Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 2

message: I'm just wondering where the international airdates of Lost article is. I came on here in early May and the article was still there, and when I go to old edits of the article, it includes the link, but it just redirects to the current page. What happened? Did someone delete it? 210.50.189.83 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What Happened To The International Airdates of Lost Article?

message: For anyone who feels that fair use is being interpreted too strictly on Wikipedia, you are free to copy Wikipedia content and edit at http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Main_Page . Arniep 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that wiki is really not the best one if you decide to go after LOST,, i would say lostpedia or the tviv --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative to Wikipedia for film/TV articles

message: I personally find it irritating that the way the subplots are depicted on the show is not mirrored in the article layout. It's not faithful to the show -- we should not just honour the plot details, but the way it is presented to us as well. Dysprosia 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot in subarticles 

message: For those of you without Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images on your watch list, I would like to make a serious effort to actually get somewhere in this debate.  I have posted a comment there to at least allow us to understand what is being debated there.  Please add the talk sub-page to your watchlist and reply to my latest comments there.  I'm only posting this message on the main talk page because it does not appear that everyone has '/use of images' on their watch list, so please continue the discussion there and not here. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Don't think the issue is people don't have the page on their watch list.  My watch list is so long I could very easily miss it.  The thing is People Just Don't Care anymore The page has been protected since 26 May 2006.  The Admins are just trying to make a Point about fair use, or Every other admin does not want to cross the Person who blocked the page because he is an arbitrator.  If an admin Undo one of Jimbo's Blocks it is almost certain desnoypeing.  This issue has been talked to Death already--E-Bod 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those of you without '/use of images' on your watch list 

message: I Agree with Ned Scott's Edit to make the Page with Adjustable
Over the Prior 
Having the Page with Vary Is Definitely the way to go. If your Screen is small then It will automatically Fill what needs to be filed.  If you make the window bigger or smaller it should accommodate this.  If you have a big screen and do not like how the bars take up too much room you should not view the page on full screen.  Normal articles have the images on the right Move with the page.  Why should the rest of us have Most the image cut off.  You should appreciate your full screen or not use all of it.  Don't put on a sweater and say it is too hot.  Take the sweater off. Set your window size to a page and adjust your text size for your computer if you have a problem.  The page Should not be optimized for only one View setting. It should be dynamic and Self adjust to whatever Page size you are using.  I shouldn't have to Scroll left and Right because on your screen the tables are too big.  Because on mine they are too small.  If you wish not to use the full screen Don't set your computer up to use the full screen.--E-Bod 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone asked how does a large screen makes it different, well having a large screen = more pixels, and a table that goes across 2048 pixels is really really ugly (that's what happens when you have a table that goes 100%), the size should be set at this size and that's how it should stay --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liquid layouts makes usability very tricky, which is why I prefer static layouts.  I use a 1680x1050 screen resolution, so when the table is stretched to 100%, the table data is smashed together, and it is very difficult to read. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second... what kind of logic is this? MOST websites look horrible stretched out at those sizes.  But you have a browser window, that you can re-size.  Why do the rest of us have to suffer via poor use of space?  The same formatting was applied to List of South Park episodes and no one complained there.  This is a really petty complaint.. Large monitors, although becoming more popular, are the minority. And even when you use one, you can easily resize a browser window if something doesn't look right. More web browsers don't display Kanji (はじまりの鼓動) correctly, but many articles still use that.  Technical limitations of this nature should not dictate article formatting. -- Ned Scott 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I completely agree with your statement, I still think that a fixed layout at 775 is better.  Whether we like it or not, the Wikipedia "column" is going to be there no matter what.  I'm currently viewing this page on a 13-inch public monitor with who-knows-how-small resolution.  With the dynamic (liquid) layout, the Wikipedia column creates this huge gray bar that stays on the side of the page no matter what, and as such, the rest of the page looks crushed in and too small, in my opinion, no matter what size and resolution you're viewing with.  If there was some way to change this (I know you can change it by changing the User skin, but keep in mind that most people who visit pages are not Wikipedians and don't know how to do this), I would support the dynamic layout.  But for now, I just think that the fixed layout looks neater. --Kahlfin 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huge gray bar? I've checked the article using Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari, and I see no such bar. I've heard other comments about how some browsers render the tables, but this is the first time I've heard about the gray bar.  I'm thinking this is not something the average reader is experiencing? -- Ned Scott 03:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're just so used to Wikipedia that you don't notice it.  When you're reading this comment, look to your left.  You'll see the gray column that I'm talking about.  At the top of the page, there's the Wikipedia logo.  Under the logo, there are links to the main page, community portal, etc.  But after all that stuff, there's just a gray bar that keeps going forever.  In my browser, I usually just scroll so that the gray bar is out of my window.  But when the table is being formatted for your window, it doesn't take the gray bar into account, and it squishes the table so that the gray bar and the actual List of Lost episodes both fit into your maximum window and you don't have to scroll.  In my opinion, this makes the table look crushed and too narrow. --Kahlfin 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that should have NOTHING to do with how articles are formatted... -- Ned Scott 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you're saying.  Why not?  People see it, right?  We need to take it into account.  Because of it, the table is too narrow with the current revision (in my opinion), at least from the way I'm looking at it.  With the width fixed at 775, I can scroll so that the table takes up my whole window.  Without it, I can't. --Kahlfin 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Formatting 

message: Alright, I know that polls are evil, but I just want to get quick and dirty feedback on this issue.  Note, this straw poll should not be used as a strong reason to do one thing or another, it's just one method of feedback. 
Basically, how should this article have the width of it's table's formatted?-- Ned Scott 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table formatting straw poll

message: Using a range of 90 to 100%, making the table fill up more of the browser window at any size, as it does on this edit.
#Ned Scott 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: By percentage

message: Fixed width of 775, the table stays at this width and is independent from the size of the user's browser window, as it does on this edit.
#Kahlfin 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed width

message: hey guys, I notice that many of you play with this page as you like, remove the pictures, add text, put rumors, fix the width, well I just want to say that the page now looks like shit, and you know what, I don't care! cuz once the third season starts, and many, many people start looking at this page, many things will be changed, so have fun with it now, cuz it's gonna change later, peace, and get off the computers guys, it's the summer ! --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I still need something to take up time when I'm sick of doing work.  And please be civil.  Lumaga 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of us or many anonymous users who don't know standard procedure?  Because there's nothing we can do about those.  And by the way, if you think that this list is bad for rumors, you should look at all those individual articles. --Kahlfin 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: Not long ago, there were pictures for the Season DVDs and each individual episode. What happened to them? --SilvaStorm 11:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussions above. ed g2s • talk 11:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the pictures? 

message: I notice  states "Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors." This seems to have confused people into thinking that we should copy and paste information from these sources (just taking a quick look, the summary of Three Minutes is a section of the tv.com summary). These copyright violations are not acceptable. All episodes which have aired should have their summaries written from scratch. ed g2s • talk 11:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Everything should be paraphrased unless a source is cited.  The policy simply states that information cannot be taken from unofficial sources.  It does not condone taking information word for word from these sources.  In addition, TV.com is not included in the policy, and any information taken from it that isn't verified by an official source is, in fact, in violation of the policy. --Kahlfin 05:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description copvios 

message: Red Alert -- Unless you provide a valid good reason below the screenshots STAY! Matthew Fenton [t/c] 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the screenshots are not (currently) being used for critical commentary, they are being used gratuitously for decoration. --bainer (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Decoration? I see no decoration. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, they are being used to identify the episodes. If you find it decretive, that's you, but it is NOT why they were put into the article, and it is not the primary function they are serving -- Ned Scott 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't weighed in much on this whole controversy, because I can truly see both sides, but I do have to say that an ultimatum like the Red Alert above is completely antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia, and it's also dismissive of the copious body of discussion that's already occurred on this topic.  This kind of approach fuels edit wars and ultimately leads to their perpetrators being blocked. -- PKtm 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should read Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images and show a little more maturity. ed g2s • talk 16:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Ed right now, that was not the most mature move to progress this issue.  --  Wikipedical 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew, I understand you are frustrated with this, as I am as well, but this is not the way we'll get the images back. Be patient, focus your arguments here on the talk page, and you will see results. -- Ned Scott 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots stay 

message: Because of actions such as those of Matthew Fenton above, I have protected this page. (Note that although I have been involved in the discussion on this issue, this is not a content dispute but a dispute about the copyright status of content, and thus I don't consider my protecting the article to be outside the protection policy.) --bainer (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this is an abuse of power as you chose the version you want to protect. Matthew Fenton [t/c] 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a dispute about the copyright status of images, and not a content dispute, thus it is entirely appropriate to protect the version over which there are no copyright doubts. If you wish to have the page unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --bainer (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but I think this is an endorsement of the current version. 154.20.217.225 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, see m:The Wrong Version. -- PKtm 07:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You protected the page because of one user?  While I don't think that's outside the policy, it seems a little extreme.  Most of us who disagree with you will engage in rational discussion without edit wars.  I mean, if it only takes one user's actions to protect a page, is this page going to be protected everytime some anonymous vandal makes an account? --Kahlfin 22:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think numerous users have tried to restore the images since it was last unprotected. ed g2s • talk 23:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only a handful, and even some of us pro-fair-use-image editors reverted back to the no image version. -- Ned Scott 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ned and Kahlfin that it seems extreme, but I also would point out that User:MatthewFenton was obviously bent on restoring the screenshots over and over again, as were various anons (most likely sockpuppets, but no matter).  I personally reverted his insertions several times, even though I'm relatively neutral on the controversy, but he was dogged about reinsertion, using all sorts of puffed-up Star Trek rhetoric that indicated (to me and obviously to the admins) that he was simply not going to back down.  Personally, I would prefer that there be a swiftly applied user-specific block (and relatively long-term, too) on people behaving like that, rather than a protection of the page.  Any reaction to that proposal from the admins who protected the page? -- PKtm 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, Stargate Atlantis also they where not sock puppets.. Probably just some anons who believed in what i believe in. (Do a whois on them there not from my isp) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily your sockpuppets, but unlikely to be "some anons" who stumbled upon the article. ed g2s • talk 22:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then who else are they Ed? They were anonymous so they are "some anons" Matthew Fenton (contribs) 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's sockpuppet. As stated above... ed g2s • talk 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say they are sock puppets but they are differnt IP addresses so there for it sounds like you are throwing aqcusations around that they are sock puppets? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 12:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahh yes, it's good to see admins assuming good faith ;) Modulus86 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, seriously.  What gives you any inclination, Ed, that these are sock puppets?  You're accusation that these are the sockpuppets of someone here is just as ridiculous as me accusing them of being YOUR sockpuppets that you created so you could make it look like they were our sockpuppets.  Unless you have any evidence that these edits were made by someone involved in this discussion, please refrain from this blatant speculation.  -- Kahlfin 22:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good point.  I didn't see the times of the vandalism, but it's definitely a good reason to suspect sockpuppetry, and thus the speculation is not unfounded. --Kahlfin 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well how can they eb sock puppets when there differnt IPs and if you do a whois belong to differnt isps, so speculation is unfounded if the person making acqusations will not do some research first. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The episode "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues" is wrongly linked, but I can't edit it because of the damn protection. Anyone care to do it? --The monkeyhate 18:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues 

message: As suggested by some other people here, I have started a new page to dicuss the general issue of fair use images in lists. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Fair use/Fair use images in lists. Please join the discussion if you are interested in this issue. --bainer (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for starting the RfC and posting the notices in numerous places for responses. -LeflymanTalk 23:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has stagnated and no consensus has been drawn.  I call for restoring the images since the bainer, ed g2s, abu, et al haven't been able to garnish the support to make a consensus against fair use. Cburnett 00:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also call for the restoration of the images, in fact i will file a unprotect rewuest soon. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on fair use images in lists 

message: One of the main arguements for the removal of the screenshots was that they don't identify or critically comment on the episode in question. Would they be allowed if they were more relevant to the episode summary? For example, Season 1 Episode 1 could have a screenshot of Jack and Kate tending to the wounded or of them trekking into the jungle to find the cockpit. Episode 2 looks good to me because it has a screenshot of Sawyer actually shooting a polar bear which is mentioned. Episode 3 could have Jack discovering the secret about Kate or Michael warning Locke. I would be able to do all of the screenshots for season 2 and most of season 1 probably but I wouldn't want to do it if they were going to be removed straight away. Opinions? 
Also, I think this page needs to be archived. It's 242 KB long. Mahahahaneapneap 10:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with archiving is that the vast majority of this discussion page is relevant to the two major ongoing discussions of this article: images, and indivudual episode articles and list vs. season articles. Tomcage9--Talk 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *They could be archived by discussion topic, as I had initiated with Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images. The discussion about image usage apparent returned here when some editors became frustrated with lack of response.--LeflymanTalk 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Addendum: I have moved most of the image discussion to the subpage, to clear out the talk page. Additional archiving would be appropriate. --LeflymanTalk 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea, I could help with Season 1 and msot of season 2. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 11:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merely mentioning that a polar bear was shot in the episode does not really constitute critical commentary. Text discussing the event and its significance to the series as a whole, as a critique of the themes of the show, or an encyclopaedic discussion of the themes of the show, is far more likely to constitute critical commentary. The image would then have to illustrate what the text was actually talking about. --bainer (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion... 

message: Should we mention somewhere that the creators only want to do the show for 4-5 years, and then end the series with a movie? Morgan695 21:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, This is the episode list not the Lost article. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would be fine with official source.  This does not include fansites, like lost-media.com.  See this article's policy on including information here.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Series?

message: Personally, I love the screenshots.  I have no idea why anyone would want to delete them.  Although the majority of us want to keep them, we are losing the fight right now.  I suggest that we delete the screenshots from EVERY episode list on Wikipedia.  Why, you might ask?  Because then pretty much everyone will flip out and rise against this ridiculous idea of having Wikipedia episode lists without pictures.  And then, finally, we will get our screencaps and dvd covers back! So start removing pictures from your favourite TV show pages, and know that you are helping for the greater good.  Remember that I want the pictures back too.  But if you guys think this is completely idiotic, then don't and comment on the stupidity.  So far I did The Office, and I will wait to do more until people comment.  154.20.217.225 18:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may be best stick to the non vandalism approach, if you want others to join in the debate leave a note at that episode guides talk page requesting support (-: Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it vandalism?  154.20.217.225 19:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be in violation of WP:POINT (Don't disrupt Wikipeida to illustrate a point). --Maelwys 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think that the right thing should be done ALL lists, not just this one. The right thing is either taking the images off temporarily while we reach a decision or removing them permanently. It certainly isn't leaving them there when they may or may not be allowed. Mahahahaneapneap 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey also, anyone have an idea of when all of this is going to be finished?  Not what will be the result, but when the dispute will finally be resolved? A couple weeks? A month? 4 months? A year?  154.20.217.225 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think anyones requested it to be unprotected. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had not read WP:POINT.  154.20.217.225 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes i agree with you. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot Proposal 

message: I've been hearing from some pretty credible sources that episode 3.1 is called "A Tale of Two Cities". Now of course, I won't add this info as I haven't heard it confirmed by the producers, but has anyone heard this title, and did the producers ever say anything about it? ShadowUltra 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite your "pretty credible sources" and provide links to these articles.  Keep in mind this article has its own policy on citing sources, see here.  --  Wikipedical 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm guessing the title being announced officially during the LOST panel, at the recent comic-con convention would be pretty credible? That was the reason I added it in the first place. I did provide a link to the Aint It Cool article which had a rundown of the LOST panel, but for some reason, someone removed it. The article is here if you want to read it. dbalsdon 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, anything the producers/writers say is credible, however Aint It cool News isn't exactly the most reliable source.  I added a reference to USA Today, which is a reliable source.  Please be more cautious about future episodes from now on. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode 3.1 Title?

message: What happened to the link to the discussion?  --154.20.217.225 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link to the 'fair use with images' in the archives section.  --  Wikipedical 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists on this page.  --Demon Hog 04:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that was my bad.  had the link in there, but I had taken it out, forgetting that this specific article was still involved and needed to still link to those active discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Use Link

message: What about the clip show that will air on Sept 27, 2006?   Fineric 18:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the Lost Survival Guide - www.lost-media.com  --154.20.217.225 02:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specials/Recaps 

message: In an interview with executive producer Damon Lindelof by Kristin on E! Online, he stated that Sanchez and Santoro are contracted to recurr, and not star in the show as was originally thought by many (including Wikipedia).  I cannot find the original interview page, but the information is at www.spoilerfix.com/lost and then go to the "General Season 3 spoilers" section.  Just so you know.  --154.20.217.225 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiele Sanchez & Rodrigo Santoro 

message: ..I will not revert him/her again, if someone else wishes to then feel free to. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 08:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browndog922 

message: A routine move request was submitted on an episode article, Fire + Water, to move it to a name that was  more consistent with the other episode articles in :Category:Lost episodes, namely Fire + Water (Lost).  However, the move request has generated a surprising amount of controversy, so I am requesting further participation.  Any editors who would like to offer an opinion on the matter, are encouraged to do so at Talk:Fire + Water. --Elonka 21:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related poll