Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Converting tables to template

I found this template that is used in episode list pages. Does anyone have strong feelings about converting this page from its current table format to this template format? Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I considred converting it to that template and putting the screencaps back in as the consensus is that there not decoration et cetera, but i am paranoid. If you'd like to do the conversion and need some help, give me a nudge :).--User:MatthewFenton - 15:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion about episode screenshots is basically dead, and resulted in no consensus, so as far as I'm concerned we can put them back in. What does everyone else think? Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should put them back in.. the discussion was unlikely to ever succeed at removing them either way. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me :D -- Ned Scott 15:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have made a temp page with this that we can work on: List of Lost episodes/Temp. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've moved it to: Talk:List of Lost episodes/Temp as sub-pages are diabled in main space. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
So as you guys have seen, I played a little with this idea last night. It looks different, I don't think it's necessarily better though. -- Wikipedical 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The table its self may not look any better but in the long run i think using the templated system is better, less maintenance etc, easier to work with et cetera. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
They're practically identical. I don't think that we'll get any complaints if we implement the template. Plus the template is A LOT easier to maintain. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Just finished the Season 1 part. -- Wikipedical 16:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I completed the rest of season 2. You can view the page here. Some of the episode images were deleted since they were not used in the namespace for a while. I uploaded new DVD covers (which were deleted). I figure we can get the rest of the episode screens later. I don't have the season 2 DVD so I can't take caps, but if somebody does go ahead. Does this look okay to publish? Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Implemented it now, we can discuss reverting images if need be, but- editors, please do not revert the new version with the template itself. -- Wikipedical 23:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

An editor today removed removed all screencaps and per the consensus here i have restored it, they should reach a consensus first before going against an article consensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the screenshots, because the broader discussion, which was started as an attempt to avoid revert warring at the article level, is still ongoing. The discussion stagnating for a while is not an expression of anything. Do not readd the images until a consensus is reached. --bainer (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We've reached a consensus here, your one man consensus is not a consensus. Also that conversation is practicly clinging to life, it ahs surpassed stagnated. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We have been discussing screenshots for about four months now, and have not reached a consensus. You may remove the images if you can prove that they violate policy. So far that has not been proven. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Just remember to adjust the table headers when you add or remove the |Image= parameter. When it's removed the image column will be gone and the episode number will move from the right hand side to the left. -- Ned Scott 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the page was last protected for the addition of these images. In the case of copyright disputes it is up to you to show the images are usable, not the other way round. ed g2s • talk 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please dont just revert to outdated revisions, merge all new info first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Matthew et al, you're just going to end up having Ed (et al) protect the page, again, to prevent the reinsertion of these images, again. Waging this as an edit war is pointless. You're going to have to find another way. I'm fairly neutral, myself, on this topic of images and fair use with respect to Lost, but I can see that this approach is not exhibiting any learning behavior from the last two or three times this played out. -- PKtm 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
On the contary, Ed is at the moment merging updated info, you will also notice i did not revert him earlier.
[16:13] <ed_g2s> on it
[16:13] <MatthewFentonAFK> Thanks :)
There is nothing wrong requesting the reverter to merge in new info first. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have been unclear: I was not referring to your recommendation to merge updated info, but instead to the whole act of yet again restoring the screencaps, which you (and others) are participating in, yet again. That should have been clear from the thrust of my comments about reinsertion. -- PKtm 15:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This attitude of "no one's discussed this for a while, let's stick them back in while no one's looking" is not going to get you guys any further than it did last time. ed g2s • talk 15:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like, you were unable to show a consensus that agreed that the screen shots failed WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We've been going back and forth for four months and there's still not a consensus that images cannot be included in these articles. Once that consensus is gained I will be happy to have these images removed. As I've stated before, when there is no consensus the status quo always stands. In this case the version with images is the status quo. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I used this page extensively whilst watching the first two series of Lost, and thought the screen captures made it a lot easier to navigate through. Looking through the talk page here I can't believe how much hot air has been expended over something so trivial - perhaps if the people who can't bear to not get things their own way (and this is aimed at no-one in particular) spent that time doing something useful such as *improving* articles as opposed to getting involved in holy wars, things would be much better. doktorrob™ 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since some users are refusing to discuss these changes and instead are starting another edit war, I'll get the ball rolling. There haven't been any edits to the fair use amendment discussion in almost a month. That leads me to believe the amendment has failed. So what is being done to resolve this issue? Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The amendment is to clarify what is already policy. Whether or not is eventually put in is irrelevant to whether or not these images are allowed. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we all need to find some common ground for a compromise. Now we all know that ed and thebainer disagree with the layout including the screenshots. That's fine everyone is entitled to their opinion but instead of edit warring, everyone on BOTH sides should come out and help resolve this issue. Fighting and edit warring doesn't get us anywhere since we still haven't come up with a solution whether season pages or individual pages should exist. The reason why this conversation faded because there was a LACK of interest since it was getting very tedious since only two people were opposed to screenshots while the majority of the speakers were for. Sfufan2005 20:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider a compromise? The way I see it we either have screenshots or we don't. There isn't much of a middle ground here. I fully agree with the edit warring. Ed and thebrainer have both made it clear that they are more interested in edit warring than resolving this issue. It's something I don't want to be involved in, which is why I posted comments on their talk pages asking them to discuss rather than revert. Of course if someone puts the screenshots back in they'll revert regardless of the discussion, and none of us who want screenshots want an edit war, so we won't revert, and so they will get their way. This is a very flawed way of taking care of things. My bottom line is this: The FUC doesn't explicity say that screenshots are forbidden in lists, so they are allowed. One person's interpretation does not trump another's, however precedent has shown that screenshots in lists are acceptable because lists with screenshots have become featured lists. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
As I've said many times at the fair use images in lists discussion, what would be acceptable as a resolution would be expanding the text accompanying each image. At the moment it's simply one or two sentences of teaser-style summary; to properly found a fair use claim on the image, the text would need to refer to the image and offer some kind of commentary on the episode. It would need to establish why that particular image is being used.
Regarding certain featured lists with images in them, see this discussion. In those FLC debates, the participants left the issue of images aside because they weren't knowledgeable enough on the subject, the successful candicacy of those lists is not precedent for including images. --bainer (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Great, we're finally making progress here. Can you provide an example of what you would consider sufficient commentary to include an image? Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note that i'm still available to redo season 1 and most of season 2 but i wont be doing it till the dust has settled and theres a cossensus. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's an example of what I think would be sufficient:

27"Orientation"Locke5 October, 2005203
Jack and Locke discover the purpose of the hatch. Michael, Sawyer, and Jin are held captive by people they believe to be "The Others". At left is a frame from the "Orientation" film, shown to Jack and Locke by Desmond, which establishes the purpose of the facility beneath the hatch, and introduces DHARMA, the organisation which established it. The film is the centrepiece of the episode, and establishes key plotlines which run throughout the second season.

The paragraph identifies the importance of the image: it explains why that image was picked to represent the episode, and hopefully it does so in a way which doesn't give too much away. Note that this image is obviously the perfect one from the episode to use, and to get the other summaries up to sufficient standard different images may have to be used. --bainer (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me. The only part I would omit is "The film is the centrepiece of the episode, and establishes key plotlines which run throughout the second season." That sounds too vague. Instead we could say, The film introduces the idea of "pushing the button" to the survivors, which becomes a routine part of their lives." Jtrost (T | C | #) 15:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Image size

The article should have a standard screenshot size. Widescreen works best I think, and we should replace the older fullscreen shots. -- Wikipedical 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean you want the images replacing with this type of screencap or something else as i can do the whole of S1 like that from the DVD today if you would like? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. If you could replace existing images with new ones of that size, that would be excellent. It would also be really helpful if you could take the same shots, just using the widescreen format. Thanks a lot. -- Wikipedical 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Episodes needing better screen shots

To help strengthen our fair use argument for identification of episodes / relation to episodes in screen shots I think we need to evaluate and replace some of the existing images. I'll start a list of episodes that could use better screen shots. Feel free to also add comments and suggestions to each image on the list. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • As I said above in "image size," if someone will replace these images, please replace them with widescreen HD images. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Instructions Info

I'm adding this to every page where info on the second episode, Further Instructions, has been added. ABCMediaNet released pictures yesterday of Further Instructions, a few guest stars are seen in Locke's flashback pictures. I didn't add Locke as the flashback character though, because I know someone will say it's original research to assume that Locke isn't driving a truck in the jungle on the island and having a picnic with characters we've never seen before, and has hair. But whatever. ABC confirmed it, and I'm just verifying. ShadowUltra 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exodus: Part 3 and Live Together, Die Alone Part 2

While they were seperated into these parts internationally, they are not official episodes. Based on the official source (ABC website), can we please create a consensus that Exodus: Part 3 and Live Together, Die Alone Part 2 are not to be listed here? -- Wikipedical 02:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I like them separated because I believe that each hour (approx. with commercials) deserves the right of its own identity. I can see your point, though. --154.20.217.225 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wikipedical, although I did raise this point some time ago and no one seemed to agree with me... Tomcage9 22:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think there's no question that they should exist as full two-hour episodes - international broadcasts are irrelevant due to the fact they ORIGINALLY aired in American as full episodes. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this has reared its ugly head again. Do two hour episodes count as two episodes or one for numbering purposes? I'd say just one, but it would be nice to get consensus. What makes things even more confusing is that the two hour finale of season one is listed as two episodes, while the two hour finale of the second season is listed as one. For reference, the episode list on ABC.com lists each as one episode, did they refer to Exodus as more than one elsewhere? Has this been debated beyond what is here? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We have debated this, check the archives. We are using the ABC site as official. Exodus was three and Live Together, Die Alone was two episodes in other countries, and the articles state that. -- Wikipedical 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't you take the U.S. DVD release as most reliable source ? Yeah, several "parts" can originally be aired in the U.S.A. as a whole episode but does it imply that they can't be aired in "separate" parts for repeat broadcasts. On amazon.com, for the season 1, the DVD seems to list the "pilot" in 2 parts and the final in 2 parts as well.
Sorry, I forgot my signature Clodomir17 09:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think wikipedical's comment was a little confusing. The DVD version is the same as what the ABC website says. The current version of this page seems to be consistent with both of those. Basically, an episode shown as a two hour episode (in one night) counts as one episode - one opening credits, one closing credits. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

We have not reached an agreement on the images. I would consider this as No Consensus or "innocent until proven guilty" in which case the images stay until decided otherwise. For example, when a page is nominated for deletion, the page isn't hidden or deleted until the AfD is over and the result is Keep and then it is reopened to the public. Instead, the page remains up until the result is Delete. Also, can we at least be consistent? If keeping the images up is too much to ask, can we hide all not-fair use images on Wikipedia episode lists until a consensus is reached? --154.20.217.225 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not innocent until proven guilty with copyright issues. It's up to you to demonstrate the images are usable. ed g2s • talk 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, how about hiding all of the images on other episode lists? --154.20.217.225 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The images meet fair use requirements, so there aren't any copyright issues. The policy they butt up against is overuse of non-free images in wikipedia. There is no consensus that they are an overuse and they fit the list of episodes template so we should put them back. - Peregrinefisher 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Err, {{Episode list}} was made to accommodate BOTH screen shot and non-screen shot lists. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we should add pictures. --The monkeyhate 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Season Three Episode Confusion

What is happening with the episode orders and changes getting reverted. The first five episodes of Lost Season 3 that I know of is Tale of 2 cities, further instructions, the glass ballarina, Every Man For Himself and The Cost of Living. Does anyone have a Definite list of the first five lost episodes. I'm 100% sure those are the names for the first five episodes but I'm not entirely sure of the order. --Lakeyboy 09:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Only three episodes have been officially confirmed. They are;
  • 301. A Tale of Two Cities (Jack)
  • 302. The Glass Ballerina (Sun)
  • 303. Further Instructions (Locke)

Until yesterday, 302 and 303 were the other way round. Episodes 4 and 5 have not been officially confirmed (though other sources claim 304. Every Man for Himself (Sawyer) and 305. The Cost of Living (Eko). Squidward2602 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured List nomination

I have nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status. As with the, now featured, main Lost article, I think we really have collaborated and upped the quality of this list. Previous attempt failed due to image problem, but in our current state without images, we have no fair use issue. The link for the nomination can be found here. Great work guys. -- Wikipedical 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to review or participate in the discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. --Elonka 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistency in article titling

I'd like to try and address the issue of how to title individual article episodes. We have some that end with "(Lost)", some that have no suffix, and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, it's recommended that they end with "(Lost episode)". According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), the general guideline is to only include a suffix on an article title when it's actually needed for disambiguation (meaning that there's already another article under the same title as the episode). However, some shows, most notably Star Trek, routinely put a suffix after each title. See Category:Star Trek episodes. My own recommendation is that we come up with a consistent method. Based on the episodes that are already in Category:Lost episodes, it seems like the majority need disambiguation tags anyway, so it would make sense for the rest to be moved to titles that make them consistent. I like the idea of requiring all articles to end with "(Lost episode)", which would be similar to the Star Trek method, but using "(Lost)" makes sense too. What do other editors think? --Elonka 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(Lost) is too vague: in the context of the television series, it could equally be used for a character, fictional company, etc., and as Lost is a disambig. page, I don't think that (Lost) is sufficiently clear. So, I think (Lost Episode) is best. -- Jon Dowland

Images

I've uploaded the following screenshots:

Image:1x01.jpg, Image:1x02.jpg, Image:1x03.jpg, Image:1x04.jpg, Image:1x05.jpg, Image:1x06.jpg, Image:1x07.jpg, Image:1x08.jpg, Image:1x09.jpg, Image:1x10.jpg, Image:1x11.jpg, Image:1x12.jpg, Image:1x13.jpg, Image:1x14.jpg, Image:1x15.jpg, Image:1x16.jpg, Image:1x17.jpg, Image:1x18.jpg, Image:1x19.jpg, Image:1x20.jpg, Image:1x21.jpg, Image:1x22.jpg, Image:1x23.jpg, Image:1x24.jpg, Image:1x25.jpg, Image:2x01.jpg, Image:2x02.jpg, Image:2x03.jpg, Image:2x04.jpg, Image:2x05.jpg, Image:2x06.jpg, Image:2x07.jpg, Image:2x08.jpg, Image:2x09.jpg, Image:2x10.jpg, Image:2x11.jpg, Image:2x12.jpg, Image:2x13.jpg, Image:2x14.jpg, Image:2x15.jpg, Image:2x16.jpg, Image:2x17.jpg, Image:2x18.jpg, Image:2x19.jpg, Image:2x20.jpg, Image:2x21.jpg, Image:2x22.jpg, Image:2x23.jpg, Image:2x24.jpg, Image:3x01.jpg, Image:3x02.jpg & Image:3x03.jpg

I think that these images are the best possible images for every episode (the closest we can ever have to providing critical commentary. I suggest that we use them. Comments? --theDemonHog 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: I accidentally switched episodes 1x20 and 1x21, i.e. Image:1x21 links to Do No Harm.)

Hate to say it but theres to much mixture there, dvd caps, promos, tv caps, we need to ahve them all the same (DVDCaps, all the same resolution, etc) - I've volunterd to do season one but i'm not willing until the list is settled as i have a near perfect upload log which i dont want 24 red links in. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all of them are screencaps with the exceptions of Image:1x01.jpg, Image:1x13.jpg, Image:2x20.jpg and Image:3x03.jpg, which are promotional photos. --theDemonHog 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There still DOGd, and not WebRes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but what does "DOGd" mean? (and they're all tv caps) --theDemonHog 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
See DOG. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Production Codes

ABC's website shows the producion codes for Pilot: Part 1 and Pilot: Part 2 to be 100a and 100b respectively. Then with Tabula Rasa as 101 and Walkabout as 102, etc. Should this page be changed to match? DocNox 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Does no one have an opinion on this? I definitely remember hearing that the Pilot was originally meant to be aired as one two-hour long episode, but it was ABC that decided to split it in two. Therefore it makes sense to me that both parts would have the same production code. If no one objects I'm going to change it. I think ABC's a little more official than TV.com - DocNox 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should change it. ABC is the only source that we should ever consult regarding production codes according to the Lost policy. The page should reflect that. --Kahlfin 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also wonderin about something regarding the production codes listed here. According to the article, episode #49 is production code 303 and episode #50 is production code 302. Before that, it is in sequential order. Why are they reversed here? NorthernThunder 11:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally, Further Instructions was set to air before The Glass Ballerina. --theDemonHog 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

ABC updated its website last night, I instated the new production codes. It is 101 and 102, not 100a and 100b. We will see what they say for the Glass Balerina when it is updated on Oct. 12th. -- Wikipedical 22:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, I don't agree with this at all. Those codes make absolutely no sense. I don't care that it's on ABC, they're wrong. I mean, 1010? That would mean that it's Season 10 Episode 10. And I definitely seem to remember one of the producers on the DVD commentary for season 1 say that the codes didn't match up with the episode numbers, which with the old ones was true. And if you watch the Anatomy of an Episode: Fire + Water on the season 2 DVD it shows the episode as 212, not 2012. I really think we should change it back. Or at the very least take out those extra zeros. -- DocNox 23:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For someone who first said "I think ABC's a little more official than TV.com" and now to say "I don't care that it's on ABC," I don't see where you're going with this. As per your original statement, we should use what ABC.com, an official verifiable source, lists. -- Wikipedical 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
My point with that comment was more that TV.com should never have been used as a source in the first place, not that ABC's absolutely always right. I mean, they're either wrong now or they were wrong then, showing their fallibility, because production codes don't change. And I definitely think they're wrong now. But if no one agrees with me I'm not going to change it, just stating my opinion. -- DocNox 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I took out the extra zeros in the production codes since ABCs website lists the episodes without them if you click to "read more" on the episode page, as you can see here. They also have the codes for "Further Instructions" and "Glass Ballerina" switched. -- DocNox 04:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since we are citing the main episode guide page, I think it's appropriate to use what we're given. If they 'correct' them in the future, we will change it then. But until then, let's just leave it. -- Wikipedical 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

What is the hold up? Why are there still no illustrations on this page? Most other episode lists have pics. Pinkyetti 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Im currently uploading screenshots for the 1st season. I can also also upload screenshots for season 3, but im affraid season 2 I can still get but not sure about the copyright information for season 2. Samaster1991 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be exceptionally silly to upload anymore images at present.. they'd just be orphaned at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well hopefully it gets done soon because it would be awesome. --129.198.241.67 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Seasons

I support this list's promotion to featured status. However, I noticed that two other featured episode lists—List of South Park episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes—incorporate their season lists into the table of contents (TOC). Maybe this should be done here as well. --Cliff smith 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The replaced TOCs are extremely confusing. It is not, for example, immediately obvious the the numbers are section links. It is much better to have a standard TOC and a season summary. In fact, breaking the TOC is an extremely bad idea, and I'm going to change those pages. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, leaving a standard TOC makes things much easier. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Promoting to featured list

The recent FLC garnered some strong comments about what is good and bad about this article. Unfortunately, the editors who opposed this nomination didn't give many concrete examples of how they would change some of the content of this page, so we pretty much have to figure that out for ourselves. Although I think the FLC failed because many editors are opposed to the idea of a List of episodes articles as a featured list, there are some things that we can do to improve this article and have another go at FLC:

  1. Featured Character is an ambiguous term for someone who doesn't watch the show. I realize there are problems with "Flashback character" because of crossovers, so how can we make it clear that the featured character is featured via a flashback? Should the title of the column be changed, or should we explain this in the lead?
  2. The featured character also isn't prominently mentioned in the teaser for each episode. Perhaps we can fix this by having 1-2 sentences about the island story, and then a sentence about the flashback.
  3. The references should be fixed so they're not all in caps. All press releases are released in all capital letters, but I cannot find many featured articles that reference them that way. It really is a frivolouss thing to argue about, anyway.
  4. There are many one sentence paragraphs. Let's fix that by making the prose at the top of each section one, larger paragraph.
  5. One editor mentioned that summarizing each episode in a few sentences is original research. I do see the point there, but in my opinion stating that means taking a very extreme view of the original research policy. Perhaps we can solve this by citing the ABC summary, and synthesizing some of the more important points from there.
  6. The recurring complaint is that this list is not encyclopedic. That's a broad statement to make and unfortunately no one explain exactly how this article is not encyclopedic, so are there any ideas on how to make it more encyclopedic?

These are the things that came out of the FLC that I think we can fix. I'd like to hear everyoneelse's thoughts too. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, well done Jtrost for summarizing the FLC. For right now, I'm just looking at citations. I'm going to uncapitalize the press releases. Question though: the norm on this page has been to only have Press Releases as citations for future episodes. Do we want to cite Press Releases for every episode? -- Wikipedical 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If ABC keeps all press releases on the Medianet website, then why not? It certainly won't hurt. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I had posted this to WT:LOST, but the comment is better at home here:

The list wasn't able to receive featured status, it seems. I believe the main concern was stability, and that in a few weeks we could reasonably re-submit the list as a candidate after more episodes have aired, to show if stability is an issue or not. Another user took concern with how the summaries were written up, but to be honest I don't think that's a major issue. The summaries we use are for episode identification on a list, as opposed to being a summary of the over-all series. However, they also pointed out that the whole "featured character" bit might be confusing, so we might just want to add a small section or a couple of sentences explaining what the featured character is (the flashback).
So yeah, wait a few weeks, show that it's stable, and the list shouldn't have a problem getting that featured list status. It might also be good to show us exploring other improvements, so we can honestly say it's the best of the best.

To reply to the things Jtrost outlined: I don't think the concerns about the shortness of the episode summaries or the unencylopedic comments are really valid concerns, especially considering other FLs use the same style (List of South Park episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes). I also don't think it's necessary to mention the featured character, since as I pointed out, the summaries are mostly about "current" events in the episode. However, I would not object to adding info about the featured character and it would be a good addition.

I really think this was more about the stability concern than anything, and that once some time has gone by the list will be a shoe-in. -- Ned Scott 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Jon

The episode articles if more then 1 or 2. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting comments for Lost episodes

Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Lost episode articles. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is related to the above note, and newcomers to the discussion should go to the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions directly instead of the Lost talk page. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Season colors

I don't necessarily disagree with DARKDAYS' color changes. I mean, the really faded ones we have now are not as pleasing as the brighter colors. Thoughts? -- Wikipedical 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the brighter colors as well. They're also in keeping with the season DVD box colors, it seems to me. -- PKtm 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The colors need to compliment the Wikipedia colors. The original colors do just that, while the new colors clash with the Wikipedia colors. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The new colours are way to bright.. theres a list of optimal colours here. Deus (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the general theme on list of episode articles is to use a color from the DVD. Cburnett 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was all moved. -- nae'blis 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason - From this guildline page "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name" and by "Disambiguation in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects is the process of resolving ambiguity" (from WP:D). all lost episodes currently follow these existing guildlines except for these three.

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support, per WP:NC-TV and the discussion there. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - per guidelines. Nothing makes lost more special than any other TV series, especially when the rest of the lost episodes already follow naming conventions. --`/aksha 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; however, if there is substantial objection I see no harm in delaying this, particularly if we're going to seek mediation here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Count me as someone with a "substantial objection". The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject. Further, the majority of articles in the series already have suffixes anyway, so it makes sense to have suffixes on the remaining minority of articles, to keep everything consistent. --Elonka 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose — Why would we go against a consensus and make the articles un-unified? There is a consensus to append a suffix to Lost articles, pending any consensus to remove the suffix it remains. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 11:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Please point out where this consensus has been established; I have so far been unable to find it. (Radiant) 11:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: Per my 20 zillion words above. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:NAME and WP:DAB. --Serge 16:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The reasons given for an exception to the guideline aren't convincing to me. --Brian Olsen 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all of my previous comments (somewhere in the archives by now, I imagine). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support No reason has been presented that these articles should have an exception. The numerous reasons why editors want exceptions aren't relevant. Jay32183 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of previous discussions on this page regarding a subset of Wikipedia articles, WP:D is a product of consensus applicable to all Wikipedia articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Preemptive disambiguation continues to be a Bad Idea. Nohat 05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support per naming discussions at Naming conventions. -- Wikipedical 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - consensus has been reached here to disambiguate only when necessary. Lost does not merit an exception to the guideline. -Anþony 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support - By my count, only about 60% of Lost article names need disambiguation, so I'm not sold on "might as well DAB them all". And after all this discussion, still nobody has given a reason why Lost is different than any other show (or any other article) and should be disambiguated. I'm also not convinced that a wikiproject has the authority to usurp guidelines that are wikipedia-wide. Lost is a perfect example of why throwing out the naming convention and letting each show decide individually is a terrible idea - instead of finishing this debate and having a final decision and being done, we can have this same discussion repeated for every single individual TV show. So at what point can we move these last three Lost episodes? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The articles are listed at Request Moves...which is like...handles moves the way the AfD process handles deletions. I believe this will be open for 5 to 7 days (when it'll be listed at WP:RM), and i'd assume an admin will come at the end and 'close' it by performing the nessasary moves. (Discussions for Requset Moves normally happen on the talk page of the articles involved, but given the recent and ongoing RfC here, i thought it was more appropriate to have the discussion/survey here.) --`/aksha 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as per my recent posts on these discussions - Folx seem to disagree over whether the guideline is set in stone, and I don't really know the answer to that. If the guidelines for naming conventions are not set in stone, then there is room for exceptions, and since over half of lost articles are already dab'd, then we should go ahead and do the rest - I have heard this described as a "foolish consistency", but I don't see how something that enhances predictibility for editors and increases the likelihood that readers will have good links to use is "foolish". If only 4 or 5 or 10 episodes need dab-ing, I might not feel so strongly about this particular show (although, in general, I do believe that editors and readers would benefit from a consistent system of dab for ALL tv shows/episodes), but over half? No way. If these naming conventions for tv guidelines are set in stone, then those of us who think it is problematic should try to get the guideline itself changed to something more consistent/reasonable/flexible/whatever. Riverbend 20:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • From WP:POLICY: "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." There is no disagreement over that. We do tend to believe that the guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. It is the general consensus that "most Lost episodes need dab tags anyway" is not a good reason. -Anþony 02:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Anþony. We should also mention that if redirects are created, link creation will be just as easy: the decision for each episode only needs to be made once. Editors who don't want to remember whether a certain episode title is dabbed or not can use the dabbed form as long as it exists as a redirect to the article. Redirects are cheap and easy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Support don't relexively disambiguate. Rich Farmbrough, 14:00 24 November 2006 (GMT).

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • I wish to point out that "we should keep it the way it is for convenience" is not a valid argument if someone can be found willing to make the change. I note that Elonka and Ned Scott dissent over whether this issue was discussed on WP:LOST. I've found a debate on its "guidelines" page that involves several editors also active here, and does not seem to have the claimed consensus to "always use suffixes". So I would say that yes, it was discussed, but no, it was not concluded. If I'm missing something here, please give me a link. (Radiant) 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It has been what, six days now? How do these get closed? Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hearts and Minds

Some have changed the flashback in Hearts and Minds from both Shannon and Boone to just Boone. I don't see any justification for that since both appear equally in the flashbacks. Has this been discussed already, and if so is there a general consensus how flashbacks of "couples" is handled? I assume Rose and Bernard, and Jin and Sun would be handled similarly. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"...In Translation" is a Jin episode, although Sun appears in Jin's flashbacks; "House of the Rising Sun" is a Sun episode, although Jin appears in her flashbacks; "Adrift" is a Michael episode, although Walt appears in his flashbacks; "Hearts and Minds" is a Boone episode, although Shannon appears in his flashbacks.
"Special" is a Michael and Walt episode because each character has flashbacks in which the other isn't present; "...And Found" and "The Glass Ballerina are Sun and Jin episodes because each character has flashbacks in which the other isn't present.
On the island, the real, non-hallucinated Shannon hardly appears at all. "Hearts and Minds" focuses on Boone, all of the flashbacks are from his point of view, every island scene entering or leaving a flashback features Boone and never Shannon, Shannon isn't in any of the flashbacks without Boone but he is in a number without her. Jon Hart 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree after watching "Hearts & Minds" the episode is about Boone trying to help Shannon which is the reason why he flew to Australia. The key word is Shannon "appeared" in the flashbacks it was not in her POV. Jin & Sun episodes are also confusing since "In Translation" is clearly just about Jin but "House of the Rising Sun" and "The Whole Truth" are all about Sun. The centric episodes Jin & Sun share together are "The Glass Ballerina" and "...And Found" as Jon Hart brought up. Rose & Bernard both shared the episode since all of their scenes were together and did not focus on a separate character, it was the couple as a whole. Shannon's only flashback episodes in my opinion are "Exodus, Part I" and "Abandoned". Sfufan2005 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Hearts and Minds" is a crucial episode for shannon's pre-island story!! though jin and sun have episodes individually centred, this is a both boone and shannon episode! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozas (talk • contribs)

Please don't revert war over this. I agree with what Jon said - while Shannon appears in the flashback, they definitely seem to be Boone centric. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Flashback characters

I notice a lot of little reverts go on about who is the "most" featured flashback character for a certain episode. Although, it is pretty clear in some that some episodes is more about one character than the other, wouldn't it be just easier to say "Flashback characters" and list both? The fact of the matter is that the interaction between the two characters (such as Boone and Shannon, or Jin and Sun) is just as important as which character is being focused on. Although they are separate characters, one could fairly see them being used as a single element in those contexts. (Of course, we wouldn't want to include cases where one character walks past in the background of another character's flashback) I don't see the big benefit of isolating one character from their usual "pair" when there wouldn't really be a story if both were not involved. Lets look at it this way, is this the flashback event seen by X character's eyes, and we list X character, or is this a flashback that tells us the history of some characters, even if it focuses more on one than the other? -- Ned Scott 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, "Adrift" would be considered a Michael [i]and[/i] Walt episode even though he didn't appear in the island segments at all and he was like a year old in the flashback, and Boone would be credited for flashbacks in "Exodus" and "Abandoned," despite being dead at the time. After all, there would be no stories in those episodes if Michael and Boone weren't involved. Jon Hart 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the basic idea, yes, and I see no problem with that. The whole point of the flashback parts of the episode is to give background information, and listing who's background information is given is the point of listing the characters here. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to be attached with the "old way". I think this would also help us out in the next Featured list candidacy, since it was brought up that the whole "featured character" part of the list seemed confusing to readers who hadn't seen Lost. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Confusing how? It seems to me it would be more confusing to claim Boone has a flashback in an episode in which he is dead. Jon Hart 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we're saying Boone (or anyone) is actually having the flashback. There are times when it is obvious that the character is thinking about the moments we see in the flashbacks, but there are other times when the flashbacks just seem to happen as general information. In other words, us as editors really shouldn't be coming to that conclusion for the reader, but just state that's going on. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists

Seven days ago I added a motion to dismiss the proposed amendment for fair use images in lists (Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists#Move to dismiss) - The message also included restoring the screen captures on this LOE. If anyone has anything to say then please do so at the page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A motion? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As much as I would like to include the screen shots, I don't think just sneaking them in like this, because the discussion died down, is a good idea. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Ned knows exactly what I am talking about :-) - and it's hardly "sneaking" them in messages have been left here and there. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea. It's the best chance we have to ever getting them back. --thedemonhog 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Except the part where it doesn't work. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. --theDemonHog 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Lost_episodes/Archive_3&oldid=1136363644"