Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

LOST image

Do we have a copy of the LOST title image (white text with black BG) on Wikipedia? It would be a good addition to the Project page. I know we used to have copy, but it might have been removed for copyright reasons...? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I could take one now, the problem is we cant use it on the project page as fair use is only allowed in main namespace. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Could we "make" our own version (i.e. type some slanted text in Photoshop), or would that be a copyvio still? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode lists vs. episode articles

f I noticed that a lot of information in the singular episode articles is somewhat duplicated in the full-length season episode guides. I think perhaps these articles should be merged into List of Lost episodes, or we should go about merging the episode articles into these. At best, at least reduce the pages to short, paragraph-long synopses for each episode instead of as-is. --Tocapa 05:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the discussion at Talk:List of Lost episodes, you'll see that this was rather hotly debated a few months ago, and the general consensus, by a ratio of about 2:1, was that keeping episodes in individual articles was the way to go. However, there has been some disagreement on the definition of "consensus", which eventually resulted in a formal mediation (which has been dragging on for months, since the mediator went AWOL). If you'd like to follow along though, check Wikipedia_talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. In the meantime, we get to maintain both the Season articles and the episode articles, until either an agreement is reached, or one side or the other just passes out from exhaustion.  ;) --Elonka 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I probably should've explained differently. What I meant was, the Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) articles both have long summaries of each episode, even though such information is already thoroughly covered by the individual articles. Why then, I ask, do the specific season articles continue to exist despite them basically condensing (and not especially well) the episode articles themselves? --Tocapa 06:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, Elonka, I'm disappointed by your characterization and reduction of this long and complex debate. My statements elsewhere stand for themselves, so I won't repeat them here, but the above is unfair and frankly a little offensive in its one-sided description. -- PKtm 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, and have removed the comment. --Elonka 00:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw this out there, and not to "take sides" or anything like that, but I mostly agree with PKtm's view on episode articles vs season articles. No matter how popular Lost is it doesn't make it except from WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7, which says "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article." as well as WP:WAF. This is a growing view on Wikipedia, that the idea that we can have an article for every episode is different than if we should. Trying to summarize every part of the plot actually means misrepresenting the plot because we're not presenting it in it's natural form (the TV show). Articles on TV shows should not aim to replace the TV show. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We've actually been in mediation about exactly this issue for months, but it looks like we're finally reaching agreement on a compromise, which will involve keeping the individual episode articles, and reworking the season articles into "all-season" summaries rather than episode-by-episode lists. We're also incorporating some of the decisions into a central guidelines page, which will be referenced on every episode's talk page via the {{Lost}} template. We're still getting final signoff on this, but if you'd like to follow along in the discussion, check Wikipedia_talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. --Elonka 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that. It's pretty much a compromise just so things will move along, rather than being motivated by logic. Don't get me wrong, if this is what you guys have to do to get on with it, then ok, but I shudder to think that this could become an acceptable example of how things should be done. The root of the matter is that it's either episode articles or season articles, and keeping one or the other for another reason is pretty much to avoid further dispute. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Currently all of the Lost episode articles have "(Lost)" appended to their title (see Category:Lost episodes), except for Fire + Water, which couldn't be moved because of an edit conflict. Accordingly, I have submitted a formal move proposal at WP:RM to move it to Fire + Water (Lost). I'd appreciate if anyone interested could pop into the discussion at Talk:Fire + Water to indicate whether they support or oppose the move. --Elonka 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to make offical guidelines/rules on various aspects of article design, including episode titles. Then we can bring all the articles into line with that rule. There already exists an appearant stand in this case, so it make sense to me to change Fire + Water to the current convention. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of this kind of stuff is already addressed in other TV and fiction related guidelines on Wikipedia (that is, they already follow the same idea that we've been doing). I'd suggest just making an example page that uses Lost specific examples and then links to the full explanation of the guidelines per example. That way people only have to look at one page instead of several just to see what they should do in the context of Lost.
Speaking of List-specific guidelines, we should probably mention {{Lost policy}} on the project page as well. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

COTM

the community needs to choose a collabartion of the month via a concensus, would anyone like to "nominate" an article we should all collabarate on for the remainder of this month  ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I say List of songs featured on Lost because it is muddled and practically all listed. SergeantBolt (t,c) 06:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode article structure

Do you think it would good to formulate a way to go about the articles? Right now they pretty much summarize the episodes from start to finish pretty well, but it can be quite clumsy when it comes to the way the article is written. There are a lot of "at the beach" or "in this flashback" kind of lines, and I was just thinking, do you all think it would be something to try to seperate the two in each article: Have one section be for the island story and one for the flashback story? It appears that (as of right now) the Exodus article does that to some extent, and it makes both sections flow a bit better (at least in my opinion). So I was thinking, should this be something to consider in future work on the articles? Radagast83 07:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think having a written set of guidelines on "How to write a Lost episode article" would be an excellent idea. --Elonka 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. Feedback and additions are appreciated. --Elonka 18:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting ahead of ourselves

I understand that everyone is all happy and eager to get stuff done via a WikiProject.. but it doesn't actually seem that the Project's real value is even known to it's current participants. Lets slow down here and think of why this is a good idea, because, don't get me wrong, it is a good idea.

A WikiProject is a way to help organize collaborative efforts to related articles. One of the best things a project like this can do is make it's participants aware of the tools that already exist. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Lets make ourselves aware of some of the existing fictional and TV-related guidelines so people know what's appropriate or not. A WikiProject is not an independent ruling party, or it's own government that can make up it's own rules for "their" articles. As a WikiProject we should hold ourselves to a higher standard to learn about and follow existing guidelines, policy, and consensus in related matters.

We haven't even added {{Lost policy}} to the project page yet, and people are already talking about a COTW and making newsletter graphics. Don't over-extend yourselves, get the basics covered first, or you'll just run out of steam. If we really want this project to be effective (and last longer than the average TV-related WikiProject) then we should think about why we're here as a project and how best to use our efforts. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you code perl? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added that template to the project page. We should definitely link back to wikiproject television as they have some useful guidelines. Notability guidelines and writing about fiction are other links that might be useful. I think maybe image guidelines might be appropriate too. In terms of the templates section I think it would be useful to explain where to use them. I don't think it is too soon to discuss a collaboration. One of our main stated to goals is to improve Lost related articles and this is a good way to get started. I agree that cosmetic issues should come after the basics but some wikipedians are much more skilled than me at such things and I'm happy to have some of them working on the wikiproject!--Opark 77 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lost tie-in novels

Many months ago, after reading Bad Twin, I started creating an article for the Lost tie-in novels. I stopped working on the article after a few days because I was preoccupied with work related projects and as I was reading the other tie-in novels I discovered they really sucked. However, with the creation of the project perhaps there are people who would be interested in reviving this article and finishing it off. I would be happy to help of course, but I probably won't do anything with it unless other people want to as well. I noticed that there is a collaboration of the week, so this article may be a good one to start with. You can view the last edit I made to the page in my sandbox. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have all the novels by Cathy Hapka (Signs of Life, Endangered Species, Secret Identity), I can give it a go if you like? Calvin 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Participants Please feel free to add yourself to this list appears to be broken.

Completed mediation

The mediation is complete, with unanimous agreement on a compromise. :) See Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes for the full story.

One of the elements of the compromise, was that the agreed-upon guidelines need to be posted on each episode's talk page. I'd originally suggesed a {{Lost}} template to accomplish this, which linked to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, but upon reflection, this might be better included in the Lost WikiProject banner, to reduce talk page clutter. In other words, instead of the current template which says:

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost.

I am going to change it to say:

This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve all Wikipedia articles relating to Lost. All information on the television show, especially in episode summaries, must comply with the Lost television series guidelines.

Thoughts? --Elonka 06:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to use a separate comment box (below). I don't think clutter on the talk pages will be a problem because all discussions regarding multiple episodes should be discussed on List of Lost episodes. I don't see every indidivual talk page becoming as active as some other Lost talk pages. I would also like these rules to be clearly stated so that there is no confusion, or someone can't say that they couldn't find them. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All of those are already listed on the Guidelines page though, right? The advantages I see to putting it into the WikiProject banner are: (1) The banner is already on all the necessary pages, so they'll automatically be updated with the proper wording; (2) The banner is also on the other non-episode pages, which I believe can also benefit from being pointed to the guidelines, since most of the same rules apply (keep things short, don't included unsourced info, etc.); (3) reduce clutter, which increases the possibility that things will actually be read. --Elonka 17:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
No, they DON'T seem to be listed on the Guidelines page, especially the part about how trivia should be kept to a minimum. I side with Jtrost on this. Explicit (and unavoidable) trumps brief. -- PKtm 18:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify/extend: what is on the Guidelines page should be verbatim what we agreed to in mediation. Not moved around or summarized or parts left out. We owe that much to the process and to all its participants. -- PKtm 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am confused, because as near as I can tell, it is on the guidelines page, though it's in a paragraph form instead of presented as a bulleted list. If there's anything on the guidelines page that you disagree with though, then please, by all means feel free to edit it so that it meets your expectations: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. --Elonka 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I just did point out one thing, above, which is not there (mention of trivia being kept to a minimum). Fine; I'm going to make it verbatim. I'm puzzled as to why that falls on my shoulders at this point, following a successful mediation where the results are evident to all. We shouldn't be recasting things. -- PKtm 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
My heavens. I see no harm in being specific, especially if doing so helps set minds at ease. I suspect we are mostly concerned with casual editors who will drop by to make minor edits after the articles are set up by more frequent editors, and who will be less likely to follow the links to the wikiproject pages. Thatcher131 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, why are you against putting these guidelines on each talk page? Chances are that new editors will not seek out every single page regarding Lost policies we have adopted, so stating these clearly on the top of every page will only help. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there's a savings in hassle, since the WikiProject banner is already on all the necessary pages, so they'll automatically be updated with the proper wording. Also, the banner is already on the other non-episode pages, such as Mythology, Thematic motifs, individual character pages, etc., which I believe can also benefit from being pointed to the guidelines, since most of the same rules apply. Further, most new users aren't going to read the talk page anyway, so it doesn't matter how big the banner is -- in other words, the main people that are going to have to deal with it are us, the frequent editors, and I hate having to deal with talk pages where I have to scroll down past umpteen banners that I've already read before.  ;) And lastly, much of the wording on the guidelines page was placed there by our mediator, so I want to ensure that we have a link to it from all necessary pages. --Elonka 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Two birds with one stone? (It could be prettied up, but tables aren't my forte.) Make it a template that does both jobs, and use the smaller template for non-episode articles. Thatcher131 21:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's hassle you're concerned about, I'll volunteer to add the template to each talk page. These guidelines only apply to episode articles, so I don't think we should be using them on non-episode articles. We could develop separate guidelines for non-episode articles. I feel like that by not putting these guidelines on each talk page that we're hiding them from other editors. We didn't go through this entire mediation just to have the results be completely ignored. Jtrost (T | C | #) 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not use these guidelines for all Lost-related articles, instead of just the episodes? --Elonka 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the first bullet point would be able to be incorporated into other articles, but the rest of them are generally geared towards episodes. I would fully support creating guidelines for other articles, though. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My recommendation is that for ease of use and reference, we keep everything on one page, like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. The page can easily be moved to a more generic title (feel free to pick something that you're comfortable with), and then we'll include the mediation guidelines in a specific section of it. --Elonka 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This might be just me, but I thought things like brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research, and trivia where all things to avoid per existing guidelines on the matter. Such as WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:NOR, WP:AVTRIV, WP:1SP#Check your fiction, and so on. This is hardly anything new, and I'm really surprised that they bothered to discuss this on the mediation case. The issue was season articles vs episode articles, sounds like these guidelines were thrown in simply so everyone had something to agree on. I'm not saying they're bad at all, or anything, but this isn't new.. We got PKtm yelling his head off about "verbatim" guidelines on things that most people didn't know they were talking about.

Even if it says pretty much the same thing, I'm not seeing the point in "pushing" this, especially if it can't be changed. It's nothing more than a fork of existing guidelines that already say this. Like I said, most of us thought they were just talking about season articles vs episode articles, so what right does the mediation have in dictating "verbatim" guidelines outside of that issue?

I do have some advice if you want to link to guidelines directly in the WikiProject banner, though. You might take a look at {{WikiProject DIGI}} for an idea of how to utilize hide/show as to not make the banner an eyesore. You also want to avoid over-pushing every guideline at every situation, because people get overestimated with stuff and become blind to it. It's like seeing a wall covered in warning signs, so many you miss the one that applied to you, or you start to ignore it because it becomes white noise. In other words, don't try to include everything in the project banner. We want to guide editors, not make them read a phone book on every talk page. -- Ned Scott 23:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid falling into unfair and negative characterizations of other editors, Ned. I was not "yelling my head off" about verbatim guidelines in general; I was calmly pointing out something only in context of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines and what had been clearly omitted from that page. My comment was "what is on the Guidelines page should be verbatim what we agreed to in mediation", and I stand by that comment. Please remember to assume good faith. It'd also be nice if other editors (besides the one who is attacked) would speak up at times like this. -- PKtm 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I didn't really mean to single you out. I was just worried that we'd get caught up into the details and such. But I do find it odd that the mediation case came up with guidelines that we were already supposed to be following. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a misunderstanding. The mediation created these guidelines. -- Wikipedical 22:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

New season articles

In terms of the new articles which we agreed upon on mediation (Lost Season 1, Lost Season 2, Lost Season 3), I'm thinking that the easiest way to handle this, would be, once the old season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), Episodes of Lost (season 2), Episodes of Lost (season 3)) are "emptied out", to Move them to the new titles, since that way we preserve the talkpage history, and then we just have to remove the insides with the individual episode titles, and replace with a general season overview. However, I'm also open to creating new pages, and then just keeping the old ones as archives. Does anyone else have a preference on this? --Elonka 23:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having Lost (season x) pages that give a 1000-2000 word synopsis of the general themes are major storylines of each season. The problem I see with it is that if we have a season 3 article for that, then people will fill it with detailed information about the latest episode and forget the big picture of that article. Also it's difficult to determine themes and major storylines during an ongoing season. I see two solutions for this: We could come up with some strict guidelines for the article and heavily monitor it, and see how it goes, or we could just not create the article until the end of the season. I would prefer not creating the article until the season is over so that it is one less thing we have to monitor and edit, and it will be easier to write a quality article after the season is over rather than constantly edit it for the next seven months. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Who wants to volunteer to write the initial overview for Seasons 1 and 2? --Elonka 02:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, on reflection, it makes more sense to me to move the old season pages, rather than to create entirely new ones. This has the advantage of preserving talkpage history, and also will automatically redirect from the many many other places that are linking to the existing season articles. If there are no objections, I'll take care of this later tonight, to keep things moving forward. Sorry for the rush, but we have a lot to do before Monday! --Elonka 03:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
(Update) I went ahead and moved the old Season articles. The new names are:
* Lost (season 1)
* Lost (season 2)
I took a first pass at rewriting them, concentrating entirely on island storyline, without including any flashback info, since I figure that's included in the actual character articles. Things are pretty short at the moment, so feel free to expand! --Elonka 05:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd think the talk pages should be archived, as most of the discussions are about the "old version" of the page. Season one is 52K as is, and Season two is 234K long! Radagast83 06:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Great start, Elonka. I think the best way for these articles to get attention is to make them the collaboration of the month, and put a note on the talk pages of all the project members. Also, what should we do with the season 3 page? Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) As for the Season 3 article, I personally think it should be in the same format as the other two seasons, but since it's such a hot-button right now, I wanted to doublecheck that there was consensus before touching it. --Elonka 14:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Season 3 season article per your format, Elonka. Since we have no episode material to summarize yet, I left the production information on the page. -- Wikipedical 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Category change

FYI, there is currently a move to delete all "actors in <show>" categories, including Category:Lost actors. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 29#Actors by television series subcategories. The jury's still debating whether or not this will pass, but in the meantime, it might behoove us to make a List of Lost actors article in case our category does go away. --Elonka 16:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Lost episodes - featured list candidate

I have nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status. The nomination page can be found here. -- Wikipedical 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The candidacy page will be up for one or two more days, so I encourage all editors to get out and rock the vote. -- Wikipedical 23:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

About Lost Experience Characters in Lost Characters category

I know I'm not affiliated with the Wikiproject, but I do have a love for Lost, just like everyone else here. I have noticed that both Rachel Blake and Gary Troup appear in the Lost Characters category. Neither of these characters have been mentioned in the show, as of yet. If I tilt my head to the side and squint I can see how Gary Troup can be in such a category as he was purportedly on board flight 815. But I'm afraid I can't see Rachel Blake in the category. If there is an overwhelming groundswell of support for her to stay in the category then I reccomend a new category be created to catalogue the characters in the Lost Experience. I don't feel that they belong in a category that is dedicated to the show. --Mr Vain 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a response to your question but just wanted to say that, the way WikiProjects work, you are actually a participant by simply posting that message :) Some editors choose to add themselves to a list, but this is more of a way to spread the word about the Project itself. Any editor, at any level, can be involved in the project how much or how little they feel like. A WikiProject is more about the effort to improve the articles than it is a specific group of people. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. I have removed Rachel Blake from the aforementioned category with a comment in the talk page saying why I did it and how it wouldn't start an edit war. I have also left a comment on the Gary Troup talk page about how that article is listed in the category as well. I am waiting for a good enough reason to keep him in the category. I feel like I need more than he was purportedly on the plane and the manuscript of the book was found in the wreckage. My reason is this: Why not say that Charles Dickens is a character of lost because a couple books have been mentioned on the show? Unless Gary Troup has an active role in the plot, then I will continue to see him as an easter egg of the Lost Experience. --Mr Vain 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Leftover infoboxes

While doublechecking redirects, I noticed some old "Season" infoboxes at Template:Infobox Lost season one at Template:Infobox Lost season two. They don't appear to be being used, so I recommend nominating them for deletion. Before I proceed though, I wanted to check here: Can anyone think of a reason that we should keep either of these around? --Elonka 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason, Elonka - they're definitely not useable. I suggest you just go ahead and nominate. SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Both TfD's are now at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 18. -- Wikipedical 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lost further reading

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost further reading, nominated for deletion as a spam db. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia

It was becoming exceptionally annoying removing there spam and hence they are now balcklisted, the software will not allow anyone to post anything: lostpedia(.net|.com|.org) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

It might interest some people to know that one of our own, Elonka, has been put in for a Request for Adminship. Let's wish her the best of luck! SergeantBolt (t,c) 19:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:44, 24 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 20:36, 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 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames list on the James "Sawyer" Ford page?

Is the section even needed? Nicknames are a common occurence in many shows, books, films and so on. Why is it important to have a huge list on Sawyer's page? Nicknames are fun to know about, but it's certainly not decent encyclopedia content in my opinion. It's simply fancruft to me, and should be deleted. Anyone care to share their thoughts on this? RobJ1981 19:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting list, but way too trivial. Maybe two or three examples would be good just to note that these references are made, but that's about as far as I'd take it. -- Ned Scott 08:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, this discussion is also taking place at the talk page for the Sawyer article. Riverbend 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tricia Tanaka is Dead

Someone want to AfD this? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Eko's Stick

There is a discussion on the talk page of "I Do" about the appropriate way to refer to Eko's stick - prayer stick, scripture stick, or Jesus stick. Does anyone else have any ideas? Riverbend 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Will "stick" not suffice? Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Charlie refers to it as Jesus stick. Calvin 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment - naming of episode articles

There is currently an active debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) about the naming of episode articles, such as when it is appropriate to use a suffix such as (<series name> episode), and whether or not WikiProjects should have the right to set guidelines for their particular shows. Any interested editors are invited to comment, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment. --Elonka 09:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what's being debated. The issue is whether wikiprojects can set guidlines that contradict the global guidelines of wikipedia. There hasn't been a single argument that wikiprojects shouldn't have the right to make their own guidelines. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Lost Lostpedia

The scope of WikiProject Lost states "Our project is designed to help collaborate a group effort in improving all articles related to the television series Lost." Lostpedia is an article connected to the television series Lost by characteristics shared with the television show Lost. Labeling Lostpedia with a personal, unsupported opinion that the Wikipedia article is a fan site is irrelevant to this fact. I agree that the Lost Experience fansite is not include in the scope of WikiProject Lost even though the article Lost Experience is within the stated scope WikiProject Lost. MatthewFenton deleted (and again deleted) the WikiProject Lost template on the Lostpedia talk page without explaining his actions on the article talk page. Just because MatthewFenton started WikiProject Lost, it does not give him the uncivil right to delete the posts of others without proper discussion. Rather than explain how Lostpedia does not fit within the scope of WikiProject Lost, he demands that a consensus be reached. I am posting here for an explaination of how Lostpedia does not fit within the scope of WikiProject Lost and a justification for MatthewFenton's actions.-- Jreferee 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Jreferee fails to realize that the Lost Experience page is not an article about the website www.thelostexperience.com, but rather the alternate reality game by ABC. Lostpedia and the Lost Experience are being unfairly compared here. While I disagree with most of the points made, it is agreeable that Lostpedia should be maintained under this Wikiproject. -- Wikipedical 23:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In Universe

In Universe tags are popping up on characters here and there, like Eko's and Kate's. They are so pointless and not needed. Everybody knows that the characters are fictional. it evens says so in the first line. Some people like myself think they are stupid, and want them gone. Others, like Ned Scott, love them and think they should be everywhere. Can we get some kind of concensus on this? Are they needed? Do they have a point? What does everybody think? Codutalk 13:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to add a quote from the "In Universe" section on the Manual of Style; "If you notice an article that predominantly describes a fictional topic from an in-universe perspective, or even provides no indication that a fictional subject is fictional, either improve it yourself or add the "In-universe" template to bring the issue to the attention of others". Please note the bit that I have highlighted. The first line on the character pages says "... is a fictional is a fictional character on the ABC television series Lost played by ..." I pretty much rest my case. The In Universe tags are not needed. Codutalk 14:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I hate them. I hate having to edit the articles to reflect when certain events occurred in one episode or another, or reflect what season this or that happened in. Lost isn't the first show to get a massive amount of in-universe tags lately, so it looks like a massive drive across wikipedia for this sort of thing. With that said, once the article is in-universe, it's easy to maintain that way, and generally looks more like an encylopedic entry. Radagast83 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
They've actually be doing it en-mass I've seen some editors tagging less then 15seconds apart. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is also being discussed on the talk page for the Characters of Lost - none of us there like it either, last time I checked - we had basically decided to just take them off, and noted that if people have problems with these articles that they should bring up something specific on the talk pages. I think that episodes MUST be cited for verifiability, and that character bios that do not contain episode citations need them, but most of these pages that were tagged seem to have TONS of episode citations. Places that need citations can be easily marked - { { fact } } (without the spaces) identifies a place where a citation is needed, if that is the problem. If the problem is that the articles are too long, most of them could be pared down somewhat, but they really don't need a tag. I personally do NOT like the tag at all, and wish that folx would just note specific problems. I would think that would be more helpful. Riverbend 16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've considered taking the tag to TfD as honestly it is not needed and doesn't help build the encyclopaedia at all. I'm too much of a wimp though, however should someone else decide to do it then they would have the full support of me. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't take the tag to TfD since it's apart of a working guideline, see WP:TFD#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD. You would first have to bring up the issue at WT:WAF. -- Ned Scott 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In mass? I don't know who else is adding them, but I personally have only added it to about four character articles. These articles are mostly plot summaries, which is against policy, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information point 7: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic."

The tag is not just about making clear the topic is fiction, it also is about WP:WAF over all, and how the majority of articles should not be plot summaries.

Here's part of a discussion from Talk:Kate Austen:

It also seems to me that you too miss the point at least a little. How are you supposed to talk about out-of-universe context, when the whole article is about a fictional character from a fictional universe? Would it suit you better if somewhere in the article it talks about how the Red Socks won Superbowl XXII while the filming was in progress (don't sue me on that I have absolutely no clue about sports :D)? This seems to get out of hand really... Aetherfukz 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are not able to have out-of-universe context then one should not write an article on that topic (that is, say, different from summarizing the character to aid the larger Lost info, but that wouldn't really require an entire article). That being said, I think this article actually has great potential for out of universe information. Evangeline Lilly and other people from Lost have been in lots and lots of interviews that talk about their characters, character inspirations, critic responses about a character, and probably a lot more than I can think of right now.
The big problem with these articles is they don't really help anyone. You can learn all of this info by watching the show, and the articles should not be a replacement for watching the show. There's so much room for more information in such a great show as this. If you think this article, as it is now, is the best we can do, then you are mistaken. These templates are not an attack on the article, they're a way to help us improve the articles. I understand that it might not be obvious on how to improve the article right away, but that's why we have talk pages and such. I honestly believe that following WP:WAF is not only possible, but will greatly improve this article in all of our eyes. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So I don't believe for a second that these tags do not help the articles. Just because people are stuck in their old ways doesn't mean we shouldn't improve articles. The consensus supporting the policy and WP:WAF far outweigh editors here, so don't remove the tags unless the issues are addressed. -- Ned Scott 17:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned, you love these "in universe" tags, and want to put them everywhere. Why don't you "tidy up" one article? How about you make Kate's article perfect for us? Then we will know how to make them better. At the minute all you are doing is saying they are not good enough, but not actually saying how to improve. So you know us how it is done. codu (t/c) 20:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
When I have some more time I plan on doing that. Heaven forbid I bring an issue to the attention of my fellow editors.
The other part of this is that just stating "this is a fictional character" is not enough for the context. There are stuff like "early on in Blah Blah's life" when it should say "it is relived in episode 30 that Blah Blah was a cop". Even if the amount of summary vs non-summary stays the same, that would still have to change. This is also something we'd need to do, as citing individual episodes for information sources are our best bet for getting GA and FA status on these articles. WikiProject Stargate has some good articles that do this. (they don't all have to literally say "in episode..", but something that indicates that. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And I don't love these templates, but I do like article improvement. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I had some time today, so I added in Mr Eko's and Kate's episodes, in which Episodes particular incidents happened. I only had time to do it "before the crash". Is this the kind of thing that will let me take those stupid tags off, or am I wasting more time? It seems I am too stupid to interpret things myself, and need to be told by someone much more wise. codu (t/c) 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a start. Just a note though, don't use phrases such as "we see" or "we learn" as that isn't very encylopedic. Radagast83 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing my best. Instead of giving me advice on how to do it better, why don't people do it better themselves? codu (t/c) 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are you complaining? The reason to have a WikiProject for these articles is to improve them, to hold them to a higher standard. We are here to do these kinds of things. By being here or listing yourself as a participant, you're basically saying "I want to deal with this kind of stuff". So what gives? -- Ned Scott 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would help out, but I'm busy helping clear out the 9,000+ article backlog of articles to merge, and for the past month have rarely had the chance to edit any of the articles I'd rather work on (Lost, B5, Boy Scouts, etc), but I'd figure I'd do my part of the community for the time being. I hope you don't take any person's inaction on working directly on the aformentioned articles as trying to "pass the buck" onto you and others instead. Radagast83 04:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the complaint is not that we don't want to make Wikipedia a better place, or that we don't want to deal with article improvement. I strongly support careful citations (and I spend a lot of time identifying places that need cites and looking up cites), and agree that citations are essential for good articles, and that we should all do our best to get these pages into better shape. I think there was a general request to whoever is putting the in-universe tags on articles to give a little more guidance as to what needs to be done. I personally do not find that particular box to be particularly helpful without some kind of note or discussion about how to specifically help the page - I am not saying that it shouldn't be used or denying that it was fairly reached or anything, just that it would be helpful to have specific stuff to best focus our efforts and reduce guesswork as to what other (well-intentioned) editors were concerned with. And, what you responded on the Kate page was very helpful - thanx for that. I would have said so sooner, but, ya know, thanksgiving break and all. Riverbend 20:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Riverbend, I greatly appreciate your comment. That is exactly the point I was trying to make, but you worded it beautifully. I'm all for improvement, and if someone wants something improved (but cannot do it themselves) then a little guidance would be used. Thanks again. codu (t/c) 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you saying you need more than the guideline that is linked to, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)? Those are the instructions on what to do. I don't have any problem with making something clearer, or something to that extent, but I figured it was pretty self-explanatory. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am saying. Yes, we can all read the guideline, but that isn't the point. the in-universe page deals with several different aspects (length, cites, style, etc), and there are some of us who are happy to help if the person concerned with a page would just be a little more specific about what a particular page needs in order to have the tag removed. Folx certainly don't "have" to explain why they put the tag on, but it might help to focus efforts and get the job done sooner - further details and suggestions would help a lot, especially since there are some folks who are saying that they do not perceive an in-universe problem with articles. A task list would be a constructive support for an in-universe tag, and would probably be much appreciated by editors who want to help. Riverbend 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD- flashbacks

A section spun off from this article, the List of flashbacks on Lost article is not encylopedic information intended for Wikipedia. Maybe Lostpedia. The AfD page is here. -- Wikipedical 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming

Several of the Lost categories are up for renaming right now. If anyone would like to participate in the discussion, please visit:

--Elonka 23:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Lostpedia should be part of WikiProject Lost

It's my opinion that WikiProject Lost should be, as it states is its goal, "to maintain cited and comprehensive articles related to Lost."

Lostpedia is very much related to Lost. It is the primary notable fan-written encyclopedia about Lost. It's a destination for a large number of Lost fans, as much a part of the Lost fan lifestyle as The Fuselage or the Lost podcast might be. Furthermore, it was included directly as part of the Lost Experience, an official ABC-run Lost game. You can read all about this in the Lostpedia article itself. The article is well referenced and verifiable.

What I'm asking for is discussion of this issue; does the Wikipedia Lost community want the Lostpedia article in WikiProject Lost? 62.31.67.29 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the article have any content relating to Lost? No. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Matthew, I have to keep explaining this to you: the page describes Lostpedia's participation in the Lost Experience. In describing that, the article is describing a part of Lost. So your answer "No" to "Does the article have any content relating to Lost" is completely wrong.
Secondly, as someone else pointed out, the article List of references to Lost in popular culture does not directly describe parts of Lost, it only mentions third-party references to such material. This does not meet the tortured logic you are using to claim that the Lostpedia article doesn't fit the vague inclusion criteria of "relating to Lost". You have already been made aware of this other article's failure to meet your personal inclusion rules, yet you did not immediately remove it from WikiProject Lost. Why not?
My personal opinion is that the inclusion criteria of "related to Lost" should be all articles that are both directly part of the Lost TV series, the extended Lost universe (Gary Troup, etc.) and also any articles about the surrounding critical acclaim, fanbase or popular references.
Finally, why did you describe Lostpedia as ""poorly managed, poorly designed and full of copyright violations. Pfft, I dont expect i'll be contributing here any time soon"? It suggests you are or were prejudiced against Lostpedia. 62.31.67.29 11:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The project scope says "Our project is designed to help collaborate a group effort in improving all articles related to the television series Lost." It does not say "all articles with content that comes directly from the show." So there's no content requirement, only a requirement that the article be "related to" Lost. Admittedly, it cannot be denied that the Lostpedia article contains no information about the show. However, it also cannot be denied that Lostpedia (and therefore the article about it) is related to Lost. Tulane97 01:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LostNav needs consensus

Since last month, a large number of changes were implemented in the LostNav without any discussion. I note that the last consensus version appears to be the one at November 15-- although the wording of "Primary" versus "Main" and "Secondary" versus "Supporting" appears to be in dispute-- and would recommend reverting to that one. I would further ask for input before this multi-article-affecting template is edited further. See: Template_talk:LostNav#Undiscussed_changes_to_Nav--LeflymanTalk 20:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD- black smoke

An article was created for the black smoke. The AfD page is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Smoke Monster (Lost). -- Wikipedical 02:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Lost season pages

I was a member of the List of Lost episodes mediation a few months ago, where we unanimously came up to a consensus regarding season/individual episode articles. The guideline that we established for season episodes straight from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#General article guidelines reads as follows:

"In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments."

As of now, these pages do not discuss any themes or character developments; they are blatantly plot summaries. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Point 7 (Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.), I feel that the current season pages do not pass this policy, and I am debating whether to put the season pages up for AfD and begin the pages again entirely. What do others think? -- Wikipedical 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why delete them as opposed to just rewriting them? --Elonka 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just concerned because currently the articles do not pass policy. How do you suppose we go about rewriting them? -- Wikipedical 04:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
With the large number of Lost related articles, I'm not sure I see the point in looking for a reason to keep a redundant article. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the responses here have been few, I have decided to let Wikipedia decide this issue. The AfD can be found here. -- Wikipedical 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was keep, however I feel this is to ignore our policies and the deletion rational, so I have listed it for deletion review. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3) -- Ned Scott 04:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a Job

I have just joined WikiProject Lost and need a job. I'll do anything, just tell me what to do and I'm on it. Mr. Crabby 03:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Lost_task_force/Archive_1&oldid=1144731375"