Talk:Kick (TV series)

Examples of possible copyright violations

And so on throughout the section.

Fair use

Wikipedia's fair use guidelines state:

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems: "Under guidelines for non-free content, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted."
  • The section's use of reproduced (paraphrased and verbatim) copyrighted text would not qualify as brief, as it covers up to 100% of the SBS episode summaries' unique text.
  • The reproduced copyrighted text is not attributed (fully or otherwise).
  • The section's use does not comment on or criticise the text quoted - the section's purpose is identical to the SBS episode guide and does not contain commentary or critique.
• Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
  • The section's use does not illustrate points, establish context or attribute a point of view or idea.
  • The reproduced copyrighted text is not attributed in any instance, and is not used verbatim in all instances.
  • Alterations of the reproduced copyrighted text are not marked (clearly or otherwise).
  • The section's use would qualify as "extensive quotation", as it covers up to 100% of the SBS episode summaries' unique text and a significant proportion (perhaps even most) of the episode guide overall.

Options

• Replace the copyrighted text with a fully original episode guide/episode summaries. This option is preferable as it adheres to Wikipedia:Non-free content's goal of creating original new content and minimising licensed and fair-use material on Wikipedia.
• Obtain authorisation from SBS, in accordance with Alternatives to deletion and Using copyrighted work from others, to use the copyrighted text under GFDL provisions.
• Delete the copyrighted text.
• Register the article/section in Wikipedia:Copyright problems for further investigation.

(220.240.141.130 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Resolution

• Copyright violations deleted on 24 November 2007. (220.240.104.91 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion

No problem. I just continued what the person before me had done, which was using the official summaries on SBS' website. I did change some stuff and write my own summaries though. Changing the stuff that is copied verbatim from SBS' website so they are original summaries is not a problem for me and wouldn't mind doing it, but I'll be busy this week so it will have to wait a few days. Just don't delete it in the meantime and I'll fix it soon. Thanks. :) --Teehee11 06:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating original new content is ideal (paraphrasing would remain a copyright violation). I will try to write summaries for the episodes I still have, if I can find the time. (220.240.199.128 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The copyright violations have been deleted. Episode descriptions should ideally be written without any reference to the SBS website's episode summaries, however if those are to be used, all such use must strictly observe Wikipedia's fair use requirements. (220.240.104.91 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

06:23, 24 October 2007 Teehee11 (Talk | contribs) m (15,166 bytes) (Someone messed up the picture so it didn't fit properly on the page and sat over text. I'm putting it back where it was, leave it alone.)

I might sandbox that, although it displays on two systems with different monitors & resolutions without any of the problems you mentioned, so the issue may not be with the wiki-coding. Your friendly warning suggests you object to the simple fact that it was edited, which would be a separate matter.

On reflection, I actually don't think the image belongs in the article at all. It doesn't say anything about the show as a whole (e.g. a picture of the soccer team), about the main relationship between Miki & Joe, or even hint at the issues in Layla & Jackie's relationship and thus complement the episode description itself. I have to say that it feels like a gratuitous way of showing/publicising Chamoun and Trower, rather than a fitting inclusion - and I say that as an avowed fan of Chamoun.

Perhaps because of that, it's not something that I would have a problem with ;) However, if you do want that image to remain, please consider orienting it to the right of the table cell so that it doesn't disrupt the flow of article text, and please also reduce the dimensions so that it doesn't stretch the cell height so much.

You might also like to try to find an image that better illustrates the relationship between Layla & Jackie (e.g. them arguing or fencing) and/or adding other images that contribute to the article - particularly one would think a picture of Miki & Joe. (220.240.38.35 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The picture definitely "hints at issues in Layla & Jackie's relationship" because the driving force of their strain was Layla not being able to tell her family about what her relationship with Jackie really was. The picture is Jackie coming over to meet Layla's family. We could use a different picture but I see no compelling reason why the one currently there isn't good enough. As for including a picture of Miki and Joe instead, there is already a picture of Miki on the page because she is the star of the show. Layla & Jackie's storyline was the other major romance on the show and it paralleled Miki & Joe's as being shown on the screen from start to end (or, from start to real start!). I think a lot of people who didn't care about Miki/Joe were watching for Layla & Jackie. They were both major parts of the show. Layla and Jackie deserve to be there. And as for having any picture at all, if you visit show pages, i.e. South Park, they have images throughout the article to strengthen it. Wikipedia recommends using pictures in articles. Who wants to see a sea of text? There is no reason not to keep the picture.

As for the formatting, the picture doesn't fit on the right side and the picture was from episode 6, that's why it is where it is. Even if we did use a different picture, no picture will fit on the right unless we make it too small. I viewed the page with three different browsers and the picture did not affect the layout of the page adversely at all. You said yourself it looked fine on your system too. So what's the issue? It fits fine and it doesn't make the table any bigger than the text does on its own. On the other hand, whoever moved the picture formatted it completely wrong and it was sitting over text making the episode summaries unreadable. Plus, we have one picture on the right side of the page already. It looks better to put the second one on the left. I can put the picture on the right side of the text in the table, but to me that's like reading backwards and I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. It looks fine right now. Everyone is going to have different opinions about what pictures they like more. I see nothing beyond that presenting a compelling reason to change/erase the work that has already been put into the page.--Teehee11 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1). I disagree that the picture hints at issues in Layla & Jackie's relationship. Of course the episode does, but objectively what does that picture itself show? Nicole Chamoun in the foreground and a blurry Romi Trower in the background. Their expressions do not suggest any drama at all (which is unsurprising for a promotional image) and Layla's family is nowhere in the shot. But again it's not something I'm worked up about.

2). I suggested considering adding other images that contribute to the article. The relationship between Miki & Joe was obviously one of the central plots, so it is definitely strange to omit that but include Layla & Jackie - whether people "care about" Miki & Joe or not. Nicole Chamoun was virtually the only reason I watched the show, but even I won't pretend that she had anywhere near the screen-time or centrality as other characters. Also, it would obviously be fitting to include a soccer-themed image.

3). Re "And as for having any picture at all ...", I suggested considering adding images - and specifically adding other images that contribute to the article. As you (and I) noted, images are used to strengthen articles - hence my comments speaking to the value of the particular image. It is indeed appropriate to complement text with images, but the goal is to improve the article rather than decorate it. That means some images will be more appropriate than others and some will have more of a beneficial impact than others. Do I think there should be an image of Layla & Jackie? Yes (although I may be biased). Do I think there could be a better image than the existing one? Yes. Do I think there could(/should) also be other more appropriate and effective images, including central characters and plots? Yes. Is it an issue of who likes what picture better? No, it should be a discussion about what works for the article; which is the purpose of this page.

4). I should have been clearer about the formatting - I meant oriented to the right inside of the Episode 6 table cell (i.e. the opposite of its current left alignment) rather than outside of the table altogether. The basic top-bottom/left-right flow of the text wouldn't be disrupted that way, and the image should actually follow the text because the text introduces and gives it context rather than vice versa. The image has nothing to do with the first two dot points in the cell, but flows on naturally from the final point if placed to the right of the text. Also, I meant that the previous formatting showed fine, without overlapping any text. The current formatting roughly doubles the cell height on my system, creating a lot of blank white space, but hey that's computers - you'll never be able to test compatibility 100%.

5). Finally re "change/erase the work" (more generally), Wikipedia of course depends on the efforts of its contributors. It's probably one of the communal experiences to put a lot of hard work into an article then see much of it disappear in one revision - however, effort is not its own reward. The best editors focus on the article, remain objective and don't take things personally. (220.240.141.130 15:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

06:28, 24 October 2007 Teehee11 (Talk | contribs) m (15,180 bytes) (An e-mail is not a source that you cite. I didn't get it from some public record you can look up. It was a personal e-mail to me. I'm removing that "citation needed" thing. I will add SBS' e-mail addr)

Your statement [emphasis added] is absolutely correct. I don't doubt that you received an email from SBS stating the development of a second season, however no doubt you appreciate that email is an unsuitable reference - anyone could equally claim that they received an email saying there will be no second season, or that there will be 15 more seasons, or so on and so on. An email is not verifiable and therefore goes against an official policy of English Wikipedia. Thus it was necessary to revert your above edit.

Please do not remove the {{

Fact

}} tag unless you have provided a verifiable reference, are removing the claim entirely, or have changed Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability.

Personally, I'm not fussed about an article about a television show. However, there are plenty of Wikipedians that will settle for nothing less than the letter of the law - and not without good reasons. In the meantime, chill out and try not to take it too seriously ... it's just Wikipedia. (220.240.38.35 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

.

Please go to

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 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kick2.jpg

fair use

.

Please go to

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 07:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]