Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Archive 2

message: Is anybody interested in doing a Collaboration of the Month type thing?  --  Wikipedical 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to submit your proposal at the top of the page, would be nice to get a collaboration going. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: Over at :Image:Libby.jpg, Ned Scott and I are having a revert war over which image of Libby to use. &   Both are promos taken of the character.  I prefer using the season promotional picture (1) because it is more visually attractive and consistent with the other Lost character article pictures.  Ned prefers the "Everybody Hates Hugo" episode promo (2) because it better represents the character.  --thedemonhog 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned is right, you are wrong, your preference means nothing. This does not represent the character well at all, Ned's is not great, but it will do, for the time being until such a time someone replaces it with an episode capture. So say we all! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we use the second image, then we should replace all infobox Lost images with episode promotional photos that better represent the characters.  --thedemonhog 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We shouldn't replace them with any "promotional" images that you can't prove are promotional, and they are generally felgercarb either way. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether they are promotional is not the point of this discussion.  --thedemonhog 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intended the Everybody Hates Hugo image to be in the body of the article.  Compare Juliet (Lost).  --thedemonhog 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Character images

message: Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding :Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an added note: I've created List of Lost cast members as the new place for the entire cast. As of now: it's a start, since I didn't have time to type all of it out. Feel free to add the rest of :Category:Lost cast members to the list (plus cast members that might not be in the category). RobJ1981 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD notice 

message: I suggest the season articles because there was recently an attempt to (temporarily) delete them.  I added "broadcast history," "background" and "ratings and reception" to the season 3 article.  --thedemonhog 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month suggestion 

message: An article was created for Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, and Jonas Mittelos. The AfD pages can be found at:
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mittelos Bioscience
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Alpert (Lost)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elija Allen
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Mittelos
Thanks.  --  Wikipedical 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, Jonas Mittelos 

message: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Katelost.jpg. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion on Talk:Lost (TV series)#Character images. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promo pictures again 

message: An editor has been reverting over flashback characters without discussion, so I've started a thread at Talk:Characters of Lost#Flashback characters.  I know it has been discussed before, but I'd like to make sure we still have consensus.  Opinions would be appreciated.  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashback characters 

message: There seems to be some dispute and inconsistency about how these terms are used.  The episode list says "Featured Character(s)", the episodes themselves say "...is featured in the episode's flashbacks" and character pages say "Centric episodes".
It seems like it would be beneficial to agree on a standard definition of what these mean (hopefully the same for all three).  Does it refer to the person having, and appearing in the flashbacks?  Does it include characters who appear in the flashback but are secondary (as with some cases of walt/michael, boone/shannon, sun/jin)?  Does it take into account the screentime/centrism of the island scenes?  What about flashbacks to earlier on the island, on the flight, or episodes with flashbacks for many characters?
I'd propose this: the featured/flashback character 1) appears in the flashback and/or has the flashback 2) is only one character unless two share it equally (obviously a judgement call by editors, but that's what happens) 3) the character generally is prominent in the island scenes and often the one who has a realization or turning point in that episode 4) for episodes with flashbacks for many characters, just list "various" or something similar.
Would it make sense to put some sort of definition of this in the project guidelines?  Or clarify wording on the various pages?  This seems like a common cause of arguments, it would be nice to agree on something (even if it's something fairly arbitrary), even if it's just so we can put it to rest and avoid further arguing and reverting over it.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc? 

message: A bunch of the summaries in List of Lost episodes are copied from other web sites. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of episodes copy vios 

message: Template:Ep has been nominated for deletion, somebody forked it from "Lostpedia", useless template which is unneeded transclusion imo, not to mention every time it's modified Wikipedia has to re-cache all transclusions. Matthew 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ep" 

message: The character articles are beginning to fall into a really bad shape now, for every new episode something along the lines of "In xyz [..]" is being inserted, basically a paragraph for every episode, I'm going to have a go at cleaning up and adding secondary sources to an article soon. Matthew 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will assist you, and what do you mean by "secondary sources?"  So far, I have been reverting many edits whenever something new happens to Nikki and Paulo, because their articles are the shortest and easiest to keep track of.  --thedemonhog 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember how popular this show is right now. As painful as it is to see, it might be a better use of time to "let the dust settle" and then clean up articles. Not to say that we should do anything, but just remember that many of the little things can be easily cleaned up by waiting a little bit. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad shape 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (fourth nomination). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the article because I visited the talk page and noticed that the most recent consensus was to keep it.  Personally though, I think that the description on List of Lost episodes is sufficient so I voted in favour of the deletion.  Also, Ned should watch his language.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I plan on being polite, but I also plan on being a tad bit honest with my responses. I've gotten a bit tired at how phony we all start to sound in these discussions. What I said was likely over the line, but it's not a big deal. We often find ourselves making a bigger deal out of correcting each other than the initial incivility, which can often be far more disruptive. Being civil does not require making us all into robots. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know what you mean.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ned, you've been warned about your various petty incivilities numerous times. As you want honesty: I find your reasons for listing it for AfD entirely questionable. Considering I spent a good deal of time developing it into an encyclopaedic article, providing verifiable sources and substantiating its significance, I must wonder if your intention is to run off editors by wasting their time and making obnoxiously snide remarks about their efforts. If so, then you're doing a fine job. --LeflymanTalk 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back on it, what I've said to you is out of line. I just get a bit tired of people shouting WP:CIVIL at the drop of a hat, but they're right for this situation. It is not my intent to drive anyone away from editing. I've supported deletions on things I've worked my ass off on before, sometimes that's just how it works out. It's nothing personal. However, I'm surprised that you think my motivation for deletion is questionable. I did not know of your involvement at all when I nominated the article. I know that doesn't excuse my later comments, but please understand they were only out of frustration. The AfD itself is very straight forward. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notice for clipshow, Lost: The Journey 

message: As we all know trivia sections are a bad thing. I'm suggesting that maybe WP:LOST does as WP:WHO did - splitting information into "continuity", "production", "outside references" and occasionally "music". Seems to work quite well pretty much every Torchwood and Doctor Who episode article. Just a suggestion at the main page, because my Expose edits weren't well understood.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections 

message: Check it out: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo (Lost)/archive1.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for [[Paulo (Lost)]] 

message: Since there seems to be a debate over whether minor characters belong on the page or not, perhaps we should split the page. Make a new page called "List of characters from Lost" with a list and brief descriptions (a la List of characters from The Simpsons) and have one with extended descriptions called "List of recurring characters from Lost" (a la List of recurring characters from The Simpsons). As it stands, it is not a list of characters because it cuts out several notable one-timers and includes several minor flashback characters (ie. Jack's friend from White Rabbit). Some, such as the Pilot and the kids, did appear in multiple episodes. Otherwise, we should move the page to "Recurring characters of Lost". Thoughts? -- Scorpion 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Characters of Lost]]

message: A new article on Lost related podcasts has sprung up here. Is this notable?--Opark 77 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll say no.  It's basically a page about a specific type of fansites (not notable and crufty).  --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost podcasts

message: I noticed a bit of speculation in numerous pages. For example, some were writing that the real 'Sawyer' was Locke's dad and passing it off as fact. Or when Juliet told Jack that his ex was happy, someone added "However, its not known that she was telling the truth, and she could be just lying." Um, says who? We don't need personal theories or "however, this may be true" or whatnot. Just the facts as they were presented in the show. Obviously this seems to be a problem with a lot of articles, and I'll try to help the best I can, but we all need to weed these out.--CyberGhostface 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, we need to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.. not a fan-site. Another problem is "trivia" (often where these "facts" are placed). Matthew 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: An article was created listing spoilers for Season 3.  The AfD page can be found here.  --  Wikipedical 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- Lost Spoilers 

message: No new information about his character will come.  See it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost).  Please vote and discuss.  --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, it passed.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that the page become Today's featured article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nikki Fernandez and Paulo.  Comment if you feel like it.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidacy for [[Paulo (Lost)]] 

message: In the episode guide for Tricia Tanaka is Dead, User:Cuchullain seems intent on giving an entire history of the car that Hurley drives, spoiling that Ben kills his father in it and that Hurley uses it to stop the Others in the season finale.
While I understand "Wikipedia contains spoilers" policy, I don't feel it is relevant to discuss future events in the episode. If we do this, we might as well state in the guide for Confidence Man that Sawyer later finds and kills the man who seduced his mother and so forth. 
Its not an article about the car. The car isn't the main focus of the article. We don't need to know all the other appearences it makes. I tried to shorten it to write that "The car's history is explored in Man behind the Curtain and makes another appearence in Through the Looking Glass but Cuchullain reverted my edits.
Anyway, the discussion for this can be found here.--CyberGhostface 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The car from Tricia Tanaka is Dead 

message: The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles.  There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements.  Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes.  We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page.  After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles.  See: Wikipedia:Television article review process.  We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage.  Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode coverage