Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 3

message: This archive page covers all Polls, Policies, and Verifiability Discussions.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.  — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Look, TV.com, spoilerfix.com, and lost-media.net are NOT Verifiable or authoritative sources.  We should not be citing them, as they have proven to be wrong about future events on several occassions.  I am going to remove data that is sourced only from these sources, including guesses as to future flashback information, unverifiable title information, and speculation on future events of the show merely based on promotional screencaps and rumors. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: * 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.
* Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page.  This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information.
* Please only include your name or signature in the voting area.  Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard Wikipedia:Polls.
* This poll will end after 1 week (on 11/24/2005).  If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward.
:The following discussion is an archived poll on the above topics. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section.  No further edits should be made to this section.  
This poll was closed on 11/24/2005.  The motion was passed.  Please follow these guidelines as approved by consensus in all future edits.  
==== Yes ====
* User:DropDeadGorgias
* PKtm
* Baryonyx
* User:Megapixie
* Tigger89
* Carbonite
* Mathwiz2020
* LeFlyman
* Clampton
* StilgarISCA
==== No ====
* Weters
* The monkeyhate
:This poll is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the discussion section below.
====Discussion====
* In the interest of Wikipedia:Verifiability, we cannot continue to include the unreliable information from the other spoiler websites.  We have gotten information on flashbacks wrong twice, first about "...And Found" and second about "The Other 48 Days".  Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a fan-site.  People can go to the spoiler sites if they want to guess about the happenings of future episodes.  --DDG 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say I am the only person opposed to the information being in the table, given the amount of "Yes" votes in the above section?  The information should not be added until the show is broadcast or the flashback info can be verified in some way.  Just because something is in a screenshot does not mean it is canon- for example, you could use the screenshot from the beginning of "Everybody Hates Hugo" to show that Jin was inside the hatch with a Man in a chicken suit, but you would be wrong.  There is no context for these images, so your assertion that they are definitely flashbacks are merely an educated guess.  --DDG 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Imagine if you were looking at a picture of the scene where Kate took a shower in the hatch, though.  Without knowledge of the scene(that she was in the hatch) one could only tell that she was soaking wet and wrapped in a towel, not something that I would have placed as happening on the island without knowledge of the events surrounding the scene.  While it's true that the only place they're seen outside the island is in their(or other's) flashbacks, it's possible for a non-flashback scene to be mistaken as a flashback. Tigger89 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Should we limit information on future episodes to published information from official sources? 

message: * In the interest of Wikipedia:Verifiability, we cannot continue to include the unreliable information from the other spoiler websites.  We have gotten information on flashbacks wrong twice, first about "...And Found" and second about "The Other 48 Days".  Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a fan-site.  People can go to the spoiler sites if they want to guess about the happenings of future episodes.  --DDG 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say I am the only person opposed to the information being in the table, given the amount of "Yes" votes in the above section?  The information should not be added until the show is broadcast or the flashback info can be verified in some way.  Just because something is in a screenshot does not mean it is canon- for example, you could use the screenshot from the beginning of "Everybody Hates Hugo" to show that Jin was inside the hatch with a Man in a chicken suit, but you would be wrong.  There is no context for these images, so your assertion that they are definitely flashbacks are merely an educated guess.  --DDG 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Imagine if you were looking at a picture of the scene where Kate took a shower in the hatch, though.  Without knowledge of the scene(that she was in the hatch) one could only tell that she was soaking wet and wrapped in a towel, not something that I would have placed as happening on the island without knowledge of the events surrounding the scene.  While it's true that the only place they're seen outside the island is in their(or other's) flashbacks, it's possible for a non-flashback scene to be mistaken as a flashback. Tigger89 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "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."  Does this mean that information from the Official Lost Magazine cannot be included?  It does have a lot of spoilers (which goes back to the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball issue") but, since it's official, everything is true.  Can it be used as a source for information about future episodes? — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that.  However, we have to make sure we're still not speculating based on that information.  If the official magazine says something to the effect of "Episode 209 will have flashbacks of Charlie's drug addiction" that is fine.  If it's vague, like the tv guide blurbs have been ("Kate's original crime is revealed"), then we can include the info for the episode, but not extrapolate things like Flashbacks, etc.  See Clampton's comments above. --DDG 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Does that mean that the information posted about the post New-Year episodes is official (as in, from the magazine)? Some of it seems rather speculative to me. Baryonyx 06:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, that stuff was added without a source being provided.  In either case I'm still irritated that people keep re-adding flashback information based on speculation based upon clues given in the episode description.  For example, even though it says that Kate's original crime is revealed, it isn't specified that the flashbacks will be hers tonight.  Same thing goes for "The Hunting Party".  --DDG 15:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not really familiar with the status of "official" fan magazines.  Is there any precedent for this on Wikipedia or in other news sources?  Does the magazine have a disclaimer of some kind? --DDG 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does ABC review the magazine to make sure that all speculation is correct, or is the magazine just as reliable as fan sites? — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it doesn't matter if the speculation is correct or not (and much less if ABC has reviewed it).  if you want to paraphrase a magazine, just say "according to magazine m, john locke stabbed shannon".   its perfectly legitimate wikipedia -- verifiable, npov, nor, etc. and noo it isn't a crystal ball if you phrase it properly -71.112.11.220 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, anon.  Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability.  It wouldn't look appropriate if we started citing The National Enquirer, no matter how nicely we did the citation. --DDG 14:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ABC does not exert any editorial control over the publication. It's a fan magazine published independently under licence; its purpose is to sell subscriptions and advertising, and provide an outlet to hard-core fans of the series. The likelihood is that by the time something shows up in the magazine (remember, it's a monthly) the info is outdated, or even inaccurate. —LeFlyman 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If it's not published by ABC then it really shouldn't be considered "official".  It's just like all of the fansites. Jtrost 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more verifiable than a fansite, but it's certainly not a mouthpiece for the network or the producers. It's likely that the magazine will have interviews and previews which are authorized by the producers of LOST. I would suggest treating it as any other published source, but not generate a special category or level of "officialness" for it. —LeFlyman 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Lost Magazine