Jump to content

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]

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Lost_episodes/archive2&oldid=1128607070"