Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Lost episodes[edit]

Note: nomination extended until Friday, 2006-10-13. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meets all Featured List guidelines- accurate, well cited, comprehensive, useful. Unlike the state of the previous submission, currently there are no images so there is no question of fair use or copyright violation. Overall, the list is very well organized and well constructed. This list exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. -- Wikipedical 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support as nominator. -- Wikipedical 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nom. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Very stable, well designed list with informative information. SergeantBolt (t,c) 00:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sfufan2005 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Highly informative, well designed, easy to locate information.PaulLev 06:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I cannot support my favourite TV show's episode list because of the lack of pictures. (And yes, I have heard the full discussion.) --theDemonHog 17:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've stated that you are aware of the whole image discussion, you should understand that you are creating a catch-22: you object because there are no pictures, but when there are pictures people object because there are copyright violations. According to WP:WIAFL, featured lists do not require pictures. Just a few thoughts. -- Wikipedical 20:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he might be basically saying that as it is now it doesn't strike as something special, but images would be one way to achieve being an example of "Wikipedia's very best work" and be more useful. Granted that is, to put it simply, not fair at all, but it is what it is. I myself am still undecided on the matter. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to add pictures have been constantly reverted by a few editors who have agendas and want to start edit wars. For that reason we just don't add pictures anymore. It's not worth it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current state of the general discussion I think it would be preferable to promote lists of this type without screenshots. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The summary of episode 11 says, "After Charlie and Claire are kidnapped, the survivors set out in search of them. However, they unexpectedly find something else." To me that doesn't seem to adequately summarize the episode, unless the unexpected finding was the end of the episode and it isn't revealed to the audience. I have never seen the episode, but I assume you were trying to avoid spoilers, but in this case it's causing you to ignore everything that happened after a particular act break. This may have happened with the other episodes as well, but this one just seems obvious that something is missing, and reads too much like an advertisement to encourage people to watch the episode. Jay32183 21:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - that kind of cliff-hanging ending does seem more like an ad blurb than a good way to end a summary. I did see the original episode, but don't recall enough of it to add any content.PaulLev 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it isn't good as it is, but they weren't sure what it was that they found. We can't really say what it is they found when they themselves didn't know what it was at the time. It was just left as a cliffhanger for the next episode. If it should be reworded, I don't know how. Owen 22:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better now, with the second sentence removed.PaulLev 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support as per nomination - well done very informative! Vaniac 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after thinking about it for a while, even without the images, this is an excellent list. That being said, I believe it could be even better (significantly so) with images, but I think that even the level that it's at now still makes it feature worthy. Well sourced and the editors do a great job of keeping the speculation and 'cruft off the list. Short, simple, and to the point descriptions allow for quick and easy navigation and episode identification. This is also the first list of episodes to be nominated using the {{Episode list}} template. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with apologies to the creators of the list, due to stability issues. Even if the on-again off-again edit warring over images is done with, the third series is ongoing. This list is going to have new additions weekly until next May. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean just in that new episodes will be added, or that there will be lots of edits due to speculation and removal of speculation, etc? -- Ned Scott 09:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    New episodes. A list of episodes for an ongoing series couldn't possibly be stable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think single episode additions once a week are considered "unstable". I believe this was brought up for some of the other featured Lists of episodes before. -- Ned Scott 09:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're still going to have new revelations and new information being added weekly, plus the fact that new episodes will often have revelations that cast new light on plot points that were apparently trivial in previous episodes. This is on top of the image issue, about which there has been argument on talk less than two weeks ago. Giving this list time enough to get the third season down would deal with both stability issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    List of The Simpsons episodes was featured despite it being an ongoing series. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, nobody thought to bring up this objection when that was on FLC. Additionally, the Simpsons is heavily solicited beforehand and the importance of events in Simpsons episodes is not exactly an issue of contention. While the Simpsons and Lost are both TV series, they don't have a great deal else in common. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when does 'frequently updated' translate into 'unstable.' Frankly, I think that's just wrong. -- Wikipedical 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um. Ever since stable mentioned "its content does not change day to day." Unless that part of the rule is totally toothless (which is no big deal; I'm not a big F*C participant but I do know that Wikipedia's written rules often lag behind its practices) I can't see how this isn't the archetypical example of content that willbe changing day-to-day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like you to show me an FAC or FLC article that doesn't change every day. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    With brand-new information? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (reindenting) A once-a-week addition may be trivial considering that editors seem to have agreed on a way to keep the page updated without controversy. As long as the new additions remain in line with the current style used, the overall quality of the list shouldn't be affected greatly. If quality does go down the list could be defeatured. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncomfortable with this, but I urge ALoan to feature over my objection if this is generally considered sufficient. Again, I'm not a a WP:FLC regular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm - me? Oh, Rune.welsh usually gets to them before me these days :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, whoever closes it. I'm just saying that I don't think I can be convinced, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong, so I'll leave it to the closer to decide if I'm just wrong on this one or not. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After having spend two years on wasting time on two seperate episode systems we have finally gotten a single, informative list. It works well. --The monkeyhate 18:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This page is a great episode list. The only problem I could see with it becoming featured is, as aforementioned, its relative instability since it just began its third season. Despite this, the rest of the article is great. I think that this should be a model for episode lists, those yet to be created and those already existing. --Cliff smith 03:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe we should put this process on hold, or keep the candidacy open longer than normal, to see what will happen in the next week as far as stability? -- Ned Scott 03:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a frequent contributor to this list, I can say that stability is not an overbearing problem. As you said in your own approval, this list is short and simple, and I can say that we have had no problem dealing with "cruft." The editors of this page are reasonable and dedicated, and I don't see a reason to postpone this nomination, which apparently has overwhelming support. -- Wikipedical 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe... When is the next episode aired in the US? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About two days from now, on October 11th. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even with the supposed "instability" It should still be passed as soon It won't be unstable and per nom †he Bread 04:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Easy to understand, pleasing to the eye, etc. Andman8 17:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Colourful images would be pleasing to the eye. --theDemonHog 04:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then come up with some free ones, since we don't use fair-use images to decorate pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Demon Hog wasn't suggesting using fair-use images for decoration :P -- Ned Scott 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding images to make something look pleasing is decoration. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    if they were added for that reason alone then it would violate WP:FUC. -- Ned Scott 22:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This is why thedemonhog's arguement shouldn't be valid. One can't add pictures without a fair use violation. This is why images aren't a part of the FL criteria. -- Wikipedical 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-To me, this article examplifies what a list of TV episodes should be. I can't find anything wrong with it, and it is extremely informative. --Kahlfin 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the quality of the references may not be the best. Maybe the editors involved should find a few other complementary sources ("independent" as ALoan suggests in the diff). -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We only cite ABC and other official sources. If by "independent" you mean fansites or gossip columns, then that would be a violation of WP:V. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Jtrost. See Template:Lost policy. This is a policy that we editors established so we wouldnt cite 'independent' spoiler or fan sites. -- Wikipedical 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I congratulate you on resisting the temptation of images :) But there are couple things to fix: 1. CAPS in reference section. 2. In general, references need better formatting. 3. "DVD releases" does not have a single word in it. 4. As said before, stability due to in-progress show and new episodes aired every week. 5. Lead and some descriptions are not well-developed or written and are choppy (several one-sentence paragraphs). Renata 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reply, 1: if you actually would look at the Press Releases that are cited, you would see that the titles are in CAPS. 2. Better formatting? Since we are citing web sites, I think it's 100% appropriate to use Template:Cite web. 3. Your problem here doesnt violate any requirements for a FL. 4. I still dont accept this stability arguement. Last episode was Oct. 4th, and as you can see in the history, editors were mostly updating references and tense. 5. The lead is just as consise as any other Featured List of a television show. I will reexamine this point, but I think you should reconsider your decision. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 01:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: Because original title is in capitals, it does not mean you have to cite it in capitals. 2: Using {{cite web}} is perfect, but there are more parameters that could be filled in. 3: Huh? Does an empty section with not a single word showcase "the best work of Wikipedia"? 4: Could be waived if everything else is perfect. 5: What bothers me the most is single-sentence paragraphs, in the lead and elsewhere. If you fix at least some stuff, I will reconsider. Renata 10:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm going to have to point out the poor writing quality, especially the one sentence paragraphs. One point that is particularly bad is that there are episode summaries that do not include the characters listed as featured in the line above. My understanding is that the featured characters were of major significance to the plot, therefore, they must be included in the relevant summary. Jay32183 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, summaries in a list of episodes can be one of two forms: one being a general summary of the entire episode, or two, a short statement which identifies the episode. An example of the later, as a featured list, would be List of South Park episodes. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I actually don't like the South Park list either. The style should be a paragraph that summarizes the article or no summary at all. The one sentence identifier serves only to advertise for the episode, which an encyclopedia should not be doing. Even if there is consensus that the identifying sentence is acceptable, the list is still poor because the "Featured Characters" are not necessarily mentioned in the appropriate episode summary. Jay32183 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The summaries most definately do not sound like advertisements and certainly summarize the articles. They do a good job of summarizing the episodes without revealing too much information about the Featured Characters, avoiding spoilers. How would you want to change this? -- Wikipedical 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • For one, don't avoid spoilers. Wikipedia is not censored, spoilers are expected. After checking Pilot Part 2, I noticed that some of the list summaries talk about minor points but not the major points pointed out in the full article. How can you claim that some one is the featured character if he or she is not discussed at all? I would actually prefer not to have a featured character as a list item, as it is incredibly fancrufty and could be easily deducted if the episode discriptions actually summarized the episode. Having never watched Lost, I can honestly tell you that I feel like I am reading a series of TV Guide blurbs rather than episode summaries, that is, I have no idea what the episode is about but it sounds like it could be interesting. The list needs to be usable by people who are not fans of the series, which can be done with full paragraph summaries without worrying about spoilers. Jay32183 01:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I see what you mean, but I think the Featured Characters make this list truly comprehensive (an FL requirement). And I see what you mean about spoilers. But I think it's hard to read List of any TV show though because one might not be familiar with the characters or episodes. And I don't think it's fair to say they read like advertisements because they absolutely are summaries. I see what you are opposed to, but I'm not sure how we could change this. The summaries are supposed to be fairly short- summaries. If all summaries include the featured characters, would you be willing to reconsider your objection? Thanks. -- Wikipedical 01:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree with Wikipedical. WP:LIST notes three basic reasons to have a list-type article: Information, Navigation, and Development. As navigation, a list of episodes does not require a full complete summary to be a useful list, as it aids in navigation to the episode articles, etc. Not only that, but I think the Lost list, and even the South Park list, still qualifies as information lists even without a "complete" summary. The summary only has to tell the reader what the basic gist of the episode, not recap it for them. (although a list can recap an episode if such a format is desired, such as using a List of episodes as an alternative to individual episode articles).
              • Also, List of South Park episodes has been used a lot in the past and now as a model for WikiProject List of Television Episodes's structure advice and as a good example for others to follow.
              • I also agree that we shouldn't avoid spoilers for the sake of simply avoiding spoilers, but at the same time spoilers are not always required to summarize an episode. As a navigational aid, we do not need to include spoilers because that "level of detail" is included on the linked article. It's information organization rather than censorship.
              • I'm not sure I understand the problem with the featured characters. This is a list-style article, and as such many of the elements of a list style article will include information that is not in sentence or paragraph form. The featured characters are mentioned for each episode, but instead of being mentioned in a sentence they're mentioned in a box of the episode table. This is an acceptable practice for a "list of" style article. -- Ned Scott 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see you've missed my point. I meant that those listed as featured characters in this list are not mentioned in the summaries in this list. This list says Charlie and Kate are featured in episode 102, yet the summary for episode 102 talks about Sayid and Sawyer. If the list is serving as a navigational aid then summaries are completely unnecessary. If the list is serving as an overview of the series plot by breaking it into episode sections, then they need to be expanded to full paragraphs, one per episode. If the episodes are being summarized and there are featured characters list, then tell me how those characters fits into the episode. If the only things important enough to mention and still call the list "comprehensive" are done by Sayid and Sawyer, then Sayid and Sawyer must be the featured characters of that episode. After reading the full article, it appears that the summary does not match the synopsis. There is a completely different focus. Now I know the list can't include those multi-paragraph synopses, but if you filter out the minor details to get down to one paragraph, which would leave the same focus a describe the episode beginnning to end, then you will have an adequate summary. Also, anything written in prose, despite the list format, has to be at the standards of prose for Wikipedia. The summaries in the list are definitely prose and definitely not well-written. Jay32183 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think I see some of the misunderstanding here. The "featured characters" is referring to characters which have a good portion of that episode that contains a flashback that gives background info on that character. In other words, the featured character flashbacks are not "current" events in the episode, but are shown to develop the characters. We topically mention major events that happen in the show's "present". An inclusion of the "feature characters" would be something like "In this episode Jack went to the beach. Kate is seen in a flashback that lets us learn a bit more about her past". So, as you see, it's not an "event" in the episode, it's character development.
                  • For navigation, especially in a list that does not have screen shots, a short description is absolutely vital. Most people do not remember off the top of their heads things like episode titles or air dates. With out some text description, identification becomes extremely hard, and would require that the reader click each link for episodes until they found the one they were looking for. I don't understand why you believe that it must be "all or nothing". Some reasons to not include a larger summary is that it's repetitive to the episode articles, makes for higher maintenance, and still would fail at including all the major points in a Lost episode. The short summaries, to me, are more than enough to make the list extremely useful in identifying individual episodes. However, I think we simply disagree on this point, so I'm not sure if we can come to an agreement in this discussion. -- Ned Scott 02:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'd like to add that I do think some of the descriptions could be improved to be less like "advertisement", but I think the level of information included and the end result would be the same. -- Ned Scott 02:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Have to agree with Jay32183's points. I'm also concerned about the amount of unreferenced material (most of the List of Seasons section, the Specials/Recaps section, other lead and section-lead text). I couldn't find a source for the "Featured Character" in the refs given – can you point it out to me?. Ditch that empty DVD section. The external links can all go as none of them are relevant to this list – the can go in the Lost article if required. Mostly, I'm worried about the amount of original research going into distilling the complex plot summary for each episode. The writing isn't critial (as in analysis, not negative words) and reads like a TV listing magazine. It's just not encyclopedic. Colin°Talk 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The featured characters are revealed in the episode. That isn't cited because it's common knowledge. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, it is cited, just not with a cite template or in a refs section. The episode, which contains a production number, is where the information comes from. If a summary said "episode five starts off with a man dead" we don't bother doing something like: "episode five starts off with a man dead"<ref>Episode 5</ref> -- Ned Scott 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to that, we must start every single sentence in the summary pages with 'Episode five says...', like 'Then in episode 5 Jack talked to Kate. Also in episode 5 etc...'. I don't believe we need to cite a source for every single fact that comes from a certain episode. It's obvious it comes from there, where else would it come from? It's like suggesting a disclaimer that says that all information about the episodes comes from the episodes. We should only cite facts that aren't so obvious, like triva, or anything else the producers and writers might have said outside the show. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. I've also discovered some guidelines that confirm my unease about the content of this list. As a non-viewer, I don't know what the "Featured Character" thing is. Is it stated in the opening titles, or does it just become apparent that someone is onscreen more than others? In the ABC reference, I couldn't find anything that told me who the FC was for each episode. Hence, I'm asking: "Where does this info come from?". Re: the plot summaries. I dislike the style which, as others have mentioned, reads like looking at last week's Radio Times. Also, having now followed some of the links that this list is a collection of, I see that they are all just plot summaries. This is just so, so not what Wikipedia is about IMO. See
I know some of the above editors have been/are participating in discussions on these issues. Whilst those discussions are ongoing, and the guideliness (currently) so clear, I really can't see how this can be Featured. Colin°Talk 12:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be only fair to note that the points you made are guidelines, and not policies.
  1. WP:FICT says "In some cases, sub-articles and lists are created when the potential for an encyclopedic coverage is hindered by the recommended length guidelines of one article. " That's what this list is.
  2. Episode summaries are written from an in-universe perspective because that's the best way to do it. Do you have a better suggestion for how episode summaries should be presented? Also the episode articles are not being reviewed here, only the list.
  3. Even if the episode summaries are being debated, it is currently a guideline, and this list follows those guidelines. Additionally, this article follows the WP:SS guidelines.
  4. Regarding WP:BETTER, you need to be more specific than "check your fiction a bit". If you could, offer some constructive criticism about how you think the writing could be better, or better yet, provide an example of what you think would be sufficient. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I've numbered your points) The difference between a guideline and policy may help stave off the big delete key, but isn't relevant to a discussion on whether Wikipedia should feature material. Featured material should largely follow consensus guidelines. Point 2 of the FLC requires MOS compliance.
  1. Show me the "encyclopedic coverage" of Lost episodes then?
  2. It might be the "best way to do" an episode summary. That doesn't mean a list of episode summaries is encyclopedic. Each, on their own, isn't bad, if it was part of a bigger encylclopedic article. It's just that there is nothing else - no analysis, no comments, no quotes from independent reviewers. The episode articles are relevant here since IMO, in their current state, they are all fit for the AfD bucket – hence this list would fail FLC 1a. That isn't going to happen, given the level of fan support on Wikipedia.
  3. Which part of the WP:SS guidelines do you think are relevant to this list?
  4. In the List of seasons, the difference in style between season 1 and 2 is more-or-less the distinction that the in-universe/out-of-universe guidelines are trying to cover. It is easier to summarise a cartoon episode that tells a straightforward story. I'm with Jay in saying that it would appear that Lost episodes are impenetrable when summarised (and may well be impenetrable when detailed!)
Whether (and how) to include episode summaries is not a sticking point for me. None of my other concerns have been addressed, nor have the single-sentence paragraphs that others have mentioned. Ultimately, there is just too little encyclopedic material in this or the linked articles. Colin°Talk 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Lost_episodes/archive2&oldid=1128607070"