Talk:Lost: Missing Pieces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleLost: Missing Pieces is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 22, 2009.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 31, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
February 14, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that production of Lost: Missing Pieces (short mobisodes/webisodes spun-off from the TV series Lost) was delayed several times due to contractual issues with the actors, writers and directors guilds?
Current status: Featured article

Plural?[edit]

When the page was back in thedemonhog's sandbox, I made a change, including "rv if you disagree" - I'm open to discussion. This change was indeed indirectly reverted and I now see the whole article consistently refers to the title as a plural, eg. "Missing Pieces are..." etc. While I know each episode/mobisode/whatever is intended to be a "missing piece" (hence the title!) I do believe that "Lost: Missing Pieces" is the title, and every episode should be formally referred to as a "Missing Pieces episode". Any thoughts, or other sources referring to the episodes in either way? Thanks. •97198 talk 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official "About Lost: Missing Pieces" page at ABC.com begins with "Lost: Missing Pieces are 13 two- to three-minute stories…" –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can both see how hard I looked! :) Thanks for that, case closed. •97198 talk 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Where are/were the mobisodes available? Are they region locked, like "catch-up" services?
A sentence in the lead has been expanded to include "They… are uploaded onto the American Broadcasting Company's website a week later for free streaming." –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3A passed. Will (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    Does Frogurt really warrant his own section? It could be folded into the "cast and characters section.
The Frogurt section has been merged into the characters section. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3B passed. Will (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The "Buried Secrets" section could go down into the plot, but I've no objections to its current place.
  4. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article on hold.

Will (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. Will (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13th ep not on official site.[edit]

I can't find "So It begins" on ABC.com. Are you sure it's been released? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it has only been officially released on cell phones. It will be on ABC.com on Monday, but it has been leaked to http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2008/01/lost-mobisode-13-so-it-begins.html. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And this may be off topic, but I shouldn't expect any more episodes until the next off-season, right? Imagine Reason (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't even expect them then. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ridiculous[edit]

…that this article is a featured article on the main page. Has somebody been paid off by the network? It's good for what it is, but what it is is an absurdly eleborate description of some completely unimportant webisodes or whatever the hell they are. It's not even part of the real show. Why not do a featured article on the deleted seens from a Charles in Charge DVD? 222.107.236.253 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was about time. A whole eight hours before someone complained? Whew. Well, it was nice while it lasted. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed this :) JACOPLANE • 2009-01-22 09:41
Also note that most complainers were asleep for the first few hours of the FA, in UTC.
To the anon above,

Jimbo Wales has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are cynical and sarcastic where it is unneccessary. Happy slapping!

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a not-so friendly message!

-- Zanimum (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+1. And not even any discussion on the talk page to show how it became an FA in the first place. --Farzaneh (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FA discussion has been added to this page, above. Note that FA discussions never happen on the talk pages of articles, that's not how we do things. They have their own pages. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this appears to be nothing but an ad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul shallard (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than that. Just look at how many citation this has: it was obviously of interest to multiple news outlets and other media channels and formats. If it was interesting to them then, it likely is of interest to some people now. Also note that this must be a really bad ad: it was released years after the topic of current, and contains unflattering critical reviews of the webisodes. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly half of the citations are in the reception section, which I think is the weakest part of the article. The many quotes about individual episodes categorized by reviewer seem trivial to me and detract from an article that otherwise fairly well written. If the reception section were reworked, I wouldn't question that it could be FA — Ost (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that the last three featured articles were: Ant, Washington, D.C., Edgar Allan Poe. All three are topic covered in "old school" encyclopedias. To have something that shows Wikipedia isn't just a collaborative encyclopedia focusing on only the same stuff as the old school, this is nice. While I'm a Lost watcher, I have no interest in the article, but I still congratulate whatever editors worked on this, they obviously put a lot of effort and research into this. -- Zanimum (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love the show, I have to complain about the overexposure that Lost has received on the front page. It has nothing to do with the contents of the article and more with the fact that the TV series was Featured Article of the Day on October 3, 2006 and the episode "Through the Looking Glass" was Featured Article of the Day on February 1, 2008 -- less than a year ago! This kind of attention is overkill. I do not think we need any more Lost articles displayed on the front page for a very long time. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 864 featured articles that are yet to be on the main page and eight of those are Lost articles, meaning that some kind of Lost article would theoretically be on the main page every 108 days (admittedly, that would be too much for a television program). However, you suggest that they wait "a very long time", meaning way over a year—oh, excuse me, way over "less than a year" (because this is ten days short). That lack of attention is overkill. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... 108 days, huh? :) Sounds familiar... —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the symmetry of nature. Besides, The Simpsons has had more main page exposure. Doctor Who and Lost have, on average, one FA per year. Normally around dates with relevance. If you want to complain, complain to the Simpsons wikiproject. Their articles are less likely to be demoted than the Lost ones are (for reasons of comprehensiveness, prose, etc). Sceptre (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so The Simpsons project had 4 TFAs (which averages out to 2 per year). So what? What is your point? Why is that relevant here? And why should people complain to us about this? It's not like we schedule the days. -- Scorpion0422 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was paying you a compliment. 90.216.218.123 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care that it appeared on the main page, but there are valid arguments here that FA status should not have been bestowed on this article. The reception section is just a collection of random quotes and statements. The rest isn't composed with compelling prose. I'd support a FAR to remove the FA status. 198.203.175.175 (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also ridiculous: "Lost: Missing Pieces are thirteen video clips ranging in length from one to four millenia that aired during the hiatus between the 600th and 9000th seasons of the television show Mind of Mencia, from which the series is bootlegged." I had no idea what that meant and it never occurred to me that it was vandalism. 209.165.166.194 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a bigger question in the timing of the FA? It was practically simultaneous with the premiere of the 5th season, time zone issues accounted. Doesn't that strike anyone as potentially undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as anything other than a commercial shill? 63.88.67.230 (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless Wikipedia or Raul received money/favour through running the article, which is as likely as my not getting drunk tonight. It's standard practice to try to run an article on a day relevant to its subject. Steve T • C 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film grading[edit]

Why is there no mention of the lack of film grading in the webisdoes, especially in relation to the heavy film graded main series. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google gave me this. Is that you are referring to? If so, we would need a citation in the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFlNdNmBvXk vs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyOaRW7FwfU&feature=channel_page
The second one is heavily film graded and looks so much better, where as the first one seems to have almost no grading done and looks quite amaterish.
One thing you might notice when grading is done is often bloopers (DVD Extra) for a film will look much different than the actual film. This is because it hasn't been graded. Film Grading is basically the changing of colors of a footage to change it's look. Looks better if it is done.
In that second example, you can see the massive difference between the film, and then the bloopers at the end. Bloopers weren't graded, (Also, changed colour of chick's jacket and stuff). It only makes sense that a critic would notice this. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While all of that may be true, we need a reliable source to discuss it first. If you find one, feel free to add the info to the article. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 11:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use the film itself. Video is a source. Just state that it had little to no film grading.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image in reception[edit]

Could anyone explain how File:The Envelope.png "significantly increases the readers understanding of the material"? Even remotely increases? I couldn't find anything (could have overlooked it) in the section that discussed this particular image specifically, and we don't need an image of a deleted scene to understand that there was a deleted scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two non-free images from the article body. Both failed WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, which requires critical commentary on the image, and that the image "significantly increases the readers understanding". Neither has that. I would suggest maybe using some quote boxes, with select quotes that tend to stand out on their own. They are useful ways to break up text without having to worry about providing "critical commentary" or "significant understanding", per the policies.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Lost: Missing Pieces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lost: Missing Pieces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lost: Missing Pieces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lost: Missing Pieces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost:_Missing_Pieces&oldid=1199378483"