Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 11

message: Don't you think we should have a section about the Season 1 & 2 DVDs? You'd think that's pretty important. --The monkeyhate 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *While a short DVD section would be appropriate, the huge tabular section that's developed at the bottom of the article looks, well, unnecessarily overdone. Can it be shrunken down into something readable and manageable? Otherwise, I'm in favour of its transfer to List of Lost episodes. --LeflymanTalk 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD 

message: I have converted the list of characters into prose format. I understand that this will be somewhat controversial but hope that it will not be reverted out of hand. All television articles that have made featured article status include a prose rather than a list format. This change has been suggested in a previous peer review of this article. The manual of style suggests that lists are preferable to prose. I have tried to not disrupt the notations and guidelines inserted into the article when making this change.--Opark 77 09:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my best with it, but I still think the list format was better and spoiler-free. Chris 42 13:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been through the season two paragraph again and toned down any blatant spoilers, to leave the fates of some characters open to conjecture, for any newcomers to the series. Chris 42 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What the hell? it looks AWFUL.. 67.86.8.180 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose format

message: :What the hell? it looks AWFUL.. 67.86.8.180 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I found a couple of apparent wording errors in the Lost article, one of which seems serious.
The article uses the term 'crossover' in a non-standard way. There may be a historical reason for this, but it seems to be a misnomer, and potentially confusing to readers. As I understand it, a crossover is when a character from one piece of fiction shows up in a separate work (King Kong vs. Godzilla), not when a character appears in different settings in the same work (Batman's parents were killed by the Joker).
I don't know of a one-word term for this intersecting back-stories concept, but I'm pretty sure it's not 'crossover.' I know it'd be a pain to change this now, but it seems like a pretty big error to me.
Also, 'back-story' seems preferable to 'history,' when referring to the characters' past, as revealed by dialogue and flashbacks.
I didn't change these, since it seemed potentially controversial. --Loqi T. 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this term has one potential difficulty. Because it does not specifically mention the characters past/back story it could be applied to any interaction between two or more  characters. In my opinion this means that it is not specific enough for the interactions the section describes.--Opark 77 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomers? 

message: How about 'crossing paths?' This would cover any interesting character interaction, even if they don't take place in back-story. For example, when we see an event on the island restated from another perspective, new connections are revealed. --Loqi T. 16:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this term has one potential difficulty. Because it does not specifically mention the characters past/back story it could be applied to any interaction between two or more  characters. In my opinion this means that it is not specific enough for the interactions the section describes.--Opark 77 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'crossing paths' ? 

message: None of the images on the page have a fair use rationale, this needs to be addressed or the images should be removed.--Opark 77 08:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: The lead could be longer based on the length of the article. It should make more effort to summarize what the article will cover (see WP:LEAD).--Opark 77 08:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The current structure makes significant departures from the guidelines at wikiproject television.
Wikiproject television guidelines:
 *Articlename
 *Infobox
 *Introduction (Lead)
 1 Characters
 2 Plot and Episode listing
 3 Impact of show on society
 4 Critical reviews
 5 Production notes
 6 External links
 7 Categories
Current structure:
 *Articlename
 *Infobox
 *Introduction (Lead)
 1 Conception
 2 Ratings and critical response
 3 Episode structure
 4 Filming location
 5 Distribution
 6 Music
 7 Cast and characters
 8 Season synopses
 9 Mythology
 10 Thematic motifs
 11 Discredited theories
 12 In other media
 13 Licensed merchandise
 14 Fandom
 15 In popular culture
 16 References
 17 External links
By comparing the lists I have 6 main suggestions for altering the structure to improve the flow of the article and make it a more rewarding read for those unfamiliar with the show.
#I think the conception section makes an excellent first section and should not be moved.
#Ratings and critical response would fit under the Impact of show on society and Critical reviews banner and should probably be moved down the page to sit with sections like Fandom, In popular culture, merchandise, in other media and in other media.
#Episode structure, location, distribution and music would all fit under the category of production notes and should probably be moved down the page.
#cast and characters should be moved up the page.
#Season synopses should probably be renamed plot and moved up the page.
#Mythology and thematic motifs are well placed together but should be below plot. 
--Opark 77 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an edit per the Wikiproject television guidelines.  Looks different, I'm not sure if that necessarily means better.  Thoughts?  --  Wikipedical 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Wikiproject television guidelines:
 *Articlename
 *Infobox
 *Introduction (Lead)
 1 Characters
 2 Plot and Episode listing
 3 Impact of show on society
 4 Critical reviews
 5 Production notes
 6 External links
 7 Categories
Current structure:
    *Articlename
    *Infobox
    *Introduction (Lead)
    * 1 Production
    * 2 Cast and characters
    * 3 Season synopses
    * 4 Mythology
    * 5 Thematic motifs
    * 6 Discredited theories
    * 7 Impact of show on society
    * 8 In other media
    * 9 DVD releases
    * 10 References
    * 11 External links
    *Categories
I think the structure is much improved and the TOC is now a manageable length. 
#I'm not sure about the need for a seperate section on discredited theories. Perhaps this section could be move to the new Mythology of Lost subarticle. 
#I'm not sure about having information about minor elements of production above the cast and characters and season synopses sections as these are important to introduce the show to readers unfamiliar with its content.
#If we do merge the mythology and thematic motifs article then these two sections should also be merged.
--Opark 77 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure again

message: Speaking of structure, a while back someone (I don't remember who exactly) suggested that we split Thematic motifs and Mythology into a separate article and give a brief summary of them in this article.  While we're reorganizing the article I would like to revisit this idea.  We could create a new section called Plot devices and give a couple paragraphs about the motifs and mythology.  Then we could link to the main article, Plot devices in Lost, which would be a copy and paste of the two current sections.  The reason I bring this up is that this article is still relatively long for a TV show (55kb), and doing this will not only decrease the size, but also bring the article closer to an FA.  Those sections go into great detail, and this main article should be a brief overview of the series.  Thoughts? Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that these sections could be moved elsewhere with a brief description in the main article using summary style. This would help the casual reader not to get bogged down in an in depth analysis of the show and also reduce the length of the article. I also think the discredited theories section could go elsewhere too as it has received criticism as not being notable enough for the main article. I'm not sure about Plot devices in Lost as a title for this new article, but as I'm unable to think of any alternatives that should do fine for now!--Opark 77 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot devices in Lost article suggestion

message: The TOC of the article has been criticised as being too long in peer review. Perhaps it could be reduced by replacing the subsections headings under long sections like mythology with simple bold text titles rather than headers e.g.
Black and white
rather than:
===Black and white===
--Opark 77 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: --Opark 77 10:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black and white

message: The article currently contains several lists that need to be converted into prose. The list of appearances in other media, licenced merchandise and discredited theories all could be in a prose format and the article would be improved if they were.--Opark 77 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: I am currently re-recording the spoken word version of this article as it has drastically changed since my last revision.  Expect it online soon.  SergeantBolt 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-recording 'Lost (TV series)'

message: This might be a noob question and all, but is there a reason why there there is a year between commencement of production?  That's fourteen or more days per hour of footage, I don't .. think I've ever seen any media production on such a drawn out time scale before.  Is there a reason the production company are doing this?  I'm a big fan, but in all honesty, I can see it's production time line being the eventual reason I lose interest and potentially the only reason that it'd ever flop. 211.30.80.121 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delays between Productions

message: Someone put this as a note in the article: "can a link to a list of instances be added? The numbers play a big part".
I'd say no but I was wondering myself, are the links About.com and Lostvirtualtour.com in the article appropriate? --Sloane 13:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say they are useful links to have considering they have lots of detailed content that doesn't 'fit' in this article.  Unlike linking to a fansite or web forum, these sites are pretty useful and encyclopedic.  --  Wikipedical 17:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links in the article

message: This one is about a Lost podcast.  Please vote. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would urge all editors of this page to read the article and consider voting in the AFD. Particularly because the creators of the podcast have a campaign urging their listeners to join wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting to keep this article.--Opark 77 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This incident really bolsters all the solid arguments that have been made against inclusion of links to fan sites such as Lostpedia.  It's a slippery slope indeed.  -- PKtm 03:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another AfD 

message: Should the others be moved to "characters" or remain in "mythology"?  --  Wikipedical 21:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Others 

message: Per this discussion, the DVDs have been put on the airdates page, and then the List of Lost episodes page after the airdates were deleted.  If you wish to change the status quo, please discuss it here first.  I am removing this section until a consensus is reached. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD releases 

message: Can someone upload the international broadcasters of Lost please?
*I would move the section to a seperate page. It will get too long. --Sloane 22:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International broadcasters 

message: I noticed that each episode of Lost seems to have an episode linked to from [] and also Episodes of Lost (Series 1), for example Pilot (Lost) and Episodes of Lost (Series 1)#Pilot.
Personally I prefer the first style (page per episode) as a lot of other TV programs follow that style, and additionally the Episodes of Lost (Series 1) page seems to be exceptionally long.--Laser2k 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the mediation regarding this issue.  Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, apologies, I didn't see anything in the relevant talk pages :) --Laser2k 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple episode pages 

message: A section spun off from this article, the List of crossovers on Lost article, like the Island Census one, is not information intended Wikipedia.  Maybe Lostpedia.  The AfD page is here.  --  Wikipedical 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD- crossovers 

message: I have nominated Lost (TV series) for FA status.  I think its current re-formatting has done it the world of good and met the criteria where it failed last time.  Nomination is here:
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Lost_.28TV_series.29
SergeantBolt 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost (TV series) nominated for FA status. 

message: It is very lame to not list any Fansites.  The best ones are much more useful and interesting than the official sites.  It is hard to believe that anyone knowledgeable about Lost and familiar with the fansites would think they were not essential and appropriate to include in a Lost article.  However, since a small number of persistent folk seem determined to block such sensible forward progress, can't we just compromise by having a LOST FANSITE article, and link to it? (And as long as the best fansites are not listed, it certainly is not worthy of being a Featured Article. If indeed current wikipedia rules block having a good, appropriate Lost article, the rules should be changed. The only hard part should be agreeing on which are the best fansites.) (Two essential ones to include: the one with the transcripts, and the one written by the guy who stays up all night to summarize each episode in incredible detail, immediately after broadcast.) 69.87.194.236 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to me why either of those sites are notable or encyclopedic and not just fancruft. Lumaga 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links - Fansites MISSING!