declined or nothing will come of the results. This isn't a debate, it's our official policy on copyright. -M^ask? 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, please quote exactly what they violate in the resolution. Then we may get somewhere, I've read it multiple times - I can see nothing as to what they possibly may violate. To be frank: I am expecting you to quote "minimal", now to answer that prior to you quoting: matter of opinion. Matthew 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been explained to you multiple, multiple times Matthew. You do not agree with the explanation. Nobody is insisting that you have to agree to it. Nevertheless, the decision was made and such use of images in episode lists is no longer tolerated. I'm sorry you are not happy with this decision. This does not change the decision. --Durin 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I refer the honorable gentleman to Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content#Excess_use_of_screenshots, where this issue was last hashed out ad nauseam. (e.g. "Because we are dealing with content that is non-free, we do not need a compelling reason to remove them; we need, per WP:NFCC#8 a compelling reason to include them.") I also fear I must suggest to him that if he insists he's right and lots of experienced users say he's wrong, that he consider in passing that he might be wrong and stop looking for loopholes where there are none - David Gerard 19:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting: "It's our official policy on copyright". It's an interesting thing this policy was just recently discovered, while this article has had the images for a long, looong time. Hypocritical, don't you think? I think that ultimately one of the administrators of WP should send an e-mail to MGM and ask them formally. byeee 11:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an imperfect beast. It's constantly in evolution. Simply because something has been wrong for a long, long time does not make it right. Anyone may contact MGM and request release of rights to the images under a free license. You do not need to be an administrator to do so. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission for instructions. --Durin 12:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I might give that a try. Get MGM's word -- they own all the copyrights. If they approve, then it can be used. If not, it can't. That will clinch the matter. mike4ty4 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you know there is a real copyvio, anyway? mike4ty4 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Airdates

So here I come to check out the air dates, and then I realize how absolutely worthless it is. Its giving airdates months before I've ever seen the episodes. SciFi is the primary production component behind the TV series and the US is the largest market for the series (not to mention where its ratings keep it alive or kill it). Not having US airdates makes the airdates themselves worthless because it is not informative. It doesn't tell me when the episodes became available to view on TV in the US. Having two airdates for the two primary market release areas is the most logical way to list the dates. As it is, the airdates are absolutely worthless to me because it contains information that is patently false. Alyeska 23:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if the air dates are non-American. The US air dates are not the original ones, and your argument is well: rubbish. You're basically saying: this is worthless to me, so it should be changed, even though my air dates are worthless to others. Matthew 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument is basically "Wikipedia does not substitute my TV Guide thus it has to be changed to do that!" We had those arguments again and again. If you want to know the US air dates, check TV.com. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not an U.S. one. --SoWhy ^Talk 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The episodes were NOT aired in the US first because SciFi delayed them. They could have aired them the same time as SkyOne, but they didn't. It's only logical that the original airdate be the first ever. WP is not american, is not british. If you want both dates, look for a fan-wiki which probably lists both.byeee 05:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why movies have multiple region release dates? Only one is the actual air date. How about games that have release dates for multiple platforms and/or multiple regions? Wiki precedent goes against your opinions on this subject. Alyeska 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please show us a list with movies or games where this is done like this. Also, movies and games are not television episodes. We had this discussion over and over again on this page, no need to have it again. --SoWhy ^Talk 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Halo: Combat Evolved, 6 release dates. Halo 2, 7 release dates. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, 10 release dates. Spider-Man 3, 2 release dates. Shrek the Third, 2 release dates. Alyeska 23:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just like games have 7 release dates, so does SG-1 have different release dates for the DVD sets, for each region. One is the actual air date, as you said, but the only thing that really matters is the original air date. Making columns for US and UK would need us to make columns for at least Canada and Australia - aren't those countries english-speaking as well? Besides, episodes aren't 'released' as games are (except on iTunes, when they are generally released just around the original airdate which is listed here), season dvd sets are released and there are already dates for those on the main SG-1 page. byeee 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What bye said is correct. Not much more to say. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We aren't talking DVDs here. The movies I listed have multiple release dates, neither are on DVD. And when it comes to the games, their release date is their "original air date" as it was when they first came out. So you made a null and void argument, and SoWhy agrees with this nonsensical argument. Alyeska 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the difference between the big screen and the small screen. Big screens are much more 'organized', if you want to put it that way, since there are no television channels that decide their program on their own. It's a much more global structure and movies are aired at the same time in multiple countries. You can't really do that with television channels, unless we're talking about specific channels such as HBO or AXN (which tend not to have a stable program anymore) or anything, but those are more of a rarity. I could see use for saying when a season started in a certain country (or zone), but that would be too detailed to include in an encyclopedia. What you mean with the dates the movies were released would be the equivalent of having a tidy table of broadcasters in the main SG-1 article, with the first airing in each country dated, and current airings in each country. That is all I could think of that sounds right in the context of a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. If you can find exact dates, go ahead and change them. But only because SciFi didn't want to air the last 10 episodes of SG-1 and let SkyOne do it first doesn't mean anything. They could have aired them at the same time, but they wanted a mid-season break. Fine, stay with your break, but Wikipedia is not an american encyclopedia. So, anything else other than the first ever airdates don't belong here. - byeee 07:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Arguments are not null and void, just because you think so. I think, as byeee says, that you cannot compare games, movies and tv shows. Also, you have not brought forth any reason why US air dates should be included other than "biggest market" (which may not be true, Asia might be a bigger market) or "country of origin" (which would include Canada as well, yet you do not want Canadian airdates). Or, to say it short, as there is no non-random process to choose which to include and which not, thus the first one regardless of country is the only way not to give the article a bias of any kind. --SoWhy ^Talk 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All of them have original releases. Its a blatant double standard to use the original release date for multiple regions when it comes to movies and games and completely ignore it for TV shows.Alyeska 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of POV pushers, each person likes to put "their" countries air date in an article (most notably Americans seem to think American dates belong every where :\). Point in fact the American air date isn't an original air date, it sucks (well it doesn't actually) that your SciFi Channel aired it an eon after we did, but that doesn't make it right for you to try and push your dates on people. Matthew 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Slight problem. I am not advocating removing the original date. I am advocating adding an additional date. I am forcing nothing on people. You on the other hand are forcing this on me. An encyclopedia is about information. Right now this article is worthless as far as I am concerned because it doesn't contain the information I require. And there is no logical reason why this information should not be included. As I already demonstrated, other articles display this level of information. Alyeska 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Other crap exists isn't good rationale, Dear Sherlock. If you desperately want American dates then try tv.com, Gislef (the editor) has a strict "American only" dates policy. But, if you wish to pursue this matter here... well you'll: a) Need to present rationale as to why American dates should be added, but not Canadian and b) Present rationale as to why American dates should be added. Matthew 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Having correct and inclusive information isn't a rationale. Following existing established precedent isn't a rationale. How silly of me. And I have absolutely no problem with Canadian air dates as well. Though using region dates works better. European, North American, Asian, etc. When its available in one country in the region, its typically available to all countries in the region. Alyeska 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And where to stop? Do you want a table with 44 different airdates and 44 different airdates in every article per episode? E.g. in Europe each country airs it differently, for example in Germany season 9 has not even aired completely. So region dates will not work, because a German user will complain that the UK airdates do not serve him at all. So where to draw the line? Only English-speaking countries? Only countries with more than say 50 million citizens? Only G8 countries? There is no way to not leave out some of them and there is none to draw a non-random line, thus we long ago decided to include only the first one.

You also say the article is worthless for you because the US airdates are missing. Now why is that? Do you use Wikipedia as your TV guide (which it shouldn't be, see WP:NOT#DIR)? Or isn't the purpose of this article to give an overview about episodes regardless when they aired in a particular country? If your POV is that aforementioned WP:NOT#DIR is not right, that's fine, you are free to think so, but that does not mean it is wrong. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to SoWhy, here's what happened on Lost in a similar case: There was a page on wikipedia similar to this airdate table, and here is the final decision on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airdates_of_Lost. Listing several release dates for games or DVDs may be fine (because there are just a few) but not for every single episode for every single country. Adding US airdates (if they are not the original airdates) would just be the first step to want all other countries to have similar treatment of such information inclusion, and where would you stop? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And just about everyone except one person thinks only one date, the original one, should remain. Want a full guide, try an SG-1 fan-site. I really don't see what use so many dates would have in an encyclopedic context. For movies and games, sure, there's a point, but not for individual episodes. There would be the option of listing different airdates on the episode's page, but even that would be pushing it a little too far. I'm not sure that would be the best option, either. Anyway, there's 4 people so far against it- and possibly more if you really want a vote on it. Leave it alone, in two months you'll forget about it completely. » byeee 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Region dates work for games and movies, but they don't work for TV series. Wonderfully consistent. Your consistently inconsistent. Alyeska 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It seems you missed the point that there's a difference between listing 10 different dates for a game/DVD, and 214(episodes)x20(countries)x2(cable-vs-terrestrial)=8560(!) dates. There are several more good points in the other four airdate discussions on this talkpage. On the other hand, including non-original airdates from teh US, now that would be inconsistant and POV-pushing if you don't allow all other countries as well. Let's not go there. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Stargate SG-1 lists 44 countries in syndication. That makes 214x44x2=18832. The only way would be a seperate list for airdates but sgeureka already pointed out that that was already done for a TV series and deleted. --SoWhy ^Talk 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Airdates (new proposal: Add country to date)

How about we specify which country and television network each "original airdate" corresponds to. That way people looking for Sci-Fi or US dates wouldn't be confused, but we also wouldn't have to make a table or get into a discussion about which and how many dates to include? Acegikmo1

I find this acceptable. Perhaps just list the country. Alyeska 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The question is: What use is it to add 214 little flags (=> WP:FLAGCRUFT) or 214 times "US" or "UK"? I would rather include a template saying "This page is no substitute for a TV guide!" because adding the countries would make discussions like this one inevitable because then it would look like the list was country-biased (at least in parts). --SoWhy ^Talk 06:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly? I think that's a good idea (clarify: to have extra information on where an episode first aired - still only one original airdate per episode though!), especially since the original airdates are from several countries/networks. Except that listing the country (e.g. UK) would seem like, "Oh, they don't have the American date? - Let's add that", and there would be the WP:LAUNDRY problem again. Instead, I'd advocate adding a link to the network that first aired an episode. This way, it would be more about the airdate ("Heck, I don't have that channel - too bad") and not about the country. Anyone can find out about the country that the network belongs to by clicking on the network name then. (If you don't agree that there's a difference in reader perception of network vs. country, then I stand by my opinion: Don't list anything that suggests that adding other countries' "original" airdates are encouraged.) – sgeureka ^t•c 06:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but still some americans would come and say 'hey, where's the first american airdate?'. I really think it's better if we keep it like this. We can't add 2 airdates for one episode, because we'd need to add them all. And all is much more than those broadcasters listed in the main article. Bottomline: one person wants multiple airdates, four don't. No agreement whatsoever. Let's not start this over again. » byeee 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are beyond that one now, now it's about adding the country it first aired to it which I advocate against as well. As sgeureka pointed out, adding the "UK" would send a message like "US airdates are missing, please add them!" I disagree with the network-idea tho because adding "SkyOne" (with link) will not keep those quiet, who know they air on Sci-Fi in the US. I think it would send the same message as the country, i.e. "please add Sci-Fi airdates!" If anything is to be changed, I advocate aforementioned disclaimer that WP is not a TV guide. --SoWhy ^Talk 06:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that, as is clear from the preceeding discussion on this page, not everybody is going to be happy with the inclusion of only one airdate. I also believe that specifying which country and network each "original airdate" (the only one listed) correspond to will serve to decrease confusion about what the information in the table means. Will adding network/country information lead to more discussion about what should be included in the table? Maybe. Maybe not. But I'm not sure "it will lead to more dicussion about what to include" is a reasonable argument against specifying network/country info. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, not to ensure that there is as little dicussion as possible about what is actually worthy of inclusion. I think that specifying where and on which network episodes originally aired is reasonable information to include. Acegikmo1 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reasonable, but I don't think such information is extremely worthy of inclusion in this article. And, I agree with SoWhy, people will start asking "where are the Sci-Fi airdates?". When Sci-Fi finally airs the last episodes (how many are still left, 4?) nobody will really care on what network and in what country the episodes were first aired. The only plausible way I see for including things like "episodes 11 through 20 were first aired by SkyOne in the UK" is if the article were split into seasons. However, I don't see much reason for that either- the list won't grow anymore. » byeee 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The question, you have to ask yourself, is, why we have airdates after all: To have a sense of order and so people know it, if they for example aired out of order or when they were made available to a larger audience. As byeee pointed out correctly, once SciFi manages to air the last few episodes, who in the US will care when they aired first?

Nowhere in this discussion there were brought forth any reasons to include specifically US air dates other than the "it can't replace my TV guide" (it shouldn't) and "it's the place were it matters how many people watch" (it doesn't, because it's canceled, no matter how many people watch it. And after all, it's not our job to bring reasons to keep the current way, it's yours to bring reasons to change it. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think including network/country information is worthwhile because a) It ensures that there is no confusion about what each "origial airdate" acutally means. b) There is precedent for specifying which network an episode first aired on in episode lists (see List of JAG episodes, List of 7th Heaven episodes, List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes). c) There has been discussion among fans and cast about i) whether and how the switch from Showtime to Sci Fi affected the show (e.g. "The decline of the show was more due to the switch from Showtime to the Sci-Fi channel. When SG-1 was on Showtime, the writers/producers had a lot more freedom, they had long term plans for the show. When SG-1 moved to the Sci-Fi channel, the writers/producers could no longer plan story arcs for the next season..."[1], "I've noticed the budget for special effects seem to have gotten smaller from the switch from Showtime to Sci-fi."[2], Don S. Davis on Teryl Rothery's departure: "You know, we went from Showtime to the SCI FI Channel and they wanted to see a major thing. That's an arbitrary decision.." [3]) and ii) how Show producers have said that future DVD movies depend on the ratings for the rest of the tenth season in the US and have spectulated that the episodes' being aired on Sky One is hurting ratings [4]. So I think more information about original airdates is warrented. Acegikmo1 18:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

I've just gone through and standardised the width of most of the episode images (SG-1 and Atlantis) to 250px and applied the {{trivia}} tag to those articles needing it. Looking through most of the trivia I'm convinced the majority of it isn't needed. Matthew 14:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Air Dates, again

Well the BSG episode list shows both the US and UK air dates. So, why is it again that SG isn't doing this? Alyeska 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is: Why is BSG doing it? If you have some new (i.e. not already named) reasons, you can specify them. Otherwise, remember that one of the most important rules in an argument is that the person claiming that some thing should be done otherwise (e.g. you claiming we should include multiple airdates) is the one who has to prove his point. It is not the task of the others to disprove it. We already named several good reasons (see above) against it anyway. Saying "but XXX is doing it" does not constitute a good reason because I could easily name dozens of lists which don't. --SoWhy ^Talk 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you listed zero valid reasons. Furthermore, you ignored precedent that disagress with you. We have multiple regions posted for release dates on other material. BSG just goes to show that this is also the case with TV. So you have no leg to stand on. Precedent agrees with me. Avoiding confusion agrees with me. You have nothing. Alyeska 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I said it before, I will say it again: We don't have to list reasons, you have to. You claim we are doing it wrong and you want it changed. You might not think our reasons valid, your POV, okay. But you need to bring forth reasons to change it. And to say "some other list does it" is none, because almost all others don't. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I already listed reasons. Follow established precedent. Prevent confusion. Provide accurate information that is easily understood. I have not seen any rational counter reasons. Since I have provided justification and you just admitted you have provided no counter justification. That means the air dates have to be changed. Alyeska 00:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not admit anything like that. I said I don't have to, not that I did not do so. You just think so. Let's look at your "reasons", shall we?

• "Follow established precedent": We do, we follow the one established in all lists but the BSG one.
• "Prevent confusion": There is none, because the purpose of the list is not to list country-specific airdates. Anyway, you would have to list more that 8000 air dates to prevent all confusion if it had be the purpose you imply it to be.
• "Provide accurate information that is easily understood": It does do so: It says "Original airdate" and hey, it does provide it. The caption is not "First US airdate", thus the information is correct.

You see, your "reasons" do only apply if this list had a specific US-bias which it doesn't. And as long as you cannot find a valid reason why it should have one, there is no reason to change anything. --SoWhy ^Talk 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you missed the large list of items I posted previously that also have multiple release/air dates. Some with as many as 7 or more dates. Alyeska 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We already refuted that, those are not lists of TV episodes and thus cannot be compared. --SoWhy ^Talk 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bull. They are an entertainment medium with regional release differences. You haven't given a justification for why TV episodes should be treated differently from movies and games. I am stating we should treat them the same. Alyeska 23:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Told you before: You want to treat them the same, you give us valid reasons. Unless you can (and you couldn't until now) we will follow the example of 99% of all episode lists (i.e. don't change anything). And if you want a simple reason why not: Because they are not the same. --SoWhy ^Talk 09:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC):

What a BS excuse. Because TV isn't the same as movies. Oh, how original. Care to explain why Movies and Games get treated the same when your argument can be used on them as well? Movies, TV, games. All entertainment medium with multiple release dates. That you refuse to acknowledge the similarities and allow two multiple release dates while denying it to the third just goes to show your hypocrisy. Alyeska 15:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because a list of a couple hundred items necessarily says less about each item than an article about one item. Concision is called for, just as it would on a list of movies or a list of games. One date is needed, but a second is generally superfluous (exception: List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes).

-- —wwoods (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So why should movies and games be allowed multiple dates while TV only gets one? -- Alyeska (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because movies and games have about 5-10 different dates because there are just 5-10 release regions (a manageable amount), whereas TV shows have about 50 different countries for popular shows (and SG-1 is a popular show), multiplied by 2 for pay-TV/syndicated date, times 200+ for the amount of episodes (SoWhy already calculated the exact amount). Do you want to list all of them, or what argument would you use to disallow the listing of German dates (after all, SG-1 has more German viewers than British viewers ratingswise)? But as SoWhy has already stated, do you have new arguments that haven't already been rebutted quite a few times? Otherwise, this discussion is just a waste of time, as consensus still doesn't seem to have changed in this matter. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about you, but I was prepared to go with regional dates to avoid confusion. The amount of episodes is a non issue as its simply in list form to begin with. You don't put 200 release dates in one episode because 200 dates don't exist. You put the major regions per episode. Just as we do for movies and games. Alyeska (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What "regional dates"? If there are 50 different countries, then there are 50 different airdates (not counting co-incidences). If you want to do less, than someone has to define major. Per Image:World population.PNG this would be the the USA, Mexico, Brasil, Russia, China and some other Asian states, and Niceria. Great. Or you use Image:HDImap spectrum2006.png, which still allows about every European country (and there are dozens). Everything else is unnecessary POV that this list should try to avoid. (As I said before in an old discussion, this is a possible resulting table, which was deleted from wikipedia.) Also, since this is an "episode list" listing 200+ episodes, there will be at least 200+ dates even if there is only one date per episode (the original airdate). – sgeureka ^t•c 01:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about episode notability (not THE discussion of episode notability)

I left some notes about my plans for the SG-1 episode articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate#SG-1 Episode notability. But before I execute these plans, I would like to ask other editors for their input (there, not here). Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll for Season 1 episodes

See next discussion point instead of answering here please. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are already aware that almost all fiction episode articles on wikipedia will undergo an episode review very soon, if it hasn't already happened. This reviews usually determine how many episodes establish notability so that they can be kept, the others will usually be redirected (see WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EPISODE, and the related WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT). Since Stargate SG-1 is a rather popular show, it will likely be one of the last shows to have its ep articles reviewed, but that doesn't mean that we should wait for it to happen, doing nothing. You can read more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stargate (starting October 2007).

As you can see, the layout of this episode list has been changed for the early seasons (the rest will follow). There is also a wikia link next to each episode, which will soon link to an off-wikipedia copy of the plot that we currently have on wikipedia (this is allowed). Since not all SG-1 episode articles (read: almost none) establish any notability, it would be very hard to get all of them up to speed soon by adding sourced real-world content (production, reception, guest stars, other notable things, see Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) for an example). This means that we should slowly start to decide which of the non-notability-establishing articles we should lose as individual wikipedia articles, leaving just a wikia link. The episode articles that we want to keep on wikipedia should have a good chance of establishing their notability by real-world content, which is kind of hard for the early episodes. Articles can be "revived" any time if someone wants to work on them, so nothing is lost even if we temporarily lose an article.

So this will be a straw poll for deciding which episode articles of Season 1 should stay on wikipedia for an ultimately encyclopedic coverage (it is our job to add that encyclopedic coverage, and a plot summary and guest star list alone doesn't count). If this straw poll works out well, the results can/will be used in the first major sweep decision. Depending on the participation, this poll will be left open for up to three weeks I guess. Everybody can participate.

At the moment, the following S1 episodes would establish their notability almost per se (the pilot episode definitely).

• 101 Children Of The Gods - pilot episode; nominated Golden Reel Award
• 107 The Nox - nominated for Emmy
• 118 Tin Man - nominated for Gemini
• 121 Within The Serpent's Grasp - nominated for Gemini

All S1 episode are listed below. Preference should be given to episodes that you consider general fan favorites, your absolute fan favorite, or episodes that belong to a multi-episode arc or are significant for a later story arc; generally speaking, any episode where you imagine that sourced real-world content exists and that people would add it to the article. Please sign the episodes that you would keep with ~~~~; you can leave a statement also. You should not add more than 5–8 votes. Remember that the more articles we want to keep in the end, the more work this means for us (and you), and the less useful this poll becomes. – sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• 101 Children Of The Gods - pilot episode; nominated Golden Reel Award  Done
• 102 The Enemy Within

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (resolution of Children Of The Gods)

• 103 Emancipation
• 104 The Broca Divide
• 105 The First Commandment
• 106 Cold Lazarus
• 107 The Nox - nominated for Emmy

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (also kind of significance for the four big races although not really)

• 108 Brief Candle
• 109 Thor's Hammer

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (possibly important for the Asgard story arc)

• 110 The Torment Of Tantalus

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (definitively keep for the four old races arc)

• 111 Bloodlines
• 112 Fire And Water
• 113 Hathor
• 114 Singularity
• 115 Cor-Ai
• 116 Enigma
• 117 Solitudes

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (may have some relevance for the beginning of Atlantis)

• 118 Tin Man - nominated for Gemini
• 119 There But For The Grace Of God
• 120 Politics
• 121 Within The Serpent's Grasp - nominated for Gemini

– sgeureka ^t•c 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (also Season ender, cool episode)

OMG! Why aren't the SG-1 episodes no longer on wikipedia! OMG! ;-)

As I've already said, it's my plan to transwiki all episodes of the first three seasons because they don't establish notability and proabably can't ever. I have already completed the first season (including images), and due to the lack of comments in the discussion above and WP:BOLD, I cut the links of the episodes on this episode list. (I didn't touch episode articles, which can still be accessed via this link easily.) If no-one disagrees, I will redirect all Season 1 episodes to this episode list, but I'll wait a few days to encourage discussion instead of edit wars. If you want to have a handful of Season 1 episodes saved (for now), just recreate the links in this episode; I won't mind. Just don't recreate the links of all if you don't plan on bringing all these articles in line with existing wikipedia policies and guidelines, e.g. WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:EPISODE. Because of the transwiki, nothing got lost, and you can obtain the information as easily as before. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sgeureka, again, I appreciate the effort you're making. However, I think it is only fair to note that the whole "Wikia is the best place for this stuff" argument just doesn't hold water. This isn't your fault, for sure, as the Wikia "salvation" has been repeatedly tossed around by the gang that's quite happily "merging" everything they can. A simple comparison of the two sites shows that there is a marked difference in the approach. Using "Children of the Gods" as an example, let's look at how each site presents it. The Wikia version of "Children of the Gods" contains an inferior plot summary, with more attention to minor details:

"The episode opens in the abandoned missile silo containing the thought-to-be-useless Stargate where a group of soldiers are playing poker, convinced they are safe from an officer since "nobody ever comes down here but us.""

The Wikipedia version, while certainly not a great article, does at least make an attempt to put the story in perspective with regards to the film:

"One year previously, in the events of the movie Stargate, Colonel Jack O'Neill led a team through the Stargate to the planet Abydos. After killing the System Lord Ra by rigging a nuclear bomb onto his ship as it left Abydos, O'Neill returned to Earth with two survivors of his team, leaving behind Dr. Daniel Jackson, who remained with his new love Sha're and her brother Skaara."

"In the present, Apophis and his Jaffa come through the Stargate, killing several people and kidnapping a female airman."

Looking further down the articles, Wikipedia's version does have trivia, but it is at least partially sourced and free of speculation. Wikia's article, on the other hand, has a large section entitled "Background information, notes, mistakes and unanswered questions". The text is riddled with notes such as "Common theories include", "This is unlikely", "it's rather convenient", and "It seems especially unlikely". This is all pure speculation, text that we can easily weed out from Wikipedia without question. Where are the similar protections on Wikia? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the CotG article is the only article that I have not transwikied because the wikipedia article has a fair chance of survival with a little effort. All other articles from currently episode 1x02 till 3x05 have been transwikied almost in full (episode template, images, plot summary, notes, external links). I agree the former wikia articles weren't great, but that's also why I can transwiki so fast by just copy-pasting the relevant parts. If you feel some of the S1-S3 episodes should be given a fair chance on wikipedia, please just recreate the link on the LoE. No episodes have been redirected so far, but they will (in a week or so?) if no-one objects. I'm just trying to make the transition as easy as possible for everyone. (And I guess I'll transwiki the plot of CotG as well, just to be consistant.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading through the above I understand what you are doing and why but one thing I can't understand is why you are breaking the link to the Wikipedia articles now.

Yes ,the articles may not stay on Wikipedia and it is wise to copy them over but they are still here for the moment .Garda40 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? – sgeureka ^t•c —Preceding comment was added at 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I can access all but individual Season 1 Wikipedia Statgate articles through this link you provided but not on the current version of the page .Garda40 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I started redirecting Season 1 yesterday as no-one responded to my question what episodes of the first three seasons should be kept on wikipedia. You can undo a couple of redirects, but then it's your/our job to establish notability of the episodes so that they won't be deleted/redirected per WP:N and WP:EPISODE. That was also the whole point of transwikiing. To keep the unencyclopedic content off wikipedia and conveniently link there while not violating wiki guidelines. If you want to keep a couple of Season 2 episodes on wikipedia, just recreate the link in the episode list so that I know that I shouldn't redirect those particular articles in a couple of days. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But why are you doing what amounts , because of the redirects , a one person AfD on them.I can't spot an actual AfD for these articles anywhere .Yes maybe there will be one in the future and the articles will be deleted off wikipedia but you seem to be deciding yourself per the guidelines whether they fit WP:N and WP:EPISODE.

I'm really not accusing you of doing anything wrong as my previous non comment can be seen as agreement but my non comment was because I didn't realise what you were exactly planning to do.

I just don't see why they should be effectively deleted off wikipedia until they go through an actual AfD .Garda40 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles get regularly redirected now by outside parties, and I'm actually trying to prevent that. I don't have to wait for an AfD or episode review to know that the SG-1 ep articles don't establish notability and will be redirected. The only two options we have are improving the articles ourselves (see WP:GA for what is aspired), or getting rid of them ourselves before others enforce it. In my experience, those discussions get ugly very fast because unaware fans do not understand and/or accept notability guidelines, or realize that resistance is futile if the articles are not improved. And while I'm transwikiing, why should I still leave unencyclopedic material behind that others would have to cleanup later? It's better to show that this WP project can take care of its own issues. You can read more at WT:STARGATE. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I alwasys use these bring back the links to all the seasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.117.112 (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also trim episodes of Season 4+ ?

Since I have transwikied Season 1 through 3, I thought I'd continue with Season 4. As I said before, the main reason for transwikiing the earlier seasons was because they don't have any audio commentaries and would have problems to justify their article (i.e. no sourced real-world information as necessary for an article per WP:EPISODE). Now, even though Seasons 4 through 10 do have audio commentaries, I question that some of these articles well ever be improved to meet WP:EPISODE because they were not popular or important for the big story picture. Would someone object if I cut down on episodes like "The Other Side" or "Scorched Earth" etc, leaving about one third of the episodes that I consider notable or favorites? As I did before, I'd cut the links first and wait a week so that others can re-insert the links back, and only then redirect the remaining articles to this LoE. Episode articles can be resurrected any time, but notability through significant real-world information must be established at some point to an justify article. All Season 4 episodes are transwikied and therefore still easily accessible via the wikia link, and the Season 4 articles here at WP are now tagged for what kind of work is needed for each article. Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1) gives you an idea, although The One Where No One's Ready from Friends (TV series) is also allowed as soon as the plot is trimmed massively. If others prefer me to not deal with Season 4, please say so also, but it would be nice if someone would start to work on Season 4 then. (My current plans for improvement mostly concern fan favorites of Seasons 8 through 10.) If no-one replies, I regard that as silent agreement. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been two days without a comment, so I was bold and cut the links of those Season 4 episodes that I consider neither fan favorites or important to the story. As I said, please restore those links where you would like to see encyclopedic improvement (per WP:EPISODE) or maybe even work on them. I'll start to redirect the unlinked episodes within the next week. All former article content can be accessed via the wikia link. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done. It seems pretty clear that these can aspire to little more than plot summaries and other in-universe details, so transwiki and redirect is the best option. Eusebeus (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Real World info for articles

I own the illustrated companion books that contain outside information for the early episodes such as notes on production, writers comments on why they chose to go in this direction with character development ect. If I ressurected the articles and then added this additional information using the books as a reference would this constiture significant outside information? Million_Moments (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) ETA: There are also some sydication ratings availble. Million_Moments (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the current consensus is to allow episode articles when (1) the plot is kept to 10 words per minute, (2) the article has at least two paragraphs for non-trivial real-world information (e.g. production, reception), and (3) there is little to no trivia or quotes. If you want to write such an article, awesome. (I just know that it is possible with the later seasons, e.g. Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1).) You should try to only improve one episode at a time, but episode articles are definately encouraged on wikipedia as long as they meet WP:EPISODE. Another way is to write season articles with such companion books, see Smallville (season 1). Go with whatever you prefer; nothing is set. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell you what I'll do one for In the Line of Duty and Inaugeration and then the community can have a look over it and they can always be redirected back here, such is the power of wikipedia :p Million_Moments (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That is perfectly okay. If you don't already know, WP:EPISODE is a generally accepted guideline that may help you in writing. It also gives examples of episode articles that became Featured, so it's definately worth a look at if you're still looking for inspiration. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [5]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Go from Episode articles to Season articles?

Please see WT:STARGATE#Go from Episode articles to Season articles?. Comments are welcome there. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So now most of the episodes are merged to the list and transwikied. Good job, it needed to be done. Just a quick remark, episodes Thor's Hammer, Within the Serpent's Grasp, Thor's Chariot, The Tok'ra and maybe some more could keep their articels since they are vital for the ovrall plot. Seasons articles are a good idea and having seen the effort that was put in Zero Hour (Stargate SG-1), I am nominating it for a GA. --Tone 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What's real world info got to do with the overall plot .If plot is a justification to keep an article then most episodes should be here .If it isn't then basically none should be here no matter how important the plot is .Garda40 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the idea - if there is no real-world info available, then the article shouldn't stay per WP:NOT#PLOT/WP:N. I am still holding out hope that the companion guides (I don't own any) have some for the first three seasons, but it doesn't seem like it. However, the major races articles (Asgard, Goa'uld, Tok'ra) already have the major events covered, so most of the episode articles would be kind of redundant anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

what the hell happened to the episodes?

hi i might be soundin a bit thick but where are half the episode i know they used to exist but they dont link to anyting know. read something about at wikia or something if they are on this why is there nothing to tell me where to go. ps i thoguth the whole point of wikipedia was to gather information in one place not deceminate it into a thousand od places caus equite honestly its a pain not to be able to find something. and im sure the average person wont bother looking at a Wikia or whatever the heck its called but simply give up thus meaning they are less likely to return to wikipedia when they wish to look up information in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in several threads above, the episode articles were transwikied to wikia, and the link is given behind each episode name. This takes one more click in the worst case. As for the purpose of wikipedia: if you want to write a sourced not-solely-plot article about an episode, go ahead. Anything else is discouraged by wikipedia policies and guidelines (which make sure that you always get the best article possible). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks verymuch however could i suggest one change that you make is not make the links slightly cleared what they are cause i completly missed them first time thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't and still can't think of a link name that is short enough other than "wikia". Maybe rework the header slightly to make the connection clearer. (Please sign your posts with ~~~~). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the hundreds of people that worked for thousands of hours to create the articles? I consider deletion of these articles to be an insult to their hardwork. We have articles on things far less notable than this.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

All that work has been preserved via the SG Wiki links. -- Ned Scott 06:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No they don`t. The articles are different. Just take a look in the 1x01 and 10x20 as examples. And Wikipedia's articles are/were better. 189.25.151.55 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever check who (re-)wrote them, and when? – sgeureka ^t•c 09:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review

I have started an episode review for all remaining SG-1 episode articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Stargate SG-1 episode review, and ask for input from other intersted editors (there, not here). As the current arbcom case only restricts the (un)redirection and (un)deletion of episode articles but not discussion, this review is perfectly fine. I expect the review to last for one or two months, and hope that the currently disputed wikipedia policies and guidelines will have confirmed their old consensus or have found new consensus. Should the policies and guidelines change to allow episode articles regardless of (established) notability or real-world content, this episode review will of course be moot, but I don't expect this to happen, so I seize the day (month). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

please bring back the articles on each episode for stargate sg-1—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.117.112 (talk • contribs)

undeleting the article for episode 10x09 - company of thieves

As was noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles), an episode is notable if it is referenced (or rather, reviewed) in notable publications. 10x09 - Company of Thieves - is referenced in notable publications. TV Squad [6] and IGN [7], for instance.

In ten days, unless Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) has been deleted via a deletion review or unless a deletion review is in progress, I will remove the redirect for Company of Thieves (Stargate SG-1) and wiki the link in this article.

There is absolutely no basis for redirecting these articles, as the previous AFD demonstrates. If these episodes had been nominated for deletion, the result would have been keep - not delete and certainly not redirect - and whomever deleted them (User:Sgeureka) is most certainly in the wrong. wikipedia operates on consensus - not on the "Sgeureka is always right" principle. 89.248.165.10 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles weren't deleted, they were transwikied and then redirected. None of them were ever AfDed, so what happened in another show's AfD is immaterial to the SG-1 articles. Proper procedure was followed with them (tagging, waiting and discussion), and everything (edit history) is still there. WP:NOT#PLOT says that an article should not consist solely of plot, but most SG-1 episode articles did not pass this inclusion criterion. Policy trumps my opinion, and it trumps anyone else's. If you wish to write an elaborate production and reception section that doesn't fit in the Season 10 article anymore, feel yourself encouraged to revive the episode article. If you can't or won't, then I oppose the un-redirection vehemently. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

you are completely misunderstanding the point. AfDs are the best way to establish consensus. people vote, by saying Strong Keep or Strong Delete and then they present their justification. it's about as intuitive as you can get and it's certainly easier to follow for all parties involved then some ad-hoc formated discussion. no AfD was done for these articles - the method by which consensus was established was very sub-par and ultimately probably an elaborate attempt to promote the third-party wiki they were moved to. just look on this talk page. again and again people ask that the episodes are brought back. and it's not easy to tell who's asked for what. and that's because of this piss-poor consensus building techniques that were used.

you intentionally obfusticated the process for your own gain and i strenuously object to that.

and in any event, you conveniently ignore the AfD i mentioned. WP:NOT#PLOT wasn't sufficient to redirect, delete, or trans-wiki Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) after the reception section was added - a section which I have said I would create using the above two links. 89.248.165.10 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you understand the difference between deletion and merging/redirection? Deletion means the edit histories are lost to non-admins, merging/redirection means anyone can access the edit histories. AfD (Articles for Deletion) is to get articles deleted, but I don't want the articles deleted (as in, their page histories), so I won't do AfD. Discussion (and AfD ist just one possibility to start a discussion) is the best way to establish consensus, and this has been done here. Per WP:AFD, AfD is not a vote, and the only justification are policies and guidelines, and all my actions (even without AfD) are within policies and guidelines. I am reading this talkpage, but I am just seeing WP:ILIKEIT votes. As I've said before, if you want to write a reception section for an episode article, then please do so (in fact, I encourage you to do so), and the episode article can be resurrected/remain. And please read WP:Assume good faith before you judge my intentions. If my answers are not satisfactory to you, please visit Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

despite those WP:ILIKEIT votes, Heavy Metal (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles) survived the AfD. that suggests that either that article and Company of Thieves (Stargate SG-1) (after my proposed "reception" section is added with the two links I gave earlier) are, in fact, worthy of wikipedia articles or that the Heavy Metal AfD needs to be subjected to a deletion review. i don't think you'll do the latter, however, because i think, deep down, mergists and deletionists know that their days are over and that a deletion review would be the final nail in the coffin. 89.248.166.199 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Again: The SG-1 episode articles weren't AfDed, so it is (still) not clear why you keep bringing up what happened in another show's AfD. The SG-1 articles shouldn't be deleted (i.e. AfDed), because they have potential. If you want to turn this potential into an encyclopedic article (e.g. write a non-trivial and sourced reception section that would be too long for the season article), please go ahead, no-one's stopping you. Until then, WP:NOT#PLOT applies. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion isn't the only possible outcome of an AfD. articles can be merged or redirected, as well. i said as much in my first edit - an edit that you seem to have forgotten already.

and in any event, my point is this. if there had been an AfD, the consensus might not have been to merge or delete - it might have been to keep, out right (as was the case for the Terminator episode). so if there had been an AfD, the consensus might have been against merging. but you chose to obfusticate your method of obtaining consensus, instead, and are now just acting like a dictator, flagrantly violating WP:OWN.

regardless, as per your suggestion, i've recreated the article. 89.248.166.199 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read my replies why WP:Articles for deletion should not be misused for merge/redirect proposals. Please also remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. I have tagged Company of Thieves for cleanup. If no other encyclopedic information is forthcoming, I'll propose the episode for a merger in a fwe weeks, because there isn't much currently that wouldn't fit in the season article as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

you haven't said anything as for why AfDs should not be used for merge/redirect proposals. and their being named article for deletion doesn't mean much. that's like saying that oil wells can only be used to drill for oil even though, in point of fact, they're used to extract natural gas from the ground, as well.

and in any event, AfD's trump discussion here. if the consensus of an AfD is that the article should, without a doubt, be kept, that consensus trumps informal ones collected in shoddy ways on talk pages such as this. the AfD for that terminator episode trumps any sort of consensus you may have obtained (assuming you really maintained one at all).

finally, if you think that merely citing WP:OWN is a violation of WP:NPA, maybe you should nominate WP:OWN for deletion! 89.248.166.199 (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:AFD itself: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Per WP:POLICY, "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus", so this is where consensus is formed, not (necessarily) AfD. Per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and I take accusations of behaving like a dictator very seriously, but I put up a friendly reminder because your words might have been a cultural misunderstanding. Please visit Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard for any other questions. I consider this discussion finished now. Happy editing. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)