Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode lists/Archive 2

Archives Add archive
Old WP:TVE: 04/04 - 06/07 Old WP:LOE: August 2005 - April 2006 May 2005 - June 2006 June 2006 - January 2007 Feb 2007 - June 2007 /structure Current: 7-12 June 2007 Deletion-related

Templates

I just found this {{Digimon episode}} template that makes it easier to create an episode list of Digimon episodes. Perhaps we should create more general templates that do this for Lists part of this project ? - The DJ 12:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's cool! We have to get one of these in place. I'd do it myself but don't know how able I will be in the coming months. Don't count on it. Volunteers please! --Will2k 03:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

K, I've looked at it some more. I have created Template:Television Episode. I encourage everyone to stop in and get this up to snuff. Right now, it is a direct copy of Digimon episode.--Will2k 03:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great idea. Could we make it {{episode}} instead, just to make it a little shorter, and easier to code? I noticed that it currently doesn't exist, and I can't really think of any other area that would use this template... Also, It will need a table top and bottom, right? Say, {{episodetop}} and {{episodebottom}}. We've done this with {{MedalTop}} for Olympic medalists, and it's a great way of side-stepping meta-templates. tiZom_(2¢) 06:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For {{Digimon episode}} we did the top and bottom manually (as shown in Template talk:Digimon episode), but making a template that could define what headers and columns to include per show would be pretty useful. In episodetop template one could define if the list was going to use an alternative name column, and stuff like that. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I chose Television Episode to avoid any conflicts. But we can change it I suppose. What do others think?--Will2k 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear the template has inspired others! I'll happily help out if I can. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

debate on fair use of images for "lists of episodes" articles

I found this message on another user's talk page, and thought I would simply just quote it here. It seems the outcome of this debate will probably affect the usage of screen shots on all Lists of episodes type articles. -- Ned Scott 07:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Currently, there is a debate on Talk:List of Lost episodes regarding whether or not use of a 1/30th stillframe visual excerpt next to a list of audiovisual works (such as List of Lost episodes or List of Stargate episodes) is in accordance with WP:Fair use, and has even resulted in the protection of the page.

If you have any opinions regarding fair use on the List of Lost episodes page, please feel free to express them as I believe these two pages are sister projects.

Cws125 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)"

Oh, and it seems the rest of the discussion has moved to Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images, though it still starts on Talk:List of Lost episodes. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking this will all blow over and individual images for episodes will be still usable. In any-case, I think as the List of TV eps wikiproject, we should provide our own image usage guide with TV ep specific examples and with links to the more detailed fair use and image guidelines where appropriate. A criteria for what the image should include such as be identifiable, unique to the episode, and contain valid fair use rational on the image page, etc. With examples of how a good fair use argument should be from other image pages, stuff like that. Maybe make another subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/image usage -- Ned Scott 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble going through the very lengthy Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images. Can someone summarize? I've added a lot of low-res screenshots to lists of episodes, and I'm wondering if I should take them down. Sarahjane10784 01:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new name for WikiProject List of Television Episodes

Thinking about naming conventions and such, I think we should rename the project to WikiProject List of episodes. Episodes shouldn't be capitalized in the name, and we really don't need the word Television, since we can easily apply many of these same guidelines to radio episodes, webcasted episodes, straight to video episodes, etc. -- Ned Scott 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It will also help avoid confusion between us and WikiProject Television episodes. -- Ned Scott 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

second template in testing

I've created Template:Japanese episode list using the old Template:Digimon episode as a guide, and incorporating some new stuff from Template:Episode list. The reason for a second template like this is I feel what makes these templates really useful is clearly labeled variables, such as "JapaneseTitle" instead of "AltTitle", and some unique formatting commonly found in Japanese (mostly anime) related list of episodes articles, such as "KanjiTitle". I think eventually both templates will be merge-able, as I believe there is a variable trick where more than one label can equal the same variable. In other words, you could use "AltTitle" or "JapaneseTitle" and it would work for the same variable on one template. This will really be helpful for using the "Aux1" and "Aux2" variables found in Template:Episode list. Although, like I stated before in Template talk:Episode list, it might be useful to have more than one template, for ease of use and to make it a less tempting target for vandals. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Japanese episode list, seems to have caught on. Shortly after I applied the template to some articles, I was surprised to see how fast images and descriptions were written up once people saw an option for them. I think the idea of having a fill-out-able template will really help to build some lists of episodes. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spreading the templates

To help the Japanese version of the template take off I did a little bit of "advertising". I posted to applicable WikiProjects, as well as choose articles of new and popular animes to apply the template too, since they would be high in edit traffic and seen by many. I think if we do something like this for the normal Template:Episode list, it too will take off very fast. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes

hey there, some admin blocked the images in this list, can some of you guys help on this one? --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this, actually. And I came here to post a notice.

To Muhaidib:

It pains me to no end that these people are right. I've run into several of them before, and their comments have pissed me off too, but they are correct here. The fact is, these pictures just don't qualify as fair use. We need to realize that this project (wikipedia) has some severe limitations, and this is one of them. I'm not going to go over this conversation here, as it's listed in detail on the talk page.

To everyone else:

Please see Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images. We are going to need to change the format a little bit in this wikiproject to reflect this. And several pages are going to need to be changed as well. tiZom_(2¢) 17:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the findings of this WikiProject, as well as many Wikipedians. We find that screenshots for List of episodes articles does qualify for fair use. We continue to encourage others to include screenshots when they feel it is useful for episode identification. Policy is not being debated here, rather, what is being debated is "do these images contribute to the article". How something contributes to an article is an opinionated matter, and can not be enforced as policy. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I can see both sides here, and personally, I'd like to see the screenshots on the list pages. But when admins come and start blocking pages, I know it's a big deal. I'm sure that this is not going to blow over, and in fact, it will most likely lead to changes [probably by admins] in some of our other pages. What to do?? tiZom_(2¢) 14:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The only reason other admins who support the image use haven't stepped in is because no one wants some sort of admin war. We have lots of support for this, just keep people informed and get as many users as you can involved in these discussions. Many editors who work on lists of episodes don't even know about the Lost screen-cap debate. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

created WikiProject Banner, WikiProject LOE

I created {{WikiProject LOE}} to replace the generic banner template that was being used. Feel free to edit the descriptions and such. Also, the to do list is now linked to the banner, like in other WikiProjects. Enjoy -- Ned Scott 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard nonsense

My edit has been recently reverted by User:Ned Scott for being a new standard from Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes [1]. I'd like to remind the point of wikiprojects: To colaborate on improving related articles. Not dictate what I can and can't do. I am not required to follow anything discussed here. I strongly suggests the wikiproject to avoid the aim of "standarising". --Cat out 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's how it was originally before the table got deleted (not sure why) from the main article. Also, I'm not the only one who felt your table looked bad. You are required to do nothing, but if you wish to not be a dick maybe you'll have more of an open mind and listen to the reasons of your fellow editors. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, last time I check you were the one reverting me and I was reverting you in return. I want to use dvd covers you order me to use tv screenshots, something I whelmingly oppose as I mentioned it on the FMA nomination. If I am not required to follow your style, why the heck are you forcing it? --Cat out 04:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the standard this project supports is only partly followed across all episode lists, I would make no demands to change the layout of a good complete list like the list of Air episodes. However, as the standard becomes more widespread, you will not have the choice to follow your own standard. If you remain steadfast with your opinion, this will likely turn to a vote.--Will2k 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Then lets just use computer generated articles. You really should not force weather or not I should use DVD covers or episode screenshots. Or weather I will use my own table markup or the default "prettytable" or whatever it is. Wikiprojects are not ment to be cabals to gain votes, I am sure that wasnt the intention of your comment but you can understand my concern.

So long as it "works", standards (where the episode numbers appear, the color of the background) are not necesary and in such cases standards become unhealthy.

--Cat out 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That episode list, if it remains that way and discussion continues to lead nowhere, will eventually be put up as a vote outside of the project entirely in accordance with WP:Resolving disputes. The purpose of a wikiproject is to provide a reference for style and formatting from which all articles in it's category will draw from. List of Air episodes is a tacit member of the category and therefore should draw it's style from the wikiproject. If list of Air episodes fails to follow the project, it undermines the project entirely and therefore undermines Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I recommend we forget about the subject for now and revisit the dispute when the project is better established and it's other member articles are better defined, formatted, and evaluated.--Will2k 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a minimum number of episodes?

While it makes perfect sense to have a separate list article for long-running series, like for example the Star Treks or The Avengers, I'm uncertain of the merits of having separate lists for short-lived shows. For example, see The Omega Factor which ran only 10 episodes, has a relatively short main article, but a separate episode list article. Personally I feel some of these shorter lists would be better served as part of the main article and would be less likely to attract AFD attention. I guess my question here is, has a criteria been set for a minimum number of episodes, or is there no lower limit? Could someone in theory create an episode list article for shows cancelled after 2 shows? 23skidoo 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one can create an episode list for a show that only made it past one episode. However, it does not warrant it's own page. I propose that anything that only lasted for one season should be included in the show's main page, and not in it's own article.--Will2k 18:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself I am indeed only referring to separate articles being created. I have no objection to short episode lists in general (though it's kinda pointless to have a list if only a single episode was produced of a series). 23skidoo 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I usually like a separate article for episodes, without regard to the number of episodes. I think that so much can be said about each individual episode that it can cramp the style and flow of the main TV series page. --MZMcBride 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that this discussion (and project) is about "list of ___ episodes" and not about the episode's article itself. I'm not sure if this is what you meant or not. --Will2k 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Just the list articles. 23skidoo 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember, it's not just that it's a list, but an article in list form. With summaries we can have content to the articles. So it really depends on how much content you have, in the same way any other section of an article could be split. Some shows might have 20 very average uneventful episodes, while a show could have 3 episodes that were very noteworthy, and both feature articles of around the same size. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll for List of Air episodes

I have created a straw poll in hopes of quickly resolving the dispute over List of Air episodes. Talk:List of Air episodes#Straw poll for which episode table to use. I strongly encourage everyone to share their opinion and vote. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposing three levels of episode lists

I've been thinking about the different types of episode lists we have here on Wikipedia, and I think maybe we should have style guidelines and the like in three different types of lists: small, medium, and large. I think what our current guidelines cover is great, but seems to really just cover medium (things like List of South Park episodes, etc). This is probably the most likely type of list for a List of episodes article. Small would be a minimal list, no summary or screen shot, and could be included inside main articles. Large would be similar to medium in it's basic layout, but has formatting to favor a larger summary. Large is basically the "largest" you get before splitting an episode to it's own article. An example of Large would be List of Ben 10 episodes. For Large, I can see Large coexisting with Large and Medium, or Large and Small, with Large being split up into story arcs like in Sakura Card Arc: 47-59. Or, Large can be used, not split up, for lists that only feature a small number of episodes. I think Small could be a way to quickly format a lot of episode lists without having to fill out all of Medium, but make them easily compatible so one would just have to add the summaries, etc.

Oh, and, I think there are times for really different layouts when it comes to lists like MythBusters (season 1). I can see this as a challenge, but I'm very excited on the idea of working on a nice, cool layout for such a show's list, as it is very different from our normal layouts.

But yeah, these are just some ideas that have been floating around in my head. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 04:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If the episode has more than just a summary, then I think the episode should get it's own page where it can be more descriptive like the List of Ben 10 episodes. I don't think any episode list needs to be any more descriptive than South Park's list. Mythbusters can be setup to follow the table format but with a little cheating (eg. Title=Myth, ShortSummary=Notes, Busted/Plausible/Confirmed/Whatever=Some other column, 1 episode=1 Season the way the others do it). I see two tiers: The short style which contains a title,summary, and episode number, and a long style which looks like South Park's list. Any episode list should exist as one of the two, or in transition from short to long.--Will2k 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's more of a borderline list/individual episode type thing. My thoughts were, many episode articles are only two or three paragraphs, and not really much of their own article. The idea being that such a layout could be used for summaries that are more than 4 sentences, but less than 3 paragraphs. Also, there are situations, like story arcs, where it's more useful to summaries a group of episodes instead of giving them each their own article. I was just thinking this today watching Tsubasa Chronicle, where when the characters visit a different world, sometimes those events are one episode, sometimes two, sometimes several. Although, the only real "list" element is the fact that more than one episode shares an article, so maybe this is something WikiProject Television episodes should consider?

Also, on that note, I think our two sister projects should collaborate on guidelines for episode info growth. Something that recommends to editors to use a path like, simple list -> list with short summaries -> episode articles / story arc articles / detailed plot summary (i.e. what Eureka Seven does as an alternative to a bloated and spoiler-filled plot summary on the main page, as well as an alternative all together for episode articles: Plot Summary of Eureka Seven (anime).) Such guidelines would help editors see when best to split info, and how to do so. Such a guideline would span both WikiProjects, so a collaborative effort comes to mind between the two. -- Ned Scott 06:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, reflecting the guidelines of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, but providing info on the other two options (story arc and detailed plot summary), as well as including style guidelines from both projects. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming a minor perimeter

While constructing an example of List of Air episodes using {{Japanese episode list (no image)}}, I installed an additional parameter called "Bottom" which adds 1 to the colspan of the colored line. In hindsight, I think the parameter's name is ambiguous and should be changed to something that is more clear. --TheFarix (Talk) 18:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok here are a few of ideas:

• DVDEnd
• ListEnd
• SectionEnd
• EndDVD
• EndList
• EndSection

Any thoughts or other suggestions? I think I like the last one. --TheFarix (Talk) 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there's "LineColor", how about "LineSpan" or something like that? Although, I think the style of using DVD covers on the side like that should be discussed before "officially" including the parameter and writing instructions for it. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD covers vs screenshots / no image

Moved from Template talk:Japanese episode list:

Even if a Cool Cat style is adopted, it would likely become it's own template. -- Ned Scott 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I propse adding "Cool Cat style" to the armada of LOE templates. Mine being used for anime lists featuring dvd covers or for list that have no images. (my list can handle both) --Cat out 00:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you might want to do that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I went and made it "LineSpan" instead, since, that way one can even modify the usage even more and span the line more than one extra column. Basically, you have to put a manual count of how many columns to span. I also took out the no separator line option since this template is supposed to encourage summaries and when a summary is in use a line separator is encouraged as apart of LOE's style guidelines. I first tried to see how it would look if it just didn't generate the line until ShortSummary was filled out, but it looks weird when only some are filled out but not others. Basically, if one wants to use just a basic list, then another template, such as the one I've proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes#Proposing three levels of episode lists should be used instead. I think the "Small" template I talk about there would better serve this function. And with compatible parameter names being used across templates, one can still upgrade the template to include summaries at a later time. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the fewer templates we have to deal with, the better. But I can see developing a separate DVD list template. However, I don't think people should be barred from using DVD covers instead of screen caps on an episode list, especially with the recent furry over WP:FUC and how people interpret what is or is not permitted as "fair use" in regards to screen caps. That is why I've proposed some of these parameters, to make incorporating a single image to identify multiple episodes easier and give the template additional flexibility. --TheFarix (Talk) 14:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps my template can be adapted for dvd use? I just dont want my work to go to waste. ;)

Why I feel dvds are more usefull:

• The dvd covers are nice because it is very easy to argue of the promotional nature for a fair use claim.
  • There was no resistance in the FLC of Planetes list regarding copyrights. First nom of FMA failed for resons not related to copyrights. On the second nom of FMA the copyright complaint was ignored.
  • When I was writing the OMG list it originaly had episode screenshots (based on star trek format) which people opposed. As a comprimise we (at the time) agreed on dvd covers. Inarguably it is easier to argue fair-use with dvd covers.
  • All this makes our Featured list candidacies easier.
• For a series, say Air or Oh My Goddess!, dvd covers work nicely. DVD covers promote the series better due to their promotional nature. Companies spend extra money for the dvd art. For series which an entier season is relased on say, one dvd pack, screen caps are of course more approporate and logical than dvd covers.
• The most notable event in an episode can be a matter of POV. DVD covers are inarguable.

--Cat out 22:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've found that the use of DVD covers in this way has a weaker fair use argument. You use DVD covers when talking about DVDs, such as their release date and technical specs. It seems to be you used DVD covers simply because it was faster to add the fair use rational to the smaller amount of images. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2005#List of Oh My Goddess episodes:

Neutral. Note that I did not ask you to remove the frames, but to provide a fair use rationale for each of them as per Wikipedia:Fair use, which in my opinion is straight-forward. But you can do as you see fit. This will be my last comment on this nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to edit 24 image pages writing a uneque paragraph to each, id rather delete the entier article. Given the template is more than enough. I really find staring a wall without purpose more productive. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You just said "When I was writing the OMG list it originaly had episode screenshots (based on star trek format) which people opposed. As a comprimise we (at the time) agreed on dvd covers". I think this is at least the 3rd time I've pointed this out to you. You keep making this statement that is just... wrong. That is not what happened, they're not less opposed for fair use, and they don't make for "easier" featured list candidacy (maybe easier in less work, but cutting corners isn't really a good reason).

Most notable event in an episode can indeed be POV, but current recommendations suggest a unique screenshot, not necessarily the most notable. The whole point of putting an image beside the episode entry is to make identification easier. Even with the animes I own on DVD, I doubt I'd be able to identify which episode is which by looking at the DVD cover. The better thing would just to not use images at all beside the entries and then give the DVDs a section to discuss their information.

And, as far as the whole dispute of the screenshots being fair use, such as on Talk:List of Lost episodes, those who are opposed to their use are also opposed to the usage of the DVD covers. Both types of images are in the same boat on the fair use dispute. -- Ned Scott 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And I don't believe people are barred from using them, I just mean I think the WikiProject should discuss first wether or not they want to promote such usage as a style guideline. -- Ned Scott 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed the issue with people via talk page or via irc. I recall a discussion, I just dont recall when or with who via what (we are talking about a discussion 6 months ago). Fair-use issue has nothing to do with featured list candidacy and I have discussed the issue seperately. If images violate copyright they can't exist on wikipedia. They did not oppose screenshots outright but made convincing arguments why dvd covers would be better. The fact that I have had this discussion is irrelevant. We can argue which way is better from scratch, as we will do anyways. If I had a claim for concensus to evade a disscussion, I would cite a diff.

• Consider this, all anime when sold on say amazon is presented with the display of the dvd box. Amazon feels dvd boxes are the best way to promote the sale of the dvds. Arguing that dvd covers promote the anime is only logical. The list talks about the contents of the dvd. When you flip a dvd cover at the back of it, you are more likely to find a plot summary and unlikely the technical specs and release dates as that would be more promotional. A thought is presenting the dvd release date below the image of the dvd cover.
• Legally speaking screenshots are not illegal, but a fair-use rationale for lists is harder to argue. Not just on wikipedia but in a court as well.
• The point of my statement was not to ban screenshots from lists but to promote dvd covers. Anime lists are not intended to assist you in digging through your own dvd pile. Screenshots wouldn't make such a dig easier either. The point of the fair use claim is that we argue after reading the list when one goes to a store, one would be looking for the dvd cover (promotional nature).
• I am not suggesting imageless lists, nor suggesting screenshots are unmanagable due to pov concerns. It is just an argument showing an advantage of dvd covers over screenshots.
• I am not convinced episode screenshots are worth the trobble. Often with such small resolution you can't necesarily tell whats going on. DVD covers are more advantigious in this area as well. Consider the case of air episode one, whats the most notable moment. The opening where misuzu "glides" into yukitos view, Kanos pet stealing yukitos puppet, michiru rinning into and through yukito? What about episode two?

--Cat out 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1, we are NOT selling DVDs. These articles are not about making anime more appealing to readers. 2, Amazon.com has expressed permission to use the copyrighted DVD covers. DVD cover usage on Wikipedia is fair use, just as screenshots, and requires all the same arguments. 3. multiple editors have stated that screenshots in-fact do make it easier to identify an episode. If you wish, I can make a straw poll for that as well. 4. DVD covers being used without discussing DVDs is simply decretive, which is prohibited by WP:FU. 5. see 3. Also, as you can see from Talk:List of Lost episodes, DVD images are being targeted along with screenshots. -- Ned Scott 16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also... yes, technical specs are usually listed on the back of DVDs.. just look at the bottom where it tells you run time, language tracks, audio format, etc. -- Ned Scott 16:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright.

1. I never suggested selling DVDs. Articles intention is to inform readers about a spesific anime. Rationale behind fair use is that the iages we use do not damage the company comercialy. It is very easy to argue to that end when the images are used on sites like amazon.com
2. You cannot argue that screen captures being promotional. Educational yes, promotional no. DVD covers on the other hand are promotional in nature, that is why DVD covers are not plain white.
3. Sure, post a straw poll on WP:FUC page. In fact start a straw poll for any suggestion I make.
4. We discuss the dvd, its contents and hence DVDs fall under fair-use. Geez.
5. I see no images on List of Lost episodes. I do not consider it to be a valid example. I also am very hestiant to read pages and pages of debate which often is quite uncivil. Also concensus in one article does not necesarily apply to another. I also see that the Lost episode article is not featured.
6. So in your opinion articles about dvds should only talk about technical details? The episodes inside the dvd cannot be in any way related to the dvd.

--Cat out 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

We are drifting off topic here and getting too tangled in the WP:FUC mess, but one last comment before I leave for the week. Would it not be possible to include an extra row giving information about the DVD just before listing the episodes on that DVD? I'm not sure how this would look on the table, but it may keep the fair use hawks at bay. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats posible. But why not place the info right below the dvd? We generaly have the space. --Cat out 19:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

LOE has style guidelines and then they have templates to ease usage. The templates don't always have to be used. I'd rather manual entry or another template be used than over complicating the existing templates for minority usage (IF such a style gets support from others). Template:Japanese episode list is meant for most common lists, lists that wish to go outside of style guidelines shouldn't be the priority of this one template. However, even with that in mind, I don't think this should be adopted as an acceptable style.

The only thing that is "mentioned" by placing the DVD covers beside episodes is what episode is on what disc. The DVD is only one form of distribution of most anime, as several anime have also been on VHS, PSP's format (I can't remember it right now), broadcasted, and so on. Maybe if it was a list of OVAs this would make more sense, but even then I don't think it does. There's only one reason to put an image beside the episode, for identification. This is our strongest fair use claim, and we have to use it wisely. Yes, it looks pretty, but it wastes space if it's not going to actually do something. If there wasn't a better place to put the DVDs then I probably wouldn't have much of an objection to it, but there is a better place. As seen on most lists of episodes, DVDs get their own table with their own information.

And if you think the debate on Lost right now means nothing to these articles, you really need to wake up. Even those DVD covers will be struck down if those guys get their way.

One more thing, the ONLY time I've seen this style used is when YOU used it. Out of the hundreds of lists out there, 6 (plus the List of Air episodes) use it. The point of this WikiProject is to try to encourage standard formatting. You have weak arguments for it, things like "It looks pretty" "it doesn't hurt" and "it tells you which episodes are on the disc" are not enough to warrant a special layout all on it's own. You yourself were using individual screenshots only until one of your lists came up for FLC. Why are you so attached to this insignificant usage of DVD images? -- Ned Scott 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Eeto,

1. I still dont seem to be getting to you. Wikiprojects cannot determine guidelines or standards.
   • At the very best a wikiproject is a recomendation not the law. Having said that I am not implying recomendations should be ignored. All I am saying is that it is best to not present it as a standard, the rule.
   • The point of wikiprojects is to improve articles in a systematic behaviour. "My template style" used to be used on a number of articles (for instance on exel saga list or so I am told) until LOE template was used in place. "My" style however is beeing used even outside of wikipedia such as here (and here and here) which is not a wikipedia mirror. The lack of usage of "my style" is probably beacuse I have not advertised it nor declared it a stadard nor imposed it on any article. That doesn't mean "my style" had been fundementaly flawed. It is just that I have always believed that which style people use should not be a big deal so long as they are legible. Overstandardization tens to be fatal.
2. I already proposed my template for lists with dvd covers such as the OMG list so as not to overcomplicate LOE templates. It can be moved and adopted as being the third LOE template. I certainly dont mind that.
3. Yes. For instance the OMG OVA was originaly released in VHS format.
   • On the OMG article I used DVD covers to better sort the individual ova episodes. The usage of VHS screenshots on the list prompted an oppose during the FLC process. So they were removed. I however placed the VHS covers to the linked pages instead and that prompted no objection. I try to do more with fewer images.
   • It is more likely to identify a product from its cover rather than its content. The reason behind any fair-use argument must be firstly is that a free alternative is not avalible. Secondly we claim by placing images on wikipedia, we are not hurting the profit from the copyrighted work, regardless of the rationale. Putting their advertisement (DVD cover) with its promotional value will not hurt their sales... If it did hurt sales, amazon.com would not have used it. That logic is a very good legal argument I believe.
4. I am really uninterested in the "lost episodes" debate, that doesn't mean it means nothing to me. I just dont want to read pages and pages of endless looking debate...
   • I have however consulted the copyright issue of DVD covers with an actual lawyer and am waiting for his response. This is a possible legal issue after all and legal issues should not be determined with straw polls but through legal consultation.

I am not attached to this "insignificat" usage of dvd images, it is just that after a lenghty discussion with a wikipedian (I cant really recall who), he convinced me that fair-use claims to dvd covers on episode lists to be an easier argument compared to episode screenshots as I have discussed above. Why are you opposing DVD covers? I am not opposing tv screenshots, if you take a look at various OMG articles, there are screenshots on them...

--Cat out 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Placing english, kanji, and romanji on the same line

The distinguishing of kanji from kana isnt my main argument but a 'bonus' on what we can achive by aligning english and japanese scripts on the same line.

Putting them on the same line would not generate issues. I'll use List of Oh My Goddess episodes as an example (No I am not trying to brag). One of the episodes has an english title "Ah! Taking An Examination of Love, Starting with A Deviation Value of 30!". Fairly long title. On my computer resolution (1024x768) that occupies only two lines even though it is the longest title. Other episodes either occupy one or two lines and yet are properly aligned. With the current LOE template that particular episode would occupy at least 4 lines and up to 6 on even smaller resolutions.

Anime titles are generaly not all that long. Even when they are they would occupy double lines if and only if necesary (table can determine how many lines are necesary). In the case of Air for instance a second line is not necesary at all for any episode.

Air is however a bad example for the aligning issue. In the case of Naruto list, some of the episodes fit a single line, some two or even three. The katakana for instance would not be aligned properly. alternating in relative position from the end of the line to begining (next line)

I think what I suggest has advandages and no disadvantages (that I can see).

--Cat out 22:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The original reason for having more than one title at all was to display a second "dub" title. If you look above on this discussion page you'll see where I talk about the possibility of removing the Japanese text all together, since this is en.wikipedia, and guidelines say use English. I'm sure that'd have all the anime editors all pissy, so I doubt anyone would want to enforce that. It doesn't matter much if it takes up an extra line or two or not at all, this just looks better and makes it easier to read. The straw poll from List of Air episodes has at least one or two other people agreeing on this (which Cool Cat responded with confusion on). -- Ned Scott 16:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, that would defeat the point of the template. It neither looks better nor is it easier to read. Official title should be on the first line.

I commented there beacuse someone asked to do so. Since my daring attept to voice my opinion there you have made my life quite miserable on all episode lists I edit.

--Cat out 19:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Official title takes a back seat to most known English title, per WP:MOS-JA, WP:NC, and probably a few others. I made this a very specific feature of this template. You'll note that if only JapaneseTitle is filled out it will be placed on the top line and in bold, but if EnglishTitle gets filled out, it will replace JapaneseTitle at the top. Although, most people are using the official title, just translated, which is another policy of wikipedia, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources."

And "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example."

Then it says "Include alternatives", which we do on the second line, where we state the Japanese-language version of the title.

As far as your claim of it not looking better, again, myself, and two other editors on the Air straw poll as one of the reasons to use the LOE style over yours. In your defense, one editor, although voted for the LOE template, did say he had an issue with the position of the Japanese text. But in, his words, that was a "pride of place" issue, not a style issue. However, I don't believe LOE has any guidelines on how to format these titles, other than the templates themselves. One could argue that you are free to use 3 or 4 columns to explain the title. However, as I noted before, I believe for ease of use (scrolling a page of tons of episode entries with lots of text at you can make it hard to find what you are looking for) and per Naming conventions, I can't help but support this style for presenting the information. -- Ned Scott 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not interprete things from naming conventions. Use english was prompted mostly by the creation of articles with foreign titles or over usage of foreign words and scripts rather than its english counterpart. I basicaly means (for our case) "dont just present kanji or romaji also provide english and give it priority". Nothing requires it to be on the second line or <small>er.

Consider the cases of List of Air episodes and List of Planetes episodes. Can you tell me one reason why we should not compact the one word titles into a single line?

I am not trying to 'test' your ability in quoting policy. So please do not quote people, guidelines, or policy. Just reason. A reasonable argument or two is fine with me. I reserve the right to disagree of course.

--Cat out 03:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it had to be on the second line... Rather, there's a good reason for it being there. Let me tell you something, Cool Cat. The reason we have guidelines is so we don't have to have the same conversation over and over. The reason we have WikiProjects is so we don't have to have the same conversation over and over.

Here's an example of some editing: I make an article, I don't follow a guideline, no one objects, everyone's happy. Part two, I edit another article, I don't follow a guideline, someone says "wait a second, what about the thing that this guideline points out?". Do I ignore the other editor and keep doing what I want do to, because I feel that I have the right to choose how I, and I alone, edit an article? I did the same thing from part one, didn't I?

Sometimes it's ok to not follow a guideline, it doesn't always apply or isn't always important. However, sometimes, and a great number of times, it is important. Guidelines are not rules because we can't predict every situation, not because we should ignore them. We also look to guidelines to help us collaborate with other editors who, other than us, will also edit the article.

By default you don't have to follow any rules, but when other people start to cite stuff it's because they're basically trying to call attention to the reasons behind those guidelines. We don't want people speeding on this street. why? because people got hurt. Do we say "people might get hurt if you speed" on speed limit signs? I quote things because someone else has worded what I wanted to say, probably a lot better than I could word it. Not that I always agree with those things, or word for word even, but usually in the logic behind it. When ever someone has told you about a WikiProject or a Wikipedia guideline, all you've done is acted like it's some authority figure, and instead of considering those views, you give a knee-jerk reaction like "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO". No one is telling you what to do. However, they are telling you what a good number of editors think is a good idea.

Ok, now about some of the stuff you've said. Compacting information can sometimes be a good thing, but not always. Making large blocks of text can make it hard to read lists. You want to make a focus on the page, you want the eyes of the reader to jump to certain areas easily. You can easily overload a reader with too much text. I believe this very much to be so for Kanji and Romaji. Air's titles are very simple, so they probably don't overwhelm anyone, but many anime titles are long, and all that text crammed so closed to each other doesn't create a focus of attention.

However, more than that, much more than that, is consistency. This is how titles are formatted on Template:Episode list, the main template for LOE. Also, many long anime titles, for reasons I've stated above, also look better this way. Both reasons for consistency and reasons for compacting information for an article such as List of Air episodes can be minor. In such a case, where it's not really a big deal ether way, you might as well take advantage of consistency. If most list of episodes articles are formatted the same way, then it's easier for the reader. This is the very logic behind the Wikipedia Manual of Style. It may seem like a minor issue on an article to article basis, but we're trying to look at the big picture here, to help the reader.

In other words, you don't have to follow anyone's advice, but there's overflowing evidence that simple layout standardization helps readers. We're not trying to dictate every little detail. Things like Wikitables are a very minor part in Lists of episodes, in the big picture. Sometimes style is just style, and it doesn't matter. Sometimes style affects how people take in information, how easy it is to read and follow large bodies of text. So there you have it, two reasons, both separate, but very related. Constant formatting, and helping to shape a clear body of text. It's page layout 101. -- Ned Scott 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The diference in syntax is so little, I cant quite understand the point of this lenglthy discussion. You claim you are not telling me what to do, yet you are revertwaring over simple syntax modifications. I'll quote something from a policy you have cited but apperantly havent fully read. I am just tired of trying to communciate with you as there is no effort on your part. I am tired of this constant guideline lecture, I have better things to do such as actualy writing the air article.

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. ... If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style, section 1: Disputes over style issues

Both are workable, both are acceptable and since the debate much more identical though the change (appearance) was minor.

--Cat out 09:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You.. don't seem to understand.. the current consensus regarding your templates vs LOE's is to use LOE's, and this is backed by both discussion and a straw poll. That's it man, unless you can change the minds of the other editors, this is how it's going to be for the time being. Also, as I've said on Talk:List of Air episodes, substantial reason for the change has been given and discussed. More editors prefer the current LOE method, and you're only argument is that since yours is similar it should be used instead? ................... -- Ned Scott 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to the other participants of WP:LOE for this whole debate. I know we have much more important things to discuss and do, and I probably should have just left the above debates on the template talk page simply so they'd be out of the way... This whole thing is insane. -- Ned Scott 09:22, 27 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 07:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why screenshots would not qualify under fair use. You might want to contact lawyer(s) advising wikipedia. One such person is User:BradP. Fair use shold not be a matter of debate. Something either is acceptable or it isn't. --Cat out 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)