Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes

Style Guide

The following is a style guide for the list on this article (jump to discussion)

Images

• All images should use a thumbnail width of 150px. [[Image:Example.jpg|150px]]
• All images should be in the 16:9 ratio, and cropped if necessary.
  • All this means is that if your original image is 640px in width, you need to make sure it is also 360px (640/360 = 16/9) in height, so you'll probably need to cut off the top and bottom if it's a screenshot from an early series (later series screenshots are already 16:9).
  • You can crop images before uploading them in any photoediting program... even MS Paint.
• .JPG is probably preferred.
• Fair use tag images appropriately; see below

Synopses

• Try not to push open the cell; ie: stay below 3 lines of text
• Always try to make the synopses as full as possible, and not just intros. This is so that someone could read this article and get a full plot summary of SG-1 without mysterious bits missing. So something like "Carter and Daniel get stuck" is bad; "Carter and Daniel get stuck but are rescued by the Asgard" is better.
• Try to wikify the [[synopses]] as [[much]] as [[possible]]. Someone might be only reading season 8, so they dont want to have to scroll back up to season 1 to get all the links.
• Try to make the synopses mention anything important in that episode, for instance the creation of the Kull Disruptor.

Fair use

The following should be the text on all Stargate screenshot image pages that are used on this article:

A screenshot from the [[science fiction]] [[television series]] ''[[Stargate SG-1]]''.


==Licensing==


{{tv-screenshot}}


==Rationale for fair use in [[List of Stargate SG-1 episodes]]==


{{fairusein|List of Stargate SG-1 episodes}}


This picture is being used in Wikipedia's episode listing for the television show
''[[Stargate SG-1]]'' ([[MGM]]). Although it is subject to copyright, the
[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tim/counter/?hide_minor=on&page=List_of_Stargate_SG-1_episodes editors]
of Wikipedia, among them myself (~~~) in particular, feel that it is covered by [[US]]
[[fair use]] laws because:

* It is a low resolution still image;

* It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the related product in any way


Further, we believe our use of the image is fair because it is not being used merely to
decorate the related article, but rather:

* Aids commentary on the plot outline;

* Poignantly illustrates the related episode


Particularly because:

* It illustrates the significant moment which characterises the episode in question.


[[Category:Screenshots of Stargate SG-1]]

Change the last line ("...significant moment which...") as appropriate for the episode, and why you've chosen that image.

Source information

You must also specify where you found the image.

Episode articles

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet for a style guide to writing the actual episode articles.

Discussion

Archive

• /Archive 1

Template

What was wrong with the template? It looks fine. --Will2k 14:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted the template is most useful for new lists, it can be useful for already established lists. For example, it makes future formatting much easier. Also, I didn't see any weird table renderings myself, ether. This is a featured list, though, so I can understand reluctancy to adopt some new template. I'm curious to the errors Alfakim experienced. -- Ned Scott 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the template is most suitable for featured lists to prove that it can work.--Will2k 16:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Column headers became disaligned, broke into two lines (e.g. "Episode number" as "Episode<br>number" despite a large cell) -- don't know why. The template either introduces a new row, or else an extra thick line, beneath each cell, which looks really ugly. Cells all misproportioned. Also, the template introduces a more complex code than the original table markup. Although the advantage of a template is that format style can be changed easily later, we don't ever WANT to change the format style of this article. It's perfectly fine. -- Alfakim --  talk  17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The coloured rows are part of the agreed upon structure. If you find that line ugly, you should voice an opinion at the project page. However, nearly all episode lists contain such a line.--Will2k 19:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of images in Lists of episodes

A head's up that a weeks-long discussion has been going on at Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes/Use_of_images about the inclusion of screen captured images, such as those used in this list article. The position by some admins appears to be that they are a violation of Copyright and do not fall under Fair Use. Consequently, the images were deleted from the Lost episode list, and likewise will probably be removed from this one-- unless opinion on the use of such images changes. --Leflyman^Talk 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking for more participants for WikiProject List of Television Episodes

Currently WikiProject List of Television Episodes is looking for more participants and input for the project. If anyone is interested in giving their input please drop by the project page or the talk page.As a featured list, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes already provides inspiration to other lists of episodes articles, and anything you guys have to share would be greatly appreciated. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This list is one of the best, if not the very best list on all of WP, however it was mainly made by members of wikiproject Stargate, not the list of TV episodes project. Perhaps the stargate project could give tips to the TV episodes project on how they got it so good. Also, I propose that the two projects corodiate on List of Stargate Atlantis episodes. Tobyk777 08:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More specificaly, the Stargate project members want to make a second FL. On the Talk page for wikiproject stargate the two projects should discuss how to do this, and then work toghther to make the changes. The list is already almost there, we just need to make a few more improvements. Tobyk777 08:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I look forward to the valuable input of WikiProject Stargate! -- Ned Scott 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots as fair use

In order to resolve the long standing debate over fair use of screenshots on List of Lost episodes, I am now trying to resolve the issue under the belief that the issue is an opinionated matter and not a matter of policy. Talk:List of Lost episodes#Fair use criteria number 8. I ask that people share their comments, but please try to keep the conversation in this section focused.

One thing that works against us is that the conversation tries to defend too many points at once. Try not to respond to comments about other aspects of the debate, and just take this one step at a time. Basically, respond if you think this is an opinionated matter regarding policy point 8 of WP:FUC or not.

I believe if we can break through on the issue of point 8, the rest will fall into place. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions

Id say half of them give away the ending and half dont. I personally like to ones that dont as they sound better but what do yall think? American Patriot 1776 07:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the complete (i.e. spoilerish) synopses per the reason given in the style guide above. EEMeltonIV 03:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I say let's remove th spoilers. As a frequent user of wikipedia, i often use it to see which episode is next, And when i read the description to find out what the problems are in this episode, i find out the start, the plot and the end. Thats one more episode ruined. I beg of al the people who are reading this, Start trimming the descriptions down. Glisern

Britian

When do the season 10 episodes start broadcasting in the UK? and wouldn't it be useful to include the British broadcast date as well as the Americian one?? --Mollsmolyneux 13:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC) The first airdates are included, not the first date the episode aired in the States (check season 10). I see no reason why we should mention both. The global date is much better.byeee 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Discussion

I want to express my opinion that I do not think that the screenshots should be named after the episode title. That makes it difficult to track them. I would rather suggest to keep the naming as it has been done since season 9, naming the screenshots "sg1-sXXeYY-0.jpg" where XX is the season and YY is the episode number. This way multiple shots for one episode can be numbered simply by changing the "-0" to "-1" "-2" etc. and you easily find them again. It also helps if an episode has multiple names (like alternate spelling on air and on DVD). What do you think? --SoWhy ^Talk 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

100% agree.--Alfakim-- talk 00:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a better idea. -- Ned Scott 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good standard. Do we have other Stargate standards - perhaps we should create a Manual of Style for Stargate ;-p Morphh 13:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool idea, lets go for it No Way Back 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of standards subpages, but no singular manual of style. For instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stargate/Episode style sheet. --Alfakim-- talk 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the uploaders choice in how he or she names the image, they may wish to use the title of the episode of the name or the episode number, however it is there choice. I my self am happy if they just put the name of the episode in the summary. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. A specific naming allows to have a scheme for naming the episodes in a way that you can find a screenshot without knowing it's name just with season and episode number. If you disagree, vote against the proposal below. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

m:voting is evil; Also it is not upto you to decide the filename it is the uploaders choice. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Says whom? Is there a policy disallowing specific naming systems? --SoWhy ^Talk 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is also something that I'd like to push for WikiProject List of Television Episodes. It's already listed as a recommendation via the template instructions, but I haven't gotten around to proposing it yet for the over-all guidelines, since they need their own updating and tweaking right now. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Theres no naming convention exactly, thus why you can not go on a crusade on how YOU would like to name things. The uploader chooses the uploaded name. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My questions is still remaining: Which rule states that it is illegal for the majority to create specific naming conventions? --SoWhy ^Talk 18:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said it was illegal, i said its not upto you how the uploader names a file. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Name episode screenshots as described above?

Pro

1. SoWhy ^Talk
2. Alfakim-- talk
3. Ned Scott 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Morphh
5. No Way Back
6. Tobyk777 23:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Contra

1. (m:voting is evil) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes

I posted a link to this discussion on the Project's Discussion page. I'd say we discuss and vote for or against my suggestion for 7 days (until Wednesday (02/08/2006)) and then use the consensus. This should allow enough time for everyone to express their opinion. Anyone against this way of doing it? --SoWhy ^Talk 17:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To seperate discussion from voting to reach a consensus, I decided to split it into Discussion and Vote. If you want to say anything, please use the Discussion part. In the Vote part, just add your name (~~~) in the corresponding section. That way we can easily overview pros and cons (Yeah, I'm complicated^^). I took the liberty of adding those who supported it in discussion. --SoWhy ^Talk 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To big?

I'm wondering if maybe the list is getting to big? Right now its at 82k which is way past the recomended 32k. I'm thinking it might be time to do something along the lines of the List of The Simpsons episodes to make it a bit more managable and reader friendly. At eighteen seasons long the main list article over their is 63k and much easier for the reader to look through. Thoughts? --Argash 10:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is oudated. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think we need to worry about the size of the article yet. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It won't be growing too much in the future either. The movies will barely be as big as a whole season. Let's keep them all in one place better. byeee 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, no sense in changing it now that the show has ended Rayman3005 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers for upcoming episodes??

Should we really allow MAJOR plot spoilers for episodes not yet aired in the descriptions? Ex. The Shroud, I know its under a warning, but I think most people just want to look at all thesaesons at once, and maybe just want the basic plots of upcoming episodes..EnsRedShirt 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If there going to look at spoilers and dont want to be spoiled then they shouldnt look :-P, maybe we could trim down to synopsis only tho as each episode has its own page ? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think hiding spoilers is much of a problem since each episode has a date next to it. If it hasn't aired then don't look at it. -- Ned Scott 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would just thinking we can rewrite it without giving away the character and what happened.. so that some things are still a surprise. EnsRedShirt 06:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely aggree that spoiler-containing blurbs should be edited. For example, instead of "Where they discover daniel jackson has been turned into a prior" we could say "where they disover a most puzzling and disturbing prior" or some such subtle hint. - Eldar

Season Ten Episode 7. The description is a total spoiler, and skips ahead past the whole first half of the episode. These should not be spoilers, the main page for an episode can provide a full summary, these descriptions should not. Horkana

Individual Episode Pages

Everyone of the episode pages needs work. There are no cites, extended plots, and information that is best left out all together. Whoever is monitoring this page and those pages should read this Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. This is the policy created to establish guidelines for episode pages. If you do not have well referenced material try developing Seasonal pages until you do. Bignole 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

...this might have more bite if it wasn't a generic message that you just cut and pasted to multiple talk pages. If you try to force your view on the whole episode article thing you'll just end up looking like a dick. Also, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes is a guideline, not a policy. Policy pages are clearly marked as policy, this one is clearly marked with the message "A consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below." I'm not going to say that episode pages are a good thing or not, that's a debate that many feel very strongly about, but to accuse the editors here of not knowing what they're doing and basically belittling them is not how you should go about things. -- Ned Scott 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Most editors don't know what they are doing, and even if I didn't copy and paste my message it would have read the same minus a couple words. We are all ignorant of policy, guidelines, rules, etc, because most of us don't read everything that we should (me included). I don't mean to belittle just enlighten as to the proper way to create an episode article. Bignole 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And because you've basically called everyone ignorant, your suggestion will pretty much be ignored. And this is not the same situation as List of Smallville episodes. These articles are actually a lot more referenced than most articles on TV shows, and there's a good deal more information. Personally, I would avoid an episode-per-article format like the plague, but not everyone feels that way. Episode articles for Stargate SG-1 pretty much meet the guidelines for the TV ep discussion. -- Ned Scott 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Being ignorant of a rule does not make you an ignorant person, it merely means that you are unaware that it existed. These episodes don't meet the guidelines. They have external links, yes, but there are not citations for things that need them. Simply putting a source at the bottom of the page doesn't excuse it from citation. Also, have you read the plots, most need to be trimmed dramatically. So, again I'm not calling ANYONE ignorant, I'm saying it's ignorance of rules. People always jump back in disgust when the word is used, but it isn't an insult if you use it correctly. And I am not putting myself above anyone else, because when I first came I was putting in scene for scene plots for films, which was wrong. Episode-per-article format would be great if we actually had the information to support it, and not just a scene-by-scene of the show. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Lists page is already featured and with work it wouldn't be an off shoot to think that the episode pages could at the very least be Good Articles. Bignole 13:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What rule are you refering to? What needs citing? It's pretty obvious the episode pages them selves do not need citeing as the title its self cites the episode. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 13:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying I'm pro-episode article, but Matthew is right. If all that is covered in the episode article are things that happened in the episode.. then the episode itself is proper citation. And I'm a bit confused when you say that a source at the bottom of a page is not a citation.. Sources are what we cite... to cite is to recall / reference something.. -- Ned Scott 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example from "The Enemy Within" (the two in bold):

Notes

• The title refers to the nature of the Goa'uld, evil parasites hidden within otherwise human-looking hosts. It also refers to the fact Kawalsky become an enemy within the SGC itself.
• At one point during a conversation between Teal'c and O'Neil, Teal'c's symbol on his forehead is noticeably upside down.
• In a scene where Kawalsky slams Carter against the back of an elevator, actress Amanda Tapping sustained a real concussion.

Those two things needs cites. They need a citation that links to the specific article that says that. The first one could go either way, I don't watch the show, but it usually isn't customary to explain titles of shows in the episode itself. That seems like something deduced which would need a cite. It isn't a visual thing like the second one where it's obvious. The second one definitely needs a citation, because otherwise it's hearsay. Citations go next to what they refer to. I know you've seen plenty of Reference sections of articles, and the main List page has tons of citations in the first paragraph. That was just one episode (one that also has an overly long plot). Bignole 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't watch the show, then do not judge the episode pages. It may not be customary to explain the title, but for people like you that do not watch the show and want to look up information on it, then it is critical. Rayman3005 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes

• This episode, despite the claims of some fans, does not include inconsistencies with laws of wormhole physics established in later episodes: While it is true that the velocity of objects travelling through the Gate is not maintained between origin and destination Gates (when SG-1 and SG-2 first arrive on Chulak, we see several members tumble through the event horizon, when they had simply walked through the other side) and Gate travel is reported to be painful and distressing, this is true of Gate travel from Earth at this particular time. The "rough ride" and frost effect of wormhole travel is an after-effect of several thousand years of stellar drift, the addresses dialed by the Earth Stargate no longer being precisely accurate, and the result is the unpleasant travel. (As an analogy, imagine that you're driving to a friend's house with the roads changed slightly since your last visit; if you follow the same route, you're going to end up driving on the bare ground instead of the pavement.) However, this is corrected in later episodes (accompanied by in-show explanations from the various scientists) by calculating the current correct positions of other Gates and adjusting the dialing appropriately.
• When Carter sees the DHD for the first time, she comments on how it took years to "MacGyver" a way to dial the Stargate on Earth. As she says this, you can see O'Neill smirk behind her (He is played by actor Richard Dean Anderson, former star of MacGyver). It is said that Amanda Tapping ad-libbed the line during her audition and that it was what solidified her position.
• The episode's original airing on Showtime featured one scene of brief full frontal nudity. Many fans were critical of this as were parent groups, due to the misconception that science fiction is only "for kids." This has never been repeated and future airings would have the nudity cut out for syndication. The DVD version, however, retains this scene.

Here is another one from the pilot episode (i pulled these three from the entire notes section). The first one talks of a misconception of inconsistency. If there was a misconception then that needs to be cited, and shown where it was thought to be an inconsistency, but was proven false. If it is proven false then that needs to be cited as well, because a fan's explaination is not a verifiable source. If Amanda Tapping really did ad-lib that line and it got her the job then that needs to be cited. The same goes for the "fans being critical of this as were parent groups, due to the misconcetption that science fiction is only 'for kids'". It needs to be proven that that was the reason why the scene was removed and later put back. Just listing some external links at the bottom is not citing a source. Bignole 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

I noticed that with about any article on Season 1 (haven't checked the rest), the microsummary already spoils the ending of the episode most of the times. I know there are spoiler tags all around it, and I know there is even a spoiler free page, but I don't see any news value in telling the end, especially when it's well documented if you click on the respective episode. Besides: most people come here to find the episode they want to know more about, not to have the ending spoilt in just one sentence (at least this works for me).

How do you all feel about this? Cristan 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Besides: most people come here to find the episode they want to know more about, not to have the ending spoilt in just one sentence (at least this works for me)." umm, you just said there is a spoiler-free page that is at the top of the page... if they dont want to be spoiled, then they can click on that instead... -Xornok

Yeah, I know.. But I simply like the little screenshots and the microsummaries. I just don't see any reason why we should spoil the ending. Cristan 01:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You can give a spoiler warning but you can't take it out just because it's a spoiler per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. Besides, there's a "spoiler free" version of the list too. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a reason to improve the spoiler-free version with screenshots, not remove captions from this version. Morphh 12:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonono, think about it - images are spoilers for the episode.

Although I do actually agree with Cristan, maybe this article's worth would be increased if the summaries were introductions rather than full giveaways? --Alfakim-- talk 12:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

then they wouldnt be "summaries", they would be introductions, like you just said, and from what i remember, a summary retells the entire story in a few sentences, which includes the ending... -Xornok 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call one screenshot a spoiler but if you've seen the episode, it does remind you of the story. Morphh 19:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

It is proposed that the above rationale be changed to the below summary/rationale as the former sounds like a legal contract (You should only sign something you own)

== Summary ==
<insert summary of image here>
The author of this image is: <insert>, and the source: <insert>

== Fair use rationale ==
It is believed that this image qualifies as fair use as this image illustrates a key moment in the episode #<x>x<x>.
Further more it is believed that:
# The use of a web resolution of a lower quality then broadcast qualifies as fair use.
# That a limited number of fair use images taken for each episode and uploaded qualifies as fair use.
# That it is believed that this paticular screencap will not limit/impeed the copyright owners (MGM) ability to profit via any medium.
{{fairusein|<xx>}}

== License ==
{{tv-screenshot}}

Actually, the user who uploads an image is the one who is legally responsible (not Wikipedia). In other words, if someone wanted to sue someone for a copyright volition with their images, they could sue the user who uploaded those images, directly. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at 1/2 (or more) of the uploads? Notice that the uploader generlly isnt the one rationalising! Also the former speaks as if it means everybody "we", This should be avoided. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the former baltently states it will not, you can not be sure of this thus.. believed is stronger. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

?

I made some edits that were reverted by Xornok. His reply to the changes didn't seem to make sense to me so I figured I'd post. The reply was "the "?" means we dont know for sure when the episode will air and the last box is not needed seeing as how there is no information at all..." My reply to the "?" is that the box that states "Original Airdate" is the box listing when the episode will air - we list this as "TBA". The field in question is the episode number and not the airtime. Why would anyone think that a ? next to the episode number would mean an unknown airtime when thier is a field for the airtime that says "TBA"? The "?" says to me that your not sure of the episode number, which makes no sense as they are incremental. The second part of the revert was in regard to episode 1020. Since there is no information on it, your statement is that we shouldn't include it. I disagree with this though. There are 20 episodes, so we should show their being 20 episodes. The fact that we don't know the name of it or the summary should not prevent us from listing the episode. 1019 is not the last episode for the season but this is how our list appears to me. Anyway, not a real big deal and probably not worth a post, but I thought I should question this revert. Morphh 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

well, fine, we dont know the episode number for sure. look at sateda and irresistible... sateda was first reported as number 3 and had the airdate for it being the 3rd episode, but it turned out to be the 4th episode. therefore, we do not know for sure when the episode will air until they are actually aired. also, you are assuming that theyre will be 20 episode, and yes, they probably will be, but we dont know for sure. it just like on the atlantis page, someone kept adding a season 4 section when there was no information to tell other then there would be as eason 4, it was just pointless to include the section unless you have some information ... you never know, they might make 22 episodes this season just so they can have the extra two episodes to finish the stories... -Xornok 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

fan polls

is this really encyclopedic? --Alfakim-- talk 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tbh, It doesnt bother me greatly, It doesnt do much harm, though they are slightly chunky.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think popularity ratings are encyclopedic. However, they don't format well with this page in their current design. Tobyk777 07:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As the person who added this, I believe it a) meets WP:Verify, as it is all referenced b) meets WP:OR as long as we don't try to interpret the data, which we aren't c) meets WP:NPOV, since we are, in a statistical sort of way, representing the views of all the fans who voted in the polls. The graphs show the impact of Stargate SG-1 on fans. It also sort of ties all of the Stargate episodes from any given season together, showing trends. There are other statistics I intend to add (unless consensus is against it), namely syndication and scifi ratings. There is enough data to do syndication rating graphs for seasons 3-7, and scifi rating graphs for seasons 6-10. These graphs are also relevant to the profitability and cancellation of Stargate SG-1. You can see a sample of a syndication rating graph here, although it needs to be redone because I screwed up on some of the numbers due to confusion on how the ratings worked. You could also use the graphs to make notability arguments in AfDs.

As for the organisation/presentation, it can be changed. I can change the size of the graphs and the colors. We could put all of the ratings in a separate section from the episode lists, or whatever you people think is best. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it :-) Morphh ^(talk) 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the fan polls.. I know Gate World is typically seen as a notable source, but I don't think they're reliable enough information (at least for the polls), nor really useful information. I mean, it's a fan poll, meaning people who are rating the episodes are already fans. Even if we keep this info somewhere, this is hardly the best place to put it. Remember, this is a featured list. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You make the argument that since the voters are fan the ratings are distorted. The fans aren't comparing the eps to other shows. They're comparing them to other episodes. I think that it is encyclopedic, useful, and out of unievrse info to show each eeps popularity in relation to the others. Gateworld is the most notable Stargate source there is and is as reliable as anything on the web. I strongly support their inclusion if armedblowfish or anyone else can find a way to format them well. Armedblowfish if you're reading this comment, that was good thinking. Tobyk777 06:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to Tobyk777 for the compliment. : ) I agree with Tobyk777 that the fan polls and Nielsen ratings are measuring two different things. Nielsen ratings show a percentage of people/households, either out of total people/households the channel reaches, or just the ones who had their TV on at the time, who watched the show. These people may or may not have actually liked the show. The GateWorld fan ratings show how much people (who most likely were regular viewers of the show) liked the show. GateWorld draws from a much smaller sample than Nielsen - as a minimum, they get at least 100 votes and leave the poll open for at least a week before tallying the votes, but I'm not sure what the average is. However, small samples are considered statistically reliable so long as they are representative of the population as a whole. (The important thing is that GateWorld isn't asking "How much did you like this episode?" in the middle of a conversation for people who really liked/really hated that episode.) Sure, the people rating the episodes most likely like the show as a whole, but that doesn't mean they like every episode equally. In a way, these people are more qualified to judge, since they can compare the episode to other episodes they have seen, and understand the episode in the context of the series as a whole, and this bias is alright since we are aware of it.

In any case, the Fiction-specific Manual of Style suggest writing from an "out-of-universe" persepective, which includes data such as "popularity among the general public" which both Nielsen and fan ratings show in different ways.

One thing I'm confused about is the Nielsen ratings. There are 3 numbers, but often only one is included. Could someone read this and let me know if you agree with me that if only one number is shown, it is the second number (so that I can compare all the episodes based on the same rating number)?

The formatting (placement/organisation, size, colors, labels) can be changed as per reccomendations.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nielson ratings would be okay. GateWorld is in no way encyclopedic/objective. I don't think we should be factualising that kind of information. Maybe on the GateWorld article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfakim (talk • contribs) 15:07, October 9, 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on what you mean by "encyclopedic/objective"? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it's trivial information. It's something that isn't even representative of all fans, only fans who go on Gate World (I'm a huge fan and I hardly visit that site). It's a fan poll, people, this really shouldn't be something one has to explain. I'm not saying we shouldn't include the info on Wikipedia, I'm saying we shouldn't include it on this article. I'm going to take them out, and if you want them back in then we need to review the article's featured list status. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, someone beat me to it :P -- Ned Scott 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I commented them out because I believe one needs stronger consensus to make major revisions to something featured, even though I personally think they should be there. They are still in the spoiler-free list because I don't think consensus needs to be as strong for non-featured articles/lists, but if you want to comment those ones out too, I won't edit war.

Is there any reason the general opinion of fans who vote on GateWorld wouldn't be roughly similiar to (serious) fans in general? (See Student's t-test.) Would it make a difference if I put the word "GateWorld" in the titles of the graphs? Would it make a difference if we included semi-detailed information on the statistics of the poll in the caption itself, rather than a note? (The fan polls were conducted by GateWorld, a large fan website. During season 1 through season 9's 6th episode Beachhead, the voters were usually given four options - 0 (a real stinker), 2.5 (dissapointing), 7.5 (good show), or 10 (outstanding). After that, 5 options were given - 0 (terrible), 2.5 (poor), 5 (fair), 7.5 (good), or 10 (outstanding). A few episodes towards the end of season 3 and the beginning of season 4 also used a 5-rating system. No sample of votes was averaged until the poll had been open for at least a week and there were at least 100 votes. GateWorld notes that the fan ratings are sometimes polarized - in one Season 4 episode, Divide and Conquer, 90% of the votes were split between 0 and 10, and the overall rating was 6.15/10. See "Fan Poll Ratings". GateWorld. ©1999-2006. Retrieved 2006-10-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) Would it make a difference if we asked GateWorld to provide more data on their statistical methods, for example, the average number of people who voted in each poll, their method of preventing multiple votes (cookies or IPs)? Are there any other sources for fan ratings of Stargate SG-1 episodes? If so, how do they compare?

As for bringing this debate to the featured list/article community, I asked about that (generically) here. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates seems to be more about removing lists' featured status than critically reviewing them, unlike Wikipedia:Featured article review, so I'm not sure which would be best.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Season 2 episodes 15/16 order question

I'm watching the thinpack DVD boxset of Season 2, and episode 15 per the order on the DVDs and packaging is "A Matter of Time," followed by episode 16 "The Fifth Race." This contradicts the information given here and in the respective articles. What's the deal? —pfahlstrom 05:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

sometimes the episodes didnt air in the order they were supposed to... -Xornok 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thought Matter of Time did air before Fifth Race. Sky in the UK aired both first, Matter of Time on December 9, 1998, and Fifth Race on December 16, 1998. Not sure why the dates here show the first US showing for Season 2, instead of the first ever showing - yet for Season 10, episode 11, it uses the first UK showing, not the later American showing. Nfitz 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In-Jokes

A FANatic like me would love to see a few more (competent) in-joke related comments on the episodes. I don't see the phrase "piece of cake" anywhere, but as I binge through the series here (while most US Television is on hiatus), I notice multiple occurences to dessert, cake especially. In Season 1, stepping through the stargate was at one point a piece of cake. When Dr. Weir went through the gate, it was a piece of cake. When Jack had to use the X302 hyperdrive to get the American gate away from Earth and they had to keep the craft light, he "shouldn't have had that cake." When our two heroes from the Season 6 episode "The Other Guys" (608) need to take down the shields on the mothership and ring to the surface, it's a piece of cake. The seriousness of my comment ends here. Now begins the "stretching it" portion. Food, actually, is often a source of humor. The craft services table in Wormhole X-Treme! Teal'c has a fondness for donuts throughout Seasons 7 and 8. Harcesis eating fruit loops during his encounter with Jackson. Season 4's Window of Opportunity episode page even mentions Jack eating fruit loops. Writers put these sorts of things in their scripts in the hope that people will find them, and I think the community would be doing them a service by exploiting them here for all to see. Just a suggestion. Tarkaan 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sky One Schedule change

http://stargate-sg1-solutions.com/blog/?p=732 can someone please edit the list now that sky one have changed the schedule?

Usage of tags

Should anybody need to transclude that list it would only show the season 1 list. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a few things about this position which seem odd:

1. You've described it as an 'accesibility issue', but the above doesn't seem to have anything to do with Accessibility or Wikipedia:Accessibility. Presumably you mean something more like 'transcludability'... the inclusion tags define a subset of the page as what should appear when it is transcluded.
2. Without the tags any transclusion of the page would take everything... including the table of contents, references/notes, navigation templates at the bottom, categories, interwiki links, featured list star, et cetera. At the very least, the featured list star would be inappropriate on any other page this might be transcluded to.
3. The page isn't transcluded anywhere. Very very very few pages in the article namespace are transcluded because there just isn't much use or benefit in doing so... other than this methodology being used to display featured lists on the Wikipedia:Featured content page.

Given that this is a hypothetical objection that something which almost never happens, and which seems inappropriate for this page, could happen... wouldn't it at least be reasonable to leave the inclusion tags in place until that hypothetical became a reality? --CBD 09:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If this really does become an issue (and I doubt it will) a template switch can easily be made. It could work a few ways, such as only showing season one when translcuded on Wikipedia:Featured content or by using a variable of some kind like {{List of Stargate SG-1 episodes|shortlist=yes}}. -- Ned Scott 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scheduling

Why does Sky One get to show the rest of season 10 first. does this mean the first showing the series finale will be shown in the UK (and Ireland) before America--Irishboi 01:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they will get the series finale first. MGM has no (or little) control over when stations air SG-1 and Atlantis - the Sci-Fi Channel has elected not to finish either one until March in the US. THe Movie Network in Canada began airing Atlantis's back half in early November, but the SG-1 affiliate will not show the back half until April. Sky One is airing the second half of the SG-1 and Atlantis seasons now. — BrotherFlounder 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

References to Food

In the spirit of Sci-Fandom, I am including references to food in the Notes section of each relevant episode. I believe this to be a running gag in the series. I'm adding it under the notes section of each episode's page.Tarkaan 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And MatthewFenton does not believe that this is useful information, so I am unable to edit articles without his reverts. For what it's worth, the Season 7 episode "Chimera" has yet another reference to Teal'c eating donuts while posing as a Tau'ri, there are at least two others I remember (specifically Teal'c, specifically donuts). I guess WikiProject Stargate has enough editors, so I'll leave you guys to it. Tarkaan 03:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too trivial to include. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, though. Had not noticed that before. :) -- Ned Scott 04:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it was funny too, and you don't get it unless you watch nothing but stargate back to back for a couple of weeks. I just thought, wrongly I know now, that even while the tone of the articles is meant to be encyclopedic in nature, the information contained really can be shaped to a target audience. Your average sci-fi fan is not going to care that Teal'c eats donuts in 7x15 or Jack eats fruit loops in 4x06 (an OBVIOUS gag..time loops anyone?) but your average sci-fi fan isn't going to be reading entire episode summaries of reruns of a now cancelled basic cable show. A die-hard fan like me might, and a die-hard fan like me might look at those little snips of information and chuckle, just a little bit, and smack his forehead just a little bit harder for not having noticed it on the first go. Teal'c slamming an entire pot of steaming hot coffee, the food choices in that wierd episode with the Tok'ra arm bands (what was that?) or Sam ending conversations with Jonas by saying, "Lunch?" ... Teal'c behind the craft services table at Wormhole X-Treme (Jack: Where are all the donuts?). Writers actually sit around in writers rooms thinking this stuff up, and they like it when their little additions make it into the episode. It's funny. Trust me, I've been there. They all meant to do it. But anyhow, it's not encyclopedic content, so revert away... Tarkaan 06:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Wiki thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess in a medium where space for knowledge is essentially unlimited, people can still find a way to limit the knowledge presented. Thanks also for being so dismissive in your one-link comment. Editors like you really show what's behind the information contained on these pages. Fine work. Love, Tarkaan 16:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In 7x21, Jack has the repository of the ancients downloaded into his brain yet again, and spends his time recovering from and anticipating the incident at home. Sam, Teal'c, and Dr. Jackson stop by. Teal'c brings..........donuts.Tarkaan 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Way too trivial.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 14:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... Do YOU find it funny when you go into Dunkin Doughnuts and you realize you were there a week ago? Eating is part of the human condition. So for so long, you'd have to see them sit down and drink or eat. What if the reason for all the doughnuts was because they actually had them on set? Same thing with Wormhole X-Treme, they were refrencing that the crew in the episode should have had them just like they did in real life. While you're at it, lets have 20 minutes a season about how each character goes to the bathroom and how each one sleeps... Definetly way too trivial.

Air dates are wrong

Starting from episode "The Quest (Part 2)" down, the release dates are wrong, atleast for the United States airings. The new episodes don't start until Mar 2007 (according to SciFi's website). The dates where origionally planned for then, but changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.123.120.2 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The airdates are for the world premiere dates, which for the back half of SG-1 S10 are the British airdates. — BrotherFlounder 03:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Original airdates

I would just like to point out that original airdates may vary from country to country. So, I guess we could either go through the trouble of comparing the original airdates for all countries and listing the earliest one (too much trouble), or indicate in some way which country's original airdates we are using. Thanks! — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Original is the first airdate, i.e. the first place it was shown, not the first American airdate. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. — ArmedBlowfish (talk|mail) 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

As of my last edit to the list of eps page, all Stargate SG-1 episodes are the original airdates... Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations in episode synopses?

I'm totally new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any mistakes on my part; for example, I hope I'm posting this comment in the correct place!

I've noticed that several SG-1 episode synopses in Wikipedia are lifted nearly word-for-word from the official episode synopses available at SciFi Channel's official site. This extensive borrowed material is not clearly cited or quoted (even with a link in the "External links" section of each episode's page); I suspect that this constitutes plagiarism and is in violation of copyright.

The three synopses I've found that I believe borrow too heavily from SciFi's site are all in Season 9: "The Powers That Be" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis), "Beachhead" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis), and "Ex Deus Machina" (WP synopsis vs. SciFi synopsis).

I've noticed a similar problem with a few Atlantis synopses; I'll post those details on the Atlantis episode list page. I hope someone with more Wikipedia experience than I have can take some action to solve this. Thanks! Kiramin 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If you see any just blank the plot with a summary like "removing copyvio from «source»", or if you wish, list as a copyvio. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another airdate problem

It looks like someone has changed the second half of season 10's airdates to the American airdates... those aren't the original airdates. Thanks, whoever fixed it! I have no sig here because I'm not a wikipedia member or anything... but I had to point that out.

Airdate Change

Could we maybe split the airdates between the SciFi and Sky One airdates. It would seem that in some instances (not just the 10th season) Sky One aired the episodes ahead of SciFi. I just feel that it would be beneficial to everyone if we were to do it like this. Scorp Stanton 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

it shouldnt matter where it aired first... so, i disagree -Xornok 04:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. "Original airdate" does not equal "Original time it aired in America", rather the first (the original) time it aired, thus Sky One is correct. Matthew 08:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Scorp Stanton. List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes includes two air dates - one for the UK and one for the US. why shouldn't this article? or maybe i should just go to List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes and delete the US airdates for the first season and the UK airdates for the second season on? after all, as you all have said, "it shouldnt matter where it aired first" and the fact that List of Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined series) episodes makes it seem as if it does matter makes me think that they need to be taught the error of their ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

BSG has two air-date columns as it's a co-production between UK Channel Sky One and American Sci Fi. HTH. Matthew 12:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

SG1 isn't a co-production between either UK Channel Sky One or American Sci Fi. maybe we should just delete all air dates, then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't believe it is, nope. Thus exactly why only a single column is presented with the original airdates. Americans believing the column should only show American air dates (whoch, of course, aren't "original") is just systemic bias. Matthew 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree - i think it should be both. as in two columns. if we could only chose UK or US, though, i'd say US. it was SG1's US licensee that got SG1 canceled, after all. could SG1's UK licensee have had such an impact? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The list page specifically states that they are the 'original' airdate. SG-1 is a USA/Canada production, but some have aired in the UK first, however, its not a co-production like BSG is.. All SkyOne did is buy the rights to air it, and as part of their schedule, aired it before the USA.. It does not matter where the episode airs, it matters when the original airdate is.. Personally, I do not see the fuss.. I agree with Matthew here.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i see. BSG has both airdates because it has two producers and that's when each of those producers decided to air it for their respective regions. SG-1, in contrast, has one producer - a producer who didn't get to pick and chose the airdates. so, since it's the producers decision that gets listed and since SG-1's producer never made the decision, we should just delete all airdates in this article to reflect this fact.

or maybe we should delete the UK airdates in the BSG article. after all, like you said, "it does not matter where the episode airs, it matters when the original airdate is.."

and of course you don't see the fuss. hypocrites rarely do. you're applying two incompatible standards to BSG and SG-1 and don't seem even to realize it.

Argumentum ad odium. Matthew 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam back at you. Don't think your ability to throw around fancy Latin phrases excuses you from making cogent arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.123.206 (talk • contribs)

Um, this talk page is for sg-1 episodes, not bsg... if you have a problem about the bsg episode list, then start a discussion there... -Xornok 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Xornok, but I have to reply.. IP: you are NOT understanding, BSG was a co-production of SciFi and SkyOne.. And, how dare you call me a hypocrite-for absolutely no reason.. SG-1 is produced by SciFi, buy SkyOne bought it to air themselves (and of which, SkyOne aired some episodes first), but SG-1 is NOT a co-production of SciFi and SkyOne.. SkyOne simply bought the rights to air SG-1 on their network-on their schedule.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

if a show is produced by two organizations, the airdate those two organizations chose is shown, as is being done with BSG.

if a show is produced by one organization and bought by another, the airdate for the one that bought it is shown, as is being done with SG-1.

your argument hinges on the fact that SG-1 is bought out. HOW does being bought out imply that only one date be shown? HOW does not being bought out allow for two dates to be shown? you state it over and over again yet never EXPLAIN its relevance. you never EXPLAIN how your position follows from the fact that it's bought out.

so no, i guess your not a hypocrite - your just an idiot who doesnt see their own red herrings. and unless you can explain the RELEVANCE of SG-1's being bought out, red herrings are all you'll ever be making.

My understanding is that Sci Fi syndicate SG-1 from MGM and hold the license for American television first-run (thus why no more television episodes are being produced), Sky One do exactly the same in the UK, except that MGM is a US based company. Matthew 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Airdate Change (continued)

Well, I can't see a result from above discussion for each of both approaches, so I wanted to raise this question again with ScorpSt editing the list and Xornok reverting it and all. First of all, I am biased as everyone is, imho the airdate section is for the first time an episode aired anywhere, not just in the US. Original in that context means "first time" not "country of origin". But that's not the point.
Point is, as long as there is no real majority for a US-airdate-section, there shouldn't be one added. Start a voting on the topic, let's reach a consensus...but don't just try and force your view on the list. That goes to both sides of course.
Before any whining starts, I reverted your additions again, ScorpSt. As said before, if you want to change the way it has been done all the times before (on this list), feel free to open the discussion again and reach a clear consensus. But don't change it before discussing it completely. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with SoWhy's revert & reasoning. I also ask that ScorpSt. discuss his edit on the talk page rather than edit war. Matthew 21:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going for an edit war, I just wanted a discussion on it. It seemed like nothing was getting done here so I figured I'd take a bit of radical action to stir up some talk. Now that people are listening, let's talk about this.

In addition to my comments below, I'd like to point out that, at times, Sky One has premiered episodes before SciFi, but in those cases the US airdate has been kept. The US airdates for the latter half of the 10th Season needs some sort of mention is all I'm saying.--Scorp Stanton 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just starting is not a good way to get people to discuss, they tend to be angry then and will be less understanding. Regarding the topic at hand, I ask you to point out where US airdate has been kept despite a sooner airdate elsewhere, afaik that never happened on this list, which always used the date it first aired, no matter where (like Stargate Atlantis usually has the Canadian airdates for the second half of a season because they aired them sooner).

I don't know, WHY the US airdates should need any sort of mention, if they are not the first time the episodes air. We do not include German, French, Italian or any other airdates, so why should we include US? Just because the series is produced in the US and Canada? Shouldn't we add Canadian airdates for every episode then?

I think there is no need with above reasons. TV lists on WP are not a substitute for a TV guide and thus shouldn't be specific for one country, even if it's (one of) the country (countries) of origin. --SoWhy ^Talk 10:20, 29 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 inclusion of that information. 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. Acegikmo1 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)