Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Episode guidelines

message: See A Tale of Two Cities (Lost).  I see no (or very few) edits/reverts that are in the spirit of keeping to these guidelines.  The plot section is currently exceeding 2,100 words, including trivia. Almost every tenet is violated from these guidelines, in fact. Trivia is in there that is pure original research. Dialog is included at many junctures.  Virtually every scene of the show is described in detail.
Obviously, I could set about fixing any or all of this, but I'm puzzled as to why others don't seem to be jumping in.  Did the mediation matter?  Are others not committed to these guidelines? Elonka?  Wikipedical? ArgentiumOutlaw?  Thanks, PKtm 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular article is about an episode that just aired a few days ago, and is currently going through a feeding frenzy of editing.  My own feeling is that it should be given some time to get past the "chaos" period, and then yes, by all means it should be condensed down.  Or if someone else wants to do it in the meantime, I'll support it.  I would also point out that I spent many many hours condensing episode articles and personally converting/rewriting the season articles (and handing out awards when the Lost article went featured).  So I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why you're accusing me of "not jumping in."  Please feel free to examine my contribution history to see just how much effort I have put in to help implement the mediation guidelines, before accusing me of ignoring them. --Elonka 06:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the philosophy of "let it settle".  Fancruft feeds on fancruft.  We need to "train" the contributors about what is acceptable and what is not.  If a completely unacceptable addition is allowed to perpetuate, and then spawn similar additions of irrelevant material, our job is made all the harder down the road.  As for the other episode articles, very few of them are even close to the 500 word guideline.  You may have edited/condensed (for example) an episode like Two for the Road (Lost), but its plot summary is still at 1,100 words. And recent poor edits/additions have been made to older episodes (e.g., this one to Pilot (Lost), that no one has edited or reverted.  Having episode articles at all, in their massive numbers as the series progresses, is only going to work if we're all dogged about enforcing the guidelines. I can do it in any one instance, of course, but as I've argued consistently along the way, the influx (particularly in a world with episode articles) outstrips the capability of any one or two editors to keep up. PKtm 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you see a Wikipedia article that needs editing, then by all means, edit it.  But I do not think that it is appropriate for you to be attacking other editors as to whether or not they are working hard enough.  Please review WP:NPA. This is a volunteer project, and people participate as they can.  The guidelines that we agreed upon are worthy goals.  I agreed with them, and I support them, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to spend my time 24x7 enforcing them.  What I *will* do though, is support other editors, including you, who are working towards those goals.  If a dispute comes up, and there is disagreement about how a particular episode article should be maintained, I will be fully behind the guidelines.  Also, if there's an article that I think is perfectly fine at 1000 words, but someone else condenses it even further to 500 words, well, that's what I agreed to.  But if I stare at that article for 15 minutes and can't for the life of me think how to further condense it without reducing its quality without falling into WP:POINT, then I'm going to move on to some other project, and let some other editor figure out how to do the cut.  In terms of the "Two Cities" article, I agree with you, it's poorly-written (or was last time I looked at it), and needs fixing.  If no one else gets to it in a few days, I'll do it myself.  Or, you can do it yourself, per .  --Elonka 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, I regret that my comments seem to have come across as a personal attack, because it certainly was not my intent.  At no point have I thought or meant to imply that you are not one of the hardest-working Lost editors around.  However, I won't soft-soap the very real issues that I have about what's happening with Wikipedia Lost episode articles. My questions, which still stand, have to do with the extent of the active commitment to the agreed-upon guidelines, especially after the long and contentious process of mediation.  I stand by my comments as to what is observable about the current epsiode articles and the general lack of reverts happening when inappropriate material is posted.  And as for , a retort I fully anticipated, you've missed my point. Sure, I can fix any one or two instances, but I simply can't be one of a tiny minority (as in one or two) people pushing the rock uphill against the horde of enthusiastic Lost posters, many of whom won't care about or agree with the guidelines.  The load has to be spread among us all, consistent with what I argued during the mediation.  I also now note that Jtrost was finally the one who, a day or two ago, pared down the A Tale of Two Cities (Lost) article to conform to the guidelines.  I remember someone, during the long discussion of episode versus season articles, plaintively asking just who would commit to putting all the episode articles on their watch list and police them.  I'm hoping that that poster's concern (i.e., that'd he'd turn out to be one of only a very few people to commit to that) is not proving to be true.  That's a sincere expression of my worry, supported by the currently observable facts.  I'm sorry if you interpret it to somehow be a personal attack on you, because it's not. -- PKtm 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think rather than obtaining personal commitments from specific editors, who may or may not have free time to participate on Wikipedia in the near future, it's more important that we ensure that systems and guidelines are in place for the articles, which will last over the longterm. So, how about we make a checklist?  We can make a table on a subpage here on the WikiProject, which lists every single episode.  We can then notate each one as to whether or not it has been reviewed for adherence to the mediation guidelines.  We could also have a "signup" system, where certain people could volunteer to watch different articles, so we ensure that every article has eyes on it.  The table can then be further edited to ensure that there's always a currently active editor that's keeping an eye on something.  --Elonka 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, constructive idea!  Thanks, Elonka.  Anyone else with ideas/input on this? PKtm 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it's probably pretty quiet here, because not too many people have this page on their watchlist.  But let's take advantage of the lull, to come up with a plan that we both agree on, and then we can present it to the others in a more public venue, how's that?  I've spent the last few days working on a chart that we can use as a kind of "work checklist".  It has all the episodes, plus the length of the plot summary in each one, and a "notes" section where we can jot down which episodes need the most work.  I also left a spot where we could each initial next to an episode when you and I both agree that it's "done", meaning that we've both checked it and agree that it's in compliance with the mediation guidelines (at least for a few nanoseconds, heh). Does that make sense? --Elonka 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Elonka's idea just about covers it.  If we have someone watch every single episode and make sure it adheres to the guidelines, I think that will take care of it. --Kahlfin 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  You ROCK, as the kids say.  Great job.  Totally on board, and this chart/approach also makes me feel much more sanguine about episode articles in general. Thanks, PKtm 16:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great!  Okay, when you get a chance, please ~~~~ "initial" the episodes that you've checked and are willing to signoff on.  Are you comfortable with tables?  If the syntax is too messy, let me know and I'll put some big "INITIAL HERE" comments in the appropriate places.  ;) --Elonka 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone paying attention to these guidelines? 

message: ===Season 1===
Actual title                          	Length of summary	Mediation adherence signoff                                          	Ongoing editor(s)	Notes
Pilot (Lost)#Part 1                   	609              	Elonka 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Episode list

message: Actual title                          	Length of summary	Mediation adherence signoff                                          	Ongoing editor(s)	Notes
Pilot (Lost)#Part 1                   	609              	Elonka 08:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 1

message: Actual title                	Length of summary    	Mediation adherence signoff                                         	Ongoing editor(s)	Notes
Man of Science, Man of Faith	789                  	                                                               	            	
Adrift (Lost)               	620                  	                                                               	            	 
Orientation (Lost)          	539                  	PKtm 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 2

message: Just trying to help.  Right now there's nothing saying which of the two it should be, and someone moved them all from the former to the latter.  But maybe there wasn't consensus that it should be (Lost) either, it wouldn't surprise me.  --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All episodes should have the suffix applied, we need to seek consensus as to which suffix should be applied as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we moving over here now?  Why do all episodes need to have the suffix applied?  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think enough people have told you why at the RfC :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the consensus disagreed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no consensus on which suffix to use, I guess that can be argued out somewhere as well, and if the article names revert back and forth, that's what happens.  As for "All episodes should have the suffix applied", I admire your optimism.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes sense to me to put the suffixes on all the episodes, since the majority of them already have suffixes anyway.  Since they all already use "(Lost)", I see no compelling reason to change it to "(Lost episode)". --Elonka 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For once I agree with Elonka. Just use "Lost" unless for some strange reason there is a need for further disambiguation (such as an episode being named after a character, etc). -- Ned Scott 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they used to use (Lost).  But someone went and changed them all yesterday.  As for unnecessary disambiguation, I don't think it makes sense to start arguing it in yet another place and fragment the discussion even more.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think potential mediation is a grounds for declaring "no consensus".  Whatever the situation is, in the meantime, articles have to be named one way or another, and it would be nice to avoid mass renamings.  Is there objection to following WP:TV-NAME and going with (Lost) for the time being?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then _cease_ renaming them, Okay? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is that an objection to going with (Lost)?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any objection, nor do I think it's apart of our mediation. It's true that the RfC included this issue, but no one really... cares. It's really just about the disambig when necessary thing, not the disambig title itself. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  No. It is a supreme objection to you unilaterally moving pages from xyz (Lost) to xyz. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not making those moves, he's just moving xyz (Lost episode) back to xyz (Lost). -- Ned Scott 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look @ his move log, thanks. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all of his recent page moves have only been (Lost episode) to (Lost). Look @ the dates on the move log. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those moves were simply reverts of a unilateral move of those pages: [].  I looked at the page histories before making the revert, and it didn't seem controversial to me, especially since some of the pages had already been moved back.  Do you generally have an objection to reversions of major edits done without consenus?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm talking about the unilateral moves on the 17th and 24th, like you said Ned, look at teh dates . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two moves on the 17th were in response to the deletion of the redirect pages to make room for those moves. [] [].  And those moves weren't unilateral by any stretch of the imagination, they had consensus at WP:TV-NAME.  In addition, as I'm sure you're aware, there was a request for move at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Requested move which involved similar pages and passed easily - if I hadn't moved those two, they would have been included in that request and I doubt the result would have been any different.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you full well know there is no consensus at TV-NC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, if consensus says it's consensus, it's consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no consensus, the page at WP:TV-NAME is clearly labeled as being in dispute, there's an upcoming mediation, there is clear disagreement on this page, and there are edit wars and move wars all over the place.  That's about as non-consensus as you can get.  :) So please, can we just stop and talk about things, instead of pushing forward with controversial actions? --Elonka 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the "dispute" tag grounds for not following that guideline?  Or is it an indication of lack of consensus?  And where is a move war taking place?  I've seen plenty of moving, but it has been largely uneventful and unopposed.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that I, and others, have strongly indicated our opposition to the moves, so it is incorrect to say that it has been unopposed.  Have you perhaps noted the dozens of messages per day at the guidelines page, the complaints on talk pages, the upcoming mediation, the edit wars?  Most people would regard those as "opposition and controversy." --Elonka 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you characterize the move here as "controversial"?  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is that it seemed rude/hostile/hasty to some when other editors in a heavy debate started making changes that were related to the dispute while things seemed to be inching toward mediation - whether it was in compliance with a guideline or not.  Not that it was per se against any rule, but it did seem rude and it agitated some folks. Emotions and frustrations are running high on all sides.  Refusal to acknowledge the offended feelings ("it was unopposed", "there is no dispute") in this case doesn't help to clear the air. Riverbend 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care, but I guess I would choose whatever the dab trend seems to be with other pages.Riverbend 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Lost) versus (Lost episode) 

message: Could someone please read Talk:? (Lost), and Talk:Lockdown (Lost). Both articles clearly have large portions of text plagiarized from Lostpedia. Could someone please fix the problem, or I will just remove the text from the articles. Thank -Mr.Leaf67 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any text copied from another site is likely a copyright vio and should be removed immediately.  --Minderbinder 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagarism on a few of the episode pages 

message: Ned Scott, I apologize; my edit summary was erased by popups, I'll summarize what I had to say.  These were the guidelines agreed upon by the mediation.  What in WP:EPISODE allows you specifically to remove the sentence about individual episodes?  --  Wikipedical 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a guideline for WikiProject Lost, and it is not a fixed statement of the mediation that took place in the past. Whatever you agreed to in mediation does not trump Wikipedia-wide consensus. Did you forget about the arbcom case that started out from this exact page? -- Ned Scott 05:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:EPISODE