Talk:Family Ties (Stargate SG-1)

Vagina Monologues

wow that was funny - teal'c at a one woman stand up show about vaginas XD

Indeed, in a crowds full of women, excellent end to the episode :-D! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it simple. Dont assume everyone has seen the episodes yet. Summaries do not need to deliberately spoil everything in an episode, why spoil if you can avoid it? Detailed explanations are a surefire way to kill a joke, especially compared to the sparse description of the rest of the episode. A single link indicating what the play was should be more than enough for anyone who didn't immediately get the joke, without completely giving away the joke. -- Horkana 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CENSOR, we don't censor stuff because the rest of the world hasn't seen it. We also give a spoiler warning. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesack/Jececk

According to the Sky infobox, the spelling of Vala's Father's name is 'Jececk'(possibly without the C, but it's definetly not S. There's also links in the Daedelus article to this one as evidence that Colonel Davidson is the new Odyssey CO. I missed the start of the episode, so I'll assume it's there if anyone saw it, it needs to be added to the article somewhere. No Way Back 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's phone

Is it worth mentioning on the trivia section that Daniel Jackson is using a Motorola RAZR V3 phone? I know it sounds like advertising, but AFAIK V3 was (or is) one of the trendyest ( <- not sure about the spelling) phones and placed #12 on The 50 Greatest Gadgets of the Past 50 Years list. Kkmic 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:AVTRIV. Also pertinent is that while it may be interesting now, will it in a years time when they release "of the past 51/60 years"? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AVTRIV is about avoiding trivia sections, not about avioding trivia. -Ahruman 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A dig at "the network"

When Sam and Jececk (sp) are talking about the SGC's equipment, they are clearly alluding to the fact that Stargate SG-1 isn't getting the support it should from higher ups in their TV network... should this be mentioned in the article? --Zikar 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't provable. And in any case, the SGC has always hurt for funding. Just look at the number of episodes in which they have to justify its continued operation. This is nothing new. Dymero

It's so obvious though... --Zikar 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a quite obvious in-joke and i'd mention it and mark it as this. No producer will ever admit, that his is a hit on the Sci-Fi channel, so you can't prove it ever. Heinrich k 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Obvious" not verifiable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless it should be noted so that in the future (people who watch the DVDs) will be able to understand the inside joke and understand what these characters are talking about. Also, though it may not be obvious it is in the episode and i would like a little more explanation from you as why you feel it should not be included in the trivia section? Many people have already noted it and this page is going to be edited time and time again to add this content if there isn't even a note defining why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.58.41.101 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I feel it's relevant because it highlights the writers/producers feelings about Stargate's cancellation. Also, I feel it isn't speculative, it was obviously subtle double meanings, anyone should be able to see that. It's no more speculative then when O'neill mentioned a bald overweight man he remembered before saying his name was Homer as a reference to the Simpsons or whenever someone uses "MacGyver" as a reference to Richard Dean Anderson's previous series. --Zikar 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how whether or not it's "verifiable" has any bearing on this observation's inclusion in the article. It's quite obviously a thinly veiled jab at the network, and a funny one at that. I agree that it should be included so that when people look back in a few years, they'll understand the joke. Otherwise, it just comes across as a awkwardly worded, out of place dialogue between two characters when it's just the opposite. Amccarter 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree. The information also is notable for viewers from different countries who will check for in-jokes, since the choice of words it to odd and will still be odd in dubbed versions. That's why I'm highly in favor to add the fact, that many viewers see this as a dig against the network. That many fans do, is fact, indeed. Heinrich k 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop.

Who are you people and why do you want that deleted so much, there's no damn reason, do you work for Sci-Fi or something? There's no Wikipedian reason to delete it, plus you wont even discuss it, which makes me assume that there is another reason you are deleting it other than trying to improve the article. Let us discuss this so we can work out a compromise, rather than being childish and constantly reverting each others edits. --Zikar 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss: then discuss. It is you who must get a consensus to add this point as it is disputed by several people, not to mention it is unsourced, also who is this "some people". Presently the paragraph fails attributes no verifiable source and contains weasel words, not to mention it's non-encyclopaedic. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HOW does it contain Weasel Words? I will find some sources. Also, I don't need to get a consensus to add information, this is Wikipedia, as long as it is true (which, my latest changes are) and it adds to an article (which it does as it highlights the producers feelings) then I'm allowed to add it. --Zikar 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick. I think that's enough sources to state that "some people" believe it to be true. --Zikar 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if "some people" (weasel worded) believe it to be true, you must provide verifiable citations. See WP:ATT: "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material". See also Wikipedia:Consensus: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked the page)". Matthew 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if that is the be all and end all of it, the whole article should be scrubbed since there are no citations on the page, in fact there's no proof that what the article says has even the faintest shred of truth to it... so why you have chosen to particularly single this particular thing out I'll never know. I'm just unlucky that no "official" source has commented on it yet... as obviously fan forums where lots of people comment on it doesn't count as a source for "Some people"... I don't know what does... --Zikar 20:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume since the network joke is not allowed in the article then this will be removed Vala's father mentions that he has tickets to something called the "Virginia Dialogues" which turns out to be the Vagina Monologues . How do we know that he doesn't have tickets to something called the "Virginia Dialogues" that exists in the Stargate universe.Also how do we know where Teal'c gets the tickets from for the Vagina Monologues .I see no verifiable source for either fact

While the joke may be obvious I have seen no source to make it verifiable at this time Garda40 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow, you're being completely stupid and distorting stuff... -Xornok 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so.I'm only following the logic of not allowing the "network joke" to it's logical conclusion re allowing other "jokes" .Just because you don't like that conclusion doesn't make me distorting stuff.

Please tell me if the "Virginia Dialogues" joke is non verifiable at this time why it should be left in place when the "network joke" is deleted because it is non verifiable . Garda40 00:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that some, if not many, viewers regarded the the statments during the show as a more or less hidden critisism of the Sci-Fi channel, while others don't do. This discussion proofs that. Therefore the controversy is fact and facts may be added to the artcle. Heinrich k 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, and others (I think), are not contesting that they are about the network, what we are contesting is the verifybility and notability of it. Fans thinking something is true, doesn't make it true, and what fans think of something isn't notable. EnsRedShirt 13:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is not fact, but rather verifiability, "obvious" is not verifiable. If you are able to provide a verifiable citation from a reputable secondary source then please do, but fan opinion is non-encyclopaedic. Matthew 13:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An explanation of the joke is notable, since it is based on the time of the first airing of the episode. Other viewers should be made aware of this, especially, those who watch dubbed versions or reruns. They can't get the joke and will check the trivia section of for such epoisodes for an explanation (I do this, often). In addition, the very type of the joke makes it very unlikely that the authors will ever state, that they critisised the network. But, never the less, i might create a html-page that says so. Then the statment is based on a source (not reliable, but who cares).Heinrich k 18:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that wouldn't count. --Zikar 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was ment as a joke anyway. I just wanted to point out, that the explanation of the joke is a notable information for some readers. On the topic of verifiablitity. Well, why don't show the episode to many fans that are aware of the situation of the show. I guess many come to the conclusion that it is a reference to the situation, even Matthew, who is against the addition of the information states that the link is obvious. The fact, that many viewers believe that this is a reference to the Sci-Fi show is proven (this discussion is proof) and should be stated. We don't need to hypotise if it was the intend of the authors. The fact that many viewers see the reference, is surely noteworthy. Heinrich k 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, and others (I think), are not contesting that they are about the network, what we are contesting is the verifybility and notability of it. Fans thinking something is true, doesn't make it true, and what fans think of something isn't notable.

Again how does this not apply to the "Virginia Dialogues" joke .After all the producers of a programme taking a potshot at their network is a lot more notable than a joke about the Vagina Monologues and for obvious reasons the producers are not going to be in a rush to confirm it.

I propose therefore to delete the Vagina Monologues joke on the grounds of non verifiability and definitely non notability .Garda40 15:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Matthew 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, please stop throwing rules at people to try and intimidate them, it's very unprofessional and tantamount to bullying.

While I contest that fan opinion isn't important (and Encyclopaedia and Wikipedia worthy), I do admit I have no 'reputable' source for this... however the kind of content it is shouldn't NEED a 'reputable' source. No one can argue that the conversation was as stated and that some do think that it was a dig at Sci-Fi (all present I assume)... Wiki isn't a Court of Law, I think some flexibility of the rules should be allowed. At any rate, I ask someone with better knowledge of 'reputable' Stargate sites than I to find some information on this. --Zikar 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Attribution: "Wikipedia is an encyclop[a]edia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." Matthew 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, that is the entire page then... Lt. Col. Samantha Carter and Vala Mal Doran arrive at the SGC wearing civilian clothing, namely dresses, along with a lot of shopping. Lt. Col. Cameron Mitchell and Sergeant Siler are talking about a TV show when Siler walks back down the hall and into an opening door. Oh really? Hmmm... no source... better delete that then... The whole article is based on the testimony of people who have seen the episode... your double standards are staggering. --Zikar 15:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparing apples to oranges. The Plot section comes directly from the show, yes it should be sourced but all it would be is one source saying Stargate SG-1 Episode "Family Ties" 2-27-07... It's not Original research, like the stab at the network is. No double standards, I can prove the Vala and Sam walked into the SGC in civilian clothes, I can not prove that the writers intended that the comments quoted as digs at Sci-fi or any of the other networks that abandoned it as the specific target, as such it is interpreting Joe's words, and as far as I have read he haasn't commented any further on the subject, avoid question posed about it on his blog. So if it can't be porved it has to go. As for the Virgina dialogs joke, its paid off with in the episode, it doesn't require any original thought to connect the tickets that Jasem offered Teal'c to the play that Teal'c finally saw, as thats how he got the ticket in the first place. Though I would be willing to release that connection as OR if someone really wants to fight it. There is no such pay offf in the show for the network comments. EnsRedShirt 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After many edit conflicts .I see the page has been protected since I started so obviously any deletion will have to wait if it is necessary

:Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Matthew

That doesn't explain how your logic applies to one situation and not another. Wikipedia:Attribution: "Wikipedia is an encyclop[a]edia, not a publisher of original thought .Please tell how the Vagina Monologues joke is not original thought then Garda40 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are calling things "jokes" (Wikipedia is not a joke repository). The argument you present is what is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam. To answer your question, however: Likely because you are pulling your opinion from dialogue, which you are then spinning. Matthew 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you taking your opinion from dialogue also

A dig at "the network" or a joke at "networks expense" .Take your pick what you want to call it and I'll happily use the term you like .Garda40 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mat, please stop throwing that Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man link around, the article is protect, thus an edit war is not taking place, editor disagreement is not the same as an edit war. You're just using it to avoid answering questions. --Zikar 15:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Mat"? Matthew 15:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, seriously. Look at the words: "Stargate Program doesn't get as much funding as it used to." "Eureka". "Network of planets." Who else do you think they were talking about? Stargate doesn't use words without some thought. -- SFH 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a work of fiction (it ain't real), the Stargate is a programme ran by the United States, not to mention it is funded, also Eureka is often a word used when a person has an idea, finally there's more then one planet in Stargate SG-1, you were saying? Please realise: unless you can keep it Neutral, Cite a source and not speculate then it is inappropriate. Matthew 21:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an idiot wouldn't get the joke. 203.206.1.226 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if a caveman can get it, no one on production will confirm the target was Sci-fi and as such it is not verifiable.. It is as simple as that! EnsRedShirt 13:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible to have something like the following in the trivia section:

'This episode was created/aired soon after the Sci Fi channel announced the cancellation of stargate SG-1[cite sci-fi.com?] Though no official source has confirmed it, many fans of the show believe certain dialogues to be a reference to this. [citation from a thread on a fan board?]'

I don't believe the above are any of my personal "opinions, experiences, or arguments." Also... has no one looked at the 200th episode page? I believe there is a awful lot of interpreting of words and scenes there with no official source confirming that they do in fact refer to that. (Applogies for not signing in, my name is Rob from UK.. just wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion.) 86.0.59.40 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that idea is good. --Zikar 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not because it doesn't resolve the problem at hand which is people putting words in the producers mouths that they are not saying. EnsRedShirt 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not. Saying that people think it means something is much different that actually saying it means something. --Zikar 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not because it doesn't resolve the problem at hand which is people putting words in the producers mouths that they are not saying.

Isn't that what people have done for the episode "200" as someone has already mentioned .For a lot of that article there is no attributable for most of the "in Jokes" and in some sections there is much interpreting of scenes giving as many as three explanations as to what the "in jokes" refer to.Can we now expect the "200" article to be cleared of any reference that is not backed up by sources or at the least of the multiple explanation for some scenes .After all isn't Wikipedia meant to have a consistent style across articles .Garda40 21:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is ridiculous. Any idiot who has followed the show to any degree can see that it is a dig at SciFi(Justifiable). Stargate SG1 has never referred to any "network of Planets" in any other episode so it was done intentionally. Why cant you state it as a possibility even......

Simply this is an Encyclopedia, not a fan site, in-jokes should be discussed on fan sites not here. 200 needs a clean up, I don't deny it, but its also a different situation, the producers have confirmed the jokes, and that it was meant as a gift to the fans. This is neither. EnsRedShirt 05:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question, True or False: Some fans think that the part we are talking about was an in-joke and dig and the producers? --Zikar 05:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, lots of people think lots of things, you have yet to prove why this is notable.. EnsRedShirt 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is anything notable? Because someone decided it is. At any rate, you and Matt are not the be all and end all of whether something is notable or not (no offence)...

Is there any way to get, someone to make this decision for us, as probably neither camp here is going to budge, you've obviously made up your minds for whatever reason... we're not going to change our views... so let's get a neutral 3rd party in? Especially considering the lock on the page will end tomorrow and the inevitable edit war that will ensue... although I will not be a part of that... I just feel the only way to settle this is to have someone else decide for us. --Zikar 06:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your absolutly right, I am not in charge of setting notability, I am just following the rules set out. If you really want we could take this to mediation, but frankly I think that would be rediculous. EnsRedShirt 09:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

200 needs a clean up, I don't deny it, but its also a different situation, the producers have confirmed the jokes, and that it was meant as a gift to the fans

No ,they haven't confirmed the jokes unless you mean in the general sense that there is jokes in the episode.Many individual jokes have no sources , indeed one joke in the article has three possible explanations! so you can't tell me that one has sources.

I agree with Zikar I think a neutral 3rd party is needed since you and Matt seem to have taken against any form of words .Garda40 20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree we need a third party who will prevent us from climbing some building as Spiderman. However, isn't there some middle ground we can reach. Maybe if someone made a separate posting on a less specific wiki website or an article on a blog and this wiki article could link to it? I just cant help but feel that leaving this out would be a mistake, it would be similar to leaving out the inside jokes in episode 200 (though producers said there are jokes they didnt specify exactly all the jokes, therefore the logic follows from here that they should also be taken out). It was a part of the show, we cannot deny it. If we don't post about the fact that they were talking about the network then we need to post why it was made irregardless. Who knows, maybe we're all wrong on this and they were actually lampooning some Canadian show which has a 'network of planets' but somehow i doubt it cause I'm canadian. thanks.

Your above comment states why we should not include the speculation "Who knows, maybe we're all wrong on this and they were actually lampooning some Canadian show which has a 'network of planets' but somehow i doubt it cause I'm canadian.", basically you're all just assuming that: a) It's a joke, b) It's aimed at Sci Fi and c) That non-NPOV, speculative, non-notable and weasel worded text is appropriate for Wikipedia. Matthew 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, now we're trying to add a bit about fans thinking it's a dig at Sci-Fi, which is true... try to keep up... --Zikar 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Matthew 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there that is applicable to this discussion. --Zikar 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read your message, "No, now we're trying to add a bit about fans thinking it's a dig at Sci-Fi, which is true". Fans think = original thought. Matthew 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know where you get that definition from, because it's not from that page. --Zikar 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its on another site, such as tv.com, does that help at all? http://www.tv.com/stargate-sg-1/family-ties/episode/868598/summary.html

Sorry but TV.com is user submitted (like Wikipedia!), we need a reliable secondary source (i.e. for example an official review from IGN would be verifiable..) Matthew 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's just no convincing you, your bias on this matter is beyond belief, do you work for Sci-Fi or something?--Zikar 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for him but I don't work for sci-fi just a fan of the show, and the fact of the matter is you are asking to put Original research, or non notable fan ideas on the site. It may belong on a stargate wiki, but not an encyclopedia. EnsRedShirt 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not. I'm just following the "rules", .. are you? Matthew 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many people need to comment on a fact before it is 'notable'? And Matt, you're twisting the rules to fit your own ends. The simple fact is nothing would ever satisfy you enough to have this included in the article, I don't know why that is, but I find it very irritating. --Zikar 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, a comment from someone involved in the show stating that it was a jab at the channel would be enough... provide that, and it will go in. thats all we're asking for... -Xornok 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know full well that wont happen until Sci-Fi stop funding their other shows... --Zikar 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and thus your fan-spec is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to vent your anger at the Sci Fi channel. Matthew 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't anything against Sci-Fi. --Zikar 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zikar, just give it up. They're not going to budge. Honestly this whole ordeal has given me such disdane for wikipedia now. I begin to wonder what relevance StarGate SG-1 has other more important thing and i realized that in a 'real' encyclopedia the Stargate page would only be about 2 paragraphs long, if it got any mention at all. So i guess having a half informative page with just a summary is better than having no page at all. Keep on keepin' on Matthew, good luck with this whole 'encyclopedia' thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.58.41.101 (talk) 06:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You took the words right out of my mouth anon... I've given up caring, you guys do what you want with the page. --Zikar 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR that's all that needed to be said to conclude this arguement. I'll be blunt and summarise, Zikar, you're in the wrong. Anon, stop the personal attacks. - Count23 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... how... about... no? --Zikar 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You opinion is irrelevent, you are in the wrong according to almost every ruleset and standard set by the Wikia foundation. IF you want your note to be added, find someone, a staff member, a writer, a producer, SOMEONE who can verify that the comments were a deliberate dig at the network. You can't put up an unverified statement, that's like changing the African Elephant page to say "The number of african elephants has tripled in the last 6 months". - Count23 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another option. If you reword what you originally stated, so it's much clearer and less specific on what the in joke is, as well as removing the weasel words that you had in the original statement. Along with putting ^{[citation needed]} after it, you can keep it up for a while and someone may be able to verify it for you. But you won't be able to keep it up forever. - Count23 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, anybody may still remove it as uncited. Matthew 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original person to add it I think it should obviously be included. To say its unverified...Well most of the article is unverified. Most of these bits of trivia in most articles are unverified.--Josquius 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no valid reason to add more speculation, if you see any tag it or remove it. Matthew 18:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is headed for a spot on "lamest edit wars", you guys need to stop arguing over this. - Count23 10:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, this is lamer then the Daedalus-class-Korelov-destruction "war" that happened last year... -Xornok 18:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys want a good reason to put the network joke back on? I came just a second ago to this very page looking for it, because I couldn't remember what it was. I saw the episode and laughed my ass off, but now can't remember it. I came to Wikipedia, confident that it would be here, but people are arguing over it... I don't get it. Just put it on. 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stargate SG-1 - 10x18.jpg

Image:Stargate SG-1 - 10x18.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]