Talk:List of Heroes episodes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Total Number of Episodes

Another problem I've having here is trying to determine exactly how many episodes there are in Season One. At first I read 11, then 13. Then I read elsewhere that it was 15 (tv.com, I think it was), and now they say 18. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! This is starting to annoy the crap out of me. Where exactly should I go, or who exactly should I call/write to get a straight and final answer? Sweetfreek 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this interview, twenty-four. Perhaps we should state something to that effect, so people like you won't have to go pulling their hair out. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds more like either 18 or 23. Sweetfreek 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You have to read between the lines a little, but trust me, it's twenty-four. (eleven plus seven plus five) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly did u get 24 from 11 + 7 + 5? Z3u2 20:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
He's right thats 23. Bio 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

I fixed the first episodes summary and the image was removed. Please spell out your criteria for inclusion Ed. It seems like you think Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 passed, when it was shot down quite thoroughly. The closest to a consensus on this issue is that the above amendment is no good. - Peregrine Fisher 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that he didn't look based on his edit summary. Cburnett 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This exact same thing happened on List of Seinfeld episodes and List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes however the insertion of the images kept getting reverted. If you guys are in support please express your opinions. Otherwise this will probably continue to happen and there will be no images in the lists. I'm not saying to start a revert war but we need a consensus to make our point known. Sfufan2005 21:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Ed attempted at getting consensus against it and failed. Cburnett 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly I find his attitude and actions disruptive, I am considering starting behavioural RfC, does anyone support this? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I will note that every image has a fair use rationale. If these aren't sufficient for Ed (or anyone) then I wholly recommend he (or anyone) start discussing why and how to improve them. Maybe start a tutorial for fellow wikipedians so we can avoid reverting. Otherwise having the intention of only reverting on the page is just disruptive. Cburnett 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really about improving the rationale. When the plot summaries are two lines long, the only purpose the images serve is to jog the memory of someone who's seen the show, and to make the page look prettier. While the former may be slightly helpful, and the latter is aesthetically pleasing, they are not covered by our policy. ed g2s • talk 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction: your interpretation of policy. Cburnett 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The rationales consist of:

  • it is a low resolution still of a televison episode;
    True but not sufficient
  • it does not limit the copyright owners rights to sell the episode in any way;
    Probably true, but not sufficient
  • it illustrates the episode in question and aids commentary on the plot outline.
    Many things "illustrate the episode", "[it] aids commentary on the plot outline" is a completely unqualified statement.
  • The copyright is most likely held by the studio that produced it, NBC
    Irrelevant.

If you want to add any of the images back they must contain a Fair Use rationale. This must detail how the image adds significantly to the article [FUC#8] (not just it identifies the episode, lots of things, including the title, identify the episode). Remember, Fair Use is for critical commentary, and should be used as sparingly as possible [FUC#3]. I imagine for most of these images it won't be possible to justify them. ed g2s • talk 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is not only for "critical commentary", it is also for research and educational purposes. An index page which uses graphics to, as someone put it, "jog the memory" of users, is a very useful research aid. Wikipedia is a research tool.
IMO, a list of small graphics (less than 10% of the pixels of the original image) on an index page is more appropriate than a large (more than 30% of pixels of the original image) on an episode page. I'm not a lawyer and I ask no one else to take my advice. I have, however, read section 107 of the US copyright act, and my own edits will be based on my own understanding and my own experience as a writer. Avt tor 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I think your interpretation is wrong months ago when you tried to get an amendment passed and I still think you're wrong. No one has appointed you in charge of the fair use rationales (or fair use anything) and you have no more authority to say what is sufficient than any other editor here. Given that your interpretation for "significantly" and "critical commentary" failed to gain community consensus, please, tell me why your preaching here should be given any authority. Just because you think you're correct doesn't mean you are (and consensus at every discussion I've seen and participated in shows pretty much that you're not). PS: do you have a US law degree, passed the bar, or have a practice anywhere? Cburnett 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of the amendment had barely started when it got turned into a vote. Seeing as this is about our policy not the law, my legal qualifications or lack thereof are irrelevant. Instead of venting your fury at my actions, would you perhaps like to respond to the points I have made, specifically that no one has explained how each screenshot "aids commentary on the plot outline", when in most cases the image is not even mentioned in the text. ed g2s • talk 15:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Convenient that you forgot to mention here that a long discussion took place elsewhere prior to you proposing the amendment. Convenient that you also forgot to mention that you did not inform the long standing discussion that you had proposed the amendment. I, for one, was very displeased with your actions and I think the large support against your amendment is obvious. So, the discussion on the amendment was short because it took place elsewhere.
Your qualifications are in direct question to you acting as an authority. It is your interpretation that you are puting forth against all discussions I have seen on the topic. It is you putting yourself above everyone else by dictating that you are right. Your qualifications, rather lack of, speaks to your ability to act as an authority. Since you have no qualifications (heck, you don't even live in the country in which fair use is being used and defined) then you cannot act as an authority. Since you have no consensus backing your interpretation then you cannot enforce your interpretation. Ergo, you have no authority to dictate what is sufficient and what is insufficient for a rationale. Opinions you can have, authority you cannot have.
As for the rest, such discussion has already taken place on other pages regarding other images. You refused to see the arguments then and I have zero reason to believe you will now. Regurgitating what you request has been done before and I have very little interest in entertaining you with another round of the same discussion just on a different page.
The merits of screenshots has been discussed and dismissed by you. That only leaves your actions and your interpretations to discuss.
On a side note, I have no problem with expanding the summaries on this page — or any episode list page — and to incorporate the image into the summary. Furthermore, it's very hard to incorporate a screenshot into a summary when the images are persistently being removed and time & energy must be devoted to an argument rather than editing. A very nice catch, if I may say. Cburnett 17:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
When I see one editor declaring themselves sole arbiters of policy against the views of all others, I sometimes make a practice of reverting that editor's deletions. Avt tor 17:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
How do they aid commentary? Well, the images identify the subject of each episode, and specifically illustrate relevant points and sections within the text. The same as all good images on wikipedia.
Also, I was fixing the text and images when you reverted. I've seen you remove over 200 images in one edit, with no regard to how each image individually matches it's summary. Mentioning the image doesn't seem to effect your edits. Please gain some consensus for these extreme edits; start up Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists or Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2 again, if you want. - Peregrine Fisher 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"and specifically illustrate relevant points and sections within the text" - pray tell how an image of an arm and a phonebox illustrates in any way the text "Matt and Audrey Hanson investigate a murder. Peter asks for Nathan's help in finding a painting." Until such an explanation is provided on the image talk page, they are in clear violation of FUC#10. By no interpretation is that image and that text linked. Such a claim is frankly absurd. ed g2s • talk 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to quote the policy, you may note the 48-hour notice piece of the policy, emphasis on "notice". (As an example, I note the graphic in question does not appear to match your objection, so it has already been corrected.) Avt tor 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The 48hr rule applies to deletions. It is not relevant here.
Also, Peregrine Fisher asked you explicitly about the first episode and its image. I think he deserves an answer before you start questioning other episodes. He attempted to rectify the first image and you reverted. He asked you point-blank to "spell out your criteria" and you refused and reverted further. I'm noticing a pattern here. Your only desire here is to see that no images are on this page regardless of what effort is put into appeasing your complaints. You ignore direct questions and blanketly remove images. All you are doing here is disrupting wikipedia and its users. Cburnett 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect. PF beefed up the summary, he was reverted by anonymous editors to the version with short summaries and all the images. Upon seeing this version I reverted to the version without the images. Each image needs an explanation of how it is relevant to the text. ed g2s • talk 01:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You never did spell out your criteria. Pasting FUC doesn't count. Cburnett 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC: "we may permit some non-free material for critical commentary" - if you add an image without commenting on it, referencing it or mentioning its contents, then there is no critical commentary of it. ed g2s • talk 01:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your complete lack of cooperation is damn infuriating. Pasting and making some generalist comment doesn't count. Explain, EXACTLY, why YOU THINK the image for 113 doesn't belong. Cburnett 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As the uploader, it is your responsibility to demonstrate why it does belong. Why, in that particular case, does the "key moment", so fully described by "It is believed that Sylar is dead but Mr. Bennet finds to the contrary face-to-face." require "[a] visually aid and ... critical commentary [to] describe [it]" (as you stated), and furthermore, how does a tiny picture of one man's face and the back of another's head add so significantly to those dozen words. ed g2s • talk 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so this has nothing to do with the rationale or the FUC, but back to your interpretation about "signficantly" and "critical commentary". It has been shown that your interpretation is wrong, that you have no authority on fair use, and you have no authority to act on your interpretation against consensus. Cburnett 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The rationale would explain how it provides critical commentary - you have not attempted to do so - you have merely stated matter-of-factly that it does. "It has been shown that your interpretation is wrong" where? how? "that you have no authority on fair use" this is not about Wikipedia policy, not US law. "you have no authority to act on your interpretation against consensus" nobody needs authority to enforce policy. And yes, my interpretation of "critical commentary" does not include 12 words of loosely related text, does yours!? ed g2s • talk 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup. The answers are pretty much covered above and I'm not repeating them. Cburnett 02:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please point to the text in this discussion where it was explained how each individual image was relevant to its accompanying text... ed g2s • talk 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And again, "critical commentary" is not the sole justification for fair use (under section 107 of the copyright law [Title 17], etc.). No single individual is the sole arbiter of policy. Avt tor 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
And again, this is not about the legal definition of Fair Use - so quoting law won't get you anywhere. The passage about critical commentary is from our policy. As far as you care concerned that is all that matters. If you want to change our policy to include "making lists look pretty and providing visual cues" then bring it up at WP:FU. ed g2s • talk 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, based on consensus, I'm not taking your opinion as being an authoritative interpretation of policy. I rarely have to put things this way, but as an American I have a civic duty to help the community defend the rights of individuals, and fair use is a right which belongs to individuals; it arises from the constitutional right of freedom of speech, which includes the right to talk about things one is interested in. A lot of people have some fairly imprecise ideas of how fair use works. As such, legally it is generally understood that non-legal descriptions by individuals or organizations of fair use (or copyright in general) are merely descriptive, not prescriptive or restrictive. WP:FU is a guideline, not a legal contract term between me and Wikipedia, and as a guideline it is surely subject to interpretation by the community, of which I don't see you expressing anything like a consensus opinion. The guideline is inherently illogical if you think about it; "critical commentary" is, pretty much by definition, POV. It is not Wikipedia's function to offer subjective commentary, it is its function to provide information useful to researchers, and by researchers I mean people who seek understanding of a subject. Any guideline on fair use must apply to the actual legal principle of fair use, not to some oddly-worded interpretation of the law.
As none of us in the discussion have authority over others, we have to be guided in our interpretation of policies by the majority of opinions expressed. Avt tor 09:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:FUC is a policy - it takes our restriction of Fair Use beyond that of US law. We are restricted by the limitations of law and the policy. The policy is not "use any image if it is Fair Use". If you think you are on some crusade to protect the Fair Use rights of US law you are in the wrong place. Wikipedia does not want to allow all material that legally qualifies as Fair Use. ed g2s • talk 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, WP:FUC states "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." which greatly mitigates its authoritativeness. Further, WP:FU itself is a guideline, not a policy. Further, Wikipedia Foundation is an organization, and organizations are obliged to operate in a legal context.
When you say, "If you think you are on some crusade to protect the Fair Use rights of US law you are in the wrong place." your statement inherently contradicts itself. The violation of rights is an inherent challenge which requires people to stand up. US law is in fact not inherently the point; the Bill of Rights does not define the rights of individuals, it is only an attempt to codify such rights as are inalienable. That's why other democracies have similar legislation under the terms of Article 10 of the Berne Convention. (It happens that my actual university course was in Canadian business law; I'm not claiming expertise, just saying that my reading of it is not dissimilar to US law on this particular point.) As for "Wikipedia does not want...", well, you don't speak for Wikipedia any more than anybody else, no matter how often you revert. Avt tor 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You have also misunderstood the term "critical" - it can be both netural and objective - or as 'critic' puts it: "a reasoned ... analysis ... or observation". ed g2s • talk 10:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your ellipses in this quote (humorously) omit the word "judgement" (twice); at any rate, there's nothing here that requires or implies neutrality. Avt tor 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Ed, again you revert to a page with no images. Does this mean you won't look at List of episodes pages entries and judge them one by one, but only remove all images at once? - Peregrine Fisher 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed, please don't canvass. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Inviting the opinion of one interested person to a discussion is not canvassing - this is not a vote. Also with regards to your edit summary I couldn't possibly think I OWN this article - I've never made a content-based edit to it, and IDONTLIKEIT is an essay (remember WP:EANP) that has clearly been created by a pro-Fair Use user, it in no way is representative on any policy - nor addresses any of the issues here. ed g2s • talk 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I must advise you to self revert as you have violated the three-revert rule (and this is, of course, not the first time)[1][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Heroes_episodes&diff=104471584&oldid=104464989][2][3] thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I advise you stop violating FUC#10. This is not a content dispute. ed g2s • talk 10:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument has no substance, consensus on this talk page plainly states that you are the only one who believes they violate the FUC and that the rest of the users believe they perfectly comply with the FUC. You are being disruptive, now stop it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The consensus on this page reflects the opinion that the editors of this page think the screenshots look nice, and so do I - but the consensus on this page does not overrule policy. The image talk pages contain no reference to their specific use on this article. That is what FUC#10 requires. If we allowed generic statements such as "it identifies the episode" then we wouldn't need the policy, just a template. ed g2s • talk 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is that your interpretation is wrong, therefore it is not a consensus against policy (as you keep putting it) but a consensus against your interpretation. Two wholly, and drastic, differences. Cburnett 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you'll note the next topic on this talk page, more than one editor think the images don't "look nice". On an index page, the images serve an index function, making the document as a whole much more useful for research, because it helps explain which episode the mini-blurb is talking about, while also helping to guide users to more detail if they wish. Avt tor 18:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a version with only some images in? If so revert to that one - not the one with them all in. As yet none of the images have an explicit rationale for the context of this list. This is clearly required by WP:FUC#10. ed g2s • talk 09:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading this entire discussion there has yet to be one comment about a specific rationale claim from anyone but myself. No-one has attempted to justify the images beyond the image talk page claims of "it illustrates the episode in question and aids commentary on the plot outline" which are, by any interpretation, unspecific. FUC#10 requires a "For each article for which fair use is claimed [a] rationale ... which is relevant to the article in question." - even when I have presented image and text which are clearly unrelated (episode #7) no one has addressed the issues, preferring instead to let out cries of "but we have a consensus!" ed g2s • talk 10:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to give Wikiproject:Heroes time to put a fair use rationale for the images. It's on our to do list, and i'm trying my best to make it our number one priority so this issue can be resolved in a way that allows everyone to get what they want. dposse 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, the episode descriptions were rewritten recently and need to be updated. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way - the images should have the proper rationales when they are uploaded. The images should only be added to the page as and when they comply with policy. As it stands the majority of images still do not have specific rationales for this page. They can't be used. ed g2s • talk 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so some images do yet you keep removing them. Cburnett 17:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If they do not have correct fair use rationals, then we will add them as quickly as we can. Yes, it does work that way. Go read the templates that wikipedia created for this kind of thing. Wikipedia does give uploaders the right to add fair use rationals if they did not already have them when the images were uploaded. The newly created wikiproject for Heroes will do this. We just need a little bit of time. dposse 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems all the screenshots have been deleted (not by me) but I'd suggest not uploading anymore. In light of a recent announcement most screenshots on Wikipedia will probably be phased out over the coming months. ed g2s • talk 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears a friend of Ed has deleted all the images, unilaterally, if someone could undelete them (Cburnnet?) that would be great. I intend to open an RfC on Ed and possibly Cyde soon. I believe I have backups of all the images as well if they are needed. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Ed, you need to pay more attention to what you read:
Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
Nowhere in that link nor what I quoted says screenshots are going away. There is no reasonable replacement for screenshots and, thus, the email all but SUPPORTS their use. Please read more carefully in the future. Cburnett 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyde is no more my friend than yours - I have had no recent contact with him. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, he seems to have deleted a bunch of images with no prior discussion or notificiation that I can find. I'd support getting these undeleted - the recent foundation proclimation is very vague and I think it's a very bad idea to start using it for a basis of deletion before it is clarified. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cyde's rational is inline with Ed's: Deleting image with invalid fair use claim; it was only being used as page decoration and was not critically discussed. Cyde has the same interpretation as Ed. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images/Media which says:
Invalid fair-use claim. ... Media that fail any part of the fair use criteria and were uploaded after July 13, 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader.
I find no such notifications therefore Cyde's actions were unilateral, against consensus, and in tune with personal policy interpretation. I believe a Wikipedia:Deletion review is in order for Cyde's deletion actions. Even though two images had thorough rationales they were still deleted. You will also notice Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see that Cyde also incorrectly interpreted the email Ed linked above. I believe that was his motivation for the deletion. Cburnett 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that while the "not used for critical commentary" issue is currently being heavily debated for use in lists, each of the images deleted was also used as an identifying image for an individual article on each episode. Such use is clearly endorsed for fair use images -- in fact, it's pretty much the definition of "critical commentary" as far as screenshots on Wikipedia is concerned -- which makes the deletion of all the images even more suspect. I think a deletion review is clearly in order. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 07:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dark images

Most of the images here are very dark. (#1, #3-#5, #7-#11) It would be nice if someone could either adjust the way they are capturing these or choose more visible frames; the research utility of these images is reduced if a reader can't quickly figure out what they are. I don't have convenient access to original source for these. Avt tor 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see them fine. Also images should not be lightened as that makes them look fake and crappy and (obviously) the shows producers/etc did not intend the show to be viewed like that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The much larger versions of the original files are easier to look at, but they don't all reduce well for the purpose of list icons. (They're also pretty large for fair use, i.e. they contain a large percentage of the information from the original image, but that's a minor quibble.) Television itself is a moving-picture medium; viewers obtain information from motion that isn't available in a still frame. A web page is a different medium; images that are going to appear on a white background can't be mostly-dark rectangles (this is a long-established methodology among book photo researchers). I'm interested in what other people think. Avt tor 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Less then 50% of the original size I find to be web resolution, we don't actually have a set-in-stone limit, I however always resize my images to around the 680px mark, I find that to be a good resolution, generally most images don't need to be rendered higher then ~300px, but if your like me when you click the image you expect it to be larger so you can see the frame better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Avt tor - many of these images could either be improved or changed for more suitable ones. Matthew, keep in mind that the producers/directors/editors etc. composed the images for viewing on a typical television screen in a living room setup, not for viewing as a postage-stamp-sized object on a smaller computer monitor. Resizing the screen grabs for Wikipedia lists changes how they appear, and we have to tke that into account - even if that requires getting different images specifically for this article. (BTW, I'm looking at the small images on a properly adjusted, well-maintained pro monitor right now - and they're definitely dark.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see some of then lightened as well. If not simple brightening then perhaps some curve adjustment to get more dynamic range in the colors to bring out the contrast. Doesn't have to be a lot... Cburnett 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Addressing only the point about size: I agree that the graphics should be larger than what appears in the list, merely because an editor can't be 100% certain of the eternal look of a particular page. My opinion is that an icon which is going to be 125 pixels wide does not need to be much more than 200-300 pixels when it's uploaded. If I were involved in a show, I might feel slightly stepped on for anything more detailed than that. However, this is a small issue, most people aren't going to click on the image, and for myself, I would not bother to change any existing graphics just because of size. Avt tor 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone replace Image:Heroes s01 e05.jpg? It's supposed to be an image of D.L. sneaking into Niki's house, but it's too dark. There must be a better frame to capture. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I protected this page to get people talking on here instead of in edit summaries. Please work this out using dispute resolution if necessary. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No dispute resolution is needed, we have a consensus, one guy does not wish to abide by it, hence disruption. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this has been discussed at great length on this very page if you look above. There's a clear consensus and a single editor unilaterally editing in opposition to it. I'm not exactly sure where a single editor violating 3RR and reverting a number of other editors resulted in a page protection instead of just blocking the disruptive editor. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Requested unprotection. Cburnett 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Images again

Looking at WP:FU, it seems the clause Cyde and Ed are concerned about is "identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." As long as the image identifies the subject of an article (the image identifies that specific episode) and/or specifically illustrates the text, there's no reason to delete it. If/when the image is deleted, we need to make sure it meets this criteria, which may mean adjusting either text or images to make sure that one unquestionably illustrates the other. Cyde and/or Ed, correct me if I'm misinterpreting your reason for removing images (so far Ed has refused to answer questions about this on his talk page). If either of you could provide an example of an article that uses a fair use screenshot in a way you feel meets fair use well, that would be much appreciated. Thanks Update - obviously this applies to all article screenshots as well as this page, please take a look and make any required updates. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A thing to do instead of adding (as shown in the image above) would be to move the image into context with the plot like they do at Doctor Who. I did try this once however another user reverted me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It's something we can try, although if the text discusses the image that would seem to be enough, FU doesn't seem to say that the text it illustrates must be right next to the image. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
So, all we have to do is to rewrite the episode descriptions here to illistrate what the picture is showing us? That shouldn't be too hard. It might mean a slightly longer description, but it's possible. dposse 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have zero problems with longer summaries. Cburnett 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not many of the screenshots on Wikipedia are being used properly (for proper encyclopaedic critical commentary), probably <1%. I expect forthcoming clarifications to the wording of our policy will result in many of these being deleted. ed g2s • talk 22:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you are being disruptive now stop, you may decree that because you believe them to be invalid fair use then they must be, however that does not make them so and the general consensus is you are wrong. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is so disruptive about expressing my opinion on a talk page? You can shout consensus for as long as you like but it's not going to stop the inevitable. ed g2s • talk 22:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Besides the fact that you are causing problems instead of working with everyone to help solve one? Nothing. dposse 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Again - I fail to see how that last comment caused any new problem. Unless you are voicing a general "stop it" towards me trying to enforce our Fair Use policy, in which case: no. ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, it's your interpretation of policy that has been REPEATEDLY stated that you are wrong about. If policy were wrong this would obviously be the wrong place to discuss that. Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Ed, could you provide an example of a screenshot that you consider to be used correctly in terms of fair use? I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet, there may be many deletions in many categories of media, but there certainly are cases where images improperly used may have their use corrected instead of being deleted. The decision on whether a given image is being used properly or not isn't to be made by one editor, but is something that requires judgement and therefore consensus. Current policy says that screenshots are fine if used properly, and the latest edict from the board doesn't seem to contradict that. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Something like the screenshot on Citizen Kane is a good example of an academic use of such material. ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop pretending to be the victim and acting like all you've done here is discuss on the talk page. All you've done on this article is disrupt it with your interpretation of policy (to which the majority agrees that your interpretation is wrong). Cburnett 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I was clearly referring to that comment only - to which Matthew protested "stop it". ed g2s • talk 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, he called you disruptive. Clearly your revert warring on the article is what he was referring to. Cburnett 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So, the pictures for the episode articles for Lost (TV series) and 24 (TV series) are also somehow against the rules as well? If that's so, why haven't they been deleted or taken down as you claim they should be? dposse 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Give Aways

I think the hints about what happens next episode should be a little more vague. For example, one episode says that a female charater dies. This seems to be giving away just a little much, as the episode has not even aired yet. Bio 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not wish to be spoiled do not read past the warning. Really I keep telling people this repeatedly: Wikipedia contains spoilers, do not look if you do not wish to be "spoiled"! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Contains spoilers, yes. Has to have them everywhere, including places people might not expect them to be - no. There's nothing unreasonable about keeping the text vague for an episode that hasn't aired yet. (Especially given that until it airs, we don't necessarily have verifiability for the details.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the text should be changed to simply "A hero dies", or something similar? Bio 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That'll still pee-off a fair amount of spoiler trolls, the only way to please them I expect is to write "Some stuff happens.. and some major stuff." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing unreasonable about not wanting to get spoiled about FUTURE episodes in an article call "List of Heroes episodes". If you want to include spoilers, put them in the article for the episode where someone would have a reasonable expectation of getting information about an episode that hasn't aired yet. I don't understand why the "spoiler sluts" on Wikipedia insist on ruining surprises for everyone else. 65.121.137.134 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be here if you do not wish to be spoiled, simple as, Wikipedia is not censored. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Matthew, "censorship" is very, very different from what we are discussing here. The censorship guidelines are with respect to social and moral values, as well as "good taste". This discussion is about revealing plot details for a television show before it airs. --Ckatzchatspy 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly censorship, if it is accurately cited and factual then it belongs here, if people do not wish to be spoiled then they should not look at the pages, after all, they do contain big honking spoiler warnings. Complaining to try and get stuff removed for personal dislikes is censorship. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
And in this case it's not accurately cited so we have no way of knowing it's factual. Removing it isn't censorship, it's just cleaning up potential OR. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
and the operative word there is: if. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's a spoiler warning and a reasonable person would expect spoilers for *only what's aired*. It's not about censorship; it's about being a douchebag who's intent on ruining other people's enjoyment. 65.121.137.134 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply: WP is an encyclopedia not a tv guide. I've been advocating for a while now that the list of episode pages should contain a longer summary of the episode as a whole and not a tv guide synopsis. The whole debacle of fair use image use just ephasizes this need to discuss the episode instead of providing teasers. Cburnett 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the spoiler issue, what's the source for the summaries of future episodes? A paraphrase of the official summary is probably fine, but something from a rumor site wouldn't be RS. Seriously, listing potential characters who could be the one who dies? NBC says there's a death in the promos, where does "female" come from? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Future summaries should be limited to what's known. (I think that almost goes without saying. WP:OR & WP:NOT#CRYSTAL.) Cburnett 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)