Talk:The Amazing Screw-On Head

message: Thanks for clearing it up! :) --Occono 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The pilot is available on YouTube in  three  parts . Not sure if it's on there legally or not so I don't want to add it directly to the article. Any guidance?
:Some guidance:
:*Sign your posts.
:*Your instincts are correct.  The videos you linked have since been removed due to "terms of use violation", which probably means it was illegal and the admins caught it.  SciFi is the broadcaster of record, it should be sufficient to link to their site for the show even thought the show can no longer be seen there.  User-submitted video sites are similar to fansites: they're not terribly objective or complete, often inaccurate or unverifiable, and their legal status is sometimes questionable.  Best to stick with official sites and video sources. Canonblack 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilot on YouTube 

message: I seem to recall in the pilot that Lincoln signed the Homestead Act largely in order so that Screw-On Head would be able to counter supernatural threats, but I can't remember the specifics. Anyone else? -- Supermorff 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As best as I can remember, Screw-on Head reports that Gung mentions that there may be other threats, not limited to "East of the Mississippi." Lincoln responds that they can't make any covert move, because if the Confederates found out about their plans, they would "Dog them at every turn." Head says something about being decisive, and then suggests "Spurring westward expansion" as a cover for their investigation. Please note that it's been a while since I saw the pilot, so my memory is extremely sketchy, and probably wrong on a few points. But the "Spurring westward expansion" line I'm pretty sure about. Kalo 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. I just remember that I found the reveal very amusing because of the build-up, even though I didn't know exactly what the Homestead Act was at the time. I've since looked it up, though. Worth mentioning in the article? -- Supermorff 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'd have to say no. It's just a little bit at the end. It's not worth mentioning, but I don't oppose adding it to the article. Kalo 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it then. Anyone checking the talk page will find out, and if it becomes important for an ongoing series we can add it later. -- Supermorff 09:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If/when the series gets produced further than a single pilot, the idea of adding it is worth revisiting. Kalo 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homestead Act 

message: If the (television) series does get the green light, it might be advisable to split this article into two articles, one for the comic and one for the series. Just thinking ahead. Kalo 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably depends on how much information the series produces for the article. If it's as much as the pilot or less, then this one article is enough I think. Even if it's more, the comic information doesn't occupy too much space anyway. Might be worth waiting to see what turns up, unless you feel like discussing potential article names. -- Supermorff 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we should keep them both here. If greenlighted, only the TV series will create more material to the story and then we'll just have more information about the TV series in this article, and the original story will be fine with its own section. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future article splitting? 

message: Anyone knows whether this might end up a series or not?  It was damn funny.--Mobius Soul 00:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering that too. It's been a while since the survey was closed... ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any news?

message: :Image:Screwballhead.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Screwballhead.JPG