Talk:List of Lost episodes/Archive 3

message: The article should have a standard screenshot size.  Widescreen works best I think, and we should replace the older fullscreen shots.  --  Wikipedical 23:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean you want the images replacing with this type of screencap or something else as i can do the whole of S1 like that from the DVD today if you would like? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  If you could replace existing images with new ones of that size, that would be excellent.  It would also be really helpful if you could take the same shots, just using the widescreen format.  Thanks a lot.  --  Wikipedical 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image size 

message: To help strengthen our fair use argument for identification of episodes / relation to episodes in screen shots I think we need to evaluate and replace some of the existing images. I'll start a list of episodes that could use better screen shots. Feel free to also add comments and suggestions to each image on the list. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episodes needing better screen shots 

message: I'm adding this to every page where info on the second episode, Further Instructions, has been added. ABCMediaNet released pictures yesterday of Further Instructions, a few guest stars are seen in Locke's flashback pictures. I didn't add Locke as the flashback character though, because I know someone will say it's original research to assume that Locke isn't driving a truck in the jungle on the island and having a picnic with characters we've never seen before, and has hair. But whatever. ABC confirmed it, and I'm just verifying. ShadowUltra 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Instructions Info 

message: We have not reached an agreement on the images.  I would consider this as No Consensus or "innocent until proven guilty" in which case the images stay until decided otherwise.  For example, when a page is nominated for deletion, the page isn't hidden or deleted until the AfD is over and the result is Keep and then it is reopened to the public.  Instead, the page remains up until the result is Delete.  Also, can we at least be consistent?  If keeping the images up is too much to ask, can we hide all not-fair use images on Wikipedia episode lists until a consensus is reached?  --154.20.217.225 04:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not innocent until proven guilty with copyright issues. It's up to you to demonstrate the images are usable. ed g2s • talk 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, how about hiding all of the images on other episode lists?  --154.20.217.225 02:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The images meet fair use requirements, so there aren't any copyright issues.  The policy they butt up against is overuse of non-free images in wikipedia.  There is no consensus that they are an overuse and they fit the list of episodes template so we should put them back. - Peregrinefisher 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err,  was made to accommodate BOTH screen shot and non-screen shot lists. -- Ned Scott 04:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should add pictures. --The monkeyhate 11:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: What is happening with the episode orders and changes getting reverted. The first five episodes of Lost Season 3 that I know of is Tale of 2 cities, further instructions, the glass ballarina, Every Man For Himself and The Cost of Living. Does anyone have a Definite list of the first five lost episodes. I'm 100% sure those are the names for the first five episodes but I'm not entirely sure of the order. --Lakeyboy 09:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only three episodes have been officially confirmed. They are;
* 301. A Tale of Two Cities (Jack)
* 302. The Glass Ballerina (Sun)
* 303. Further Instructions (Locke)
Until yesterday, 302 and 303 were the other way round. Episodes 4 and 5 have not been officially confirmed (though other sources claim 304. Every Man for Himself (Sawyer) and 305. The Cost of Living (Eko). Squidward2602 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Season Three Episode Confusion

message: I have nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status.  As with the, now featured, main Lost article, I think we really have collaborated and upped the quality of this list.  Previous attempt failed due to image problem, but in our current state without images, we have no fair use issue.  The link for the nomination can be found here.  Great work guys.  --  Wikipedical 22:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interested editors may wish to review or participate in the discussion, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. --Elonka 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List nomination 

message: I've uploaded the following screenshots:
:Image:1x01.jpg, :Image:1x02.jpg, :Image:1x03.jpg, :Image:1x04.jpg, :Image:1x05.jpg, :Image:1x06.jpg, :Image:1x07.jpg, :Image:1x08.jpg, :Image:1x09.jpg, :Image:1x10.jpg, :Image:1x11.jpg, :Image:1x12.jpg, :Image:1x13.jpg, :Image:1x14.jpg, :Image:1x15.jpg, :Image:1x16.jpg, :Image:1x17.jpg, :Image:1x18.jpg, :Image:1x19.jpg, :Image:1x20.jpg, :Image:1x21.jpg, :Image:1x22.jpg, :Image:1x23.jpg, :Image:1x24.jpg, :Image:1x25.jpg, :Image:2x01.jpg, :Image:2x02.jpg, :Image:2x03.jpg, :Image:2x04.jpg, :Image:2x05.jpg, :Image:2x06.jpg, :Image:2x07.jpg, :Image:2x08.jpg, :Image:2x09.jpg, :Image:2x10.jpg, :Image:2x11.jpg, :Image:2x12.jpg, :Image:2x13.jpg, :Image:2x14.jpg, :Image:2x15.jpg, :Image:2x16.jpg, :Image:2x17.jpg, :Image:2x18.jpg, :Image:2x19.jpg, :Image:2x20.jpg, :Image:2x21.jpg, :Image:2x22.jpg, :Image:2x23.jpg, :Image:2x24.jpg, :Image:3x01.jpg, :Image:3x02.jpg & :Image:3x03.jpg
I think that these images are the best possible images for every episode (the closest we can ever have to providing critical commentary.  I suggest that we use them.  Comments?  --theDemonHog 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to say it but theres to much mixture there, dvd caps, promos, tv caps, we need to ahve them all the same (DVDCaps, all the same resolution, etc) - I've volunterd to do season one but i'm not willing until the list is settled as i have a near perfect upload log which i dont want 24 red links in. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all of them are screencaps with the exceptions of :Image:1x01.jpg, :Image:1x13.jpg, :Image:2x20.jpg and :Image:3x03.jpg, which are promotional photos.  --theDemonHog 19:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There still DOGd, and not WebRes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what does "DOGd" mean?  (and they're all tv caps) --theDemonHog 19:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See DOG. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: ABC's website shows the producion codes for Pilot: Part 1 and Pilot: Part 2 to be 100a and 100b respectively. Then with Tabula Rasa as 101 and Walkabout as 102, etc. Should this page be changed to match? DocNox 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does no one have an opinion on this? I definitely remember hearing that the Pilot was originally meant to be aired as one two-hour long episode, but it was ABC that decided to split it in two. Therefore it makes sense to me that both parts would have the same production code. If no one objects I'm going to change it. I think ABC's a little more official than TV.com - DocNox 00:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should change it.  ABC is the only source that we should ever consult regarding production codes according to the Lost policy.  The page should reflect that. --Kahlfin 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Originally, Further Instructions was set to air before The Glass Ballerina.  --theDemonHog 23:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, no, I don't agree with this at all. Those codes make absolutely no sense. I don't care that it's on ABC, they're wrong. I mean, 1010? That would mean that it's Season 10 Episode 10. And I definitely seem to remember one of the producers on the DVD commentary for season 1 say that the codes didn't match up with the episode numbers, which with the old ones was true. And if you watch the Anatomy of an Episode: Fire + Water on the season 2 DVD it shows the episode as 212, not 2012. I really think we should change it back. Or at the very least take out those extra zeros. -- DocNox 23:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who first said "I think ABC's a little more official than TV.com" and now to say "I don't care that it's on ABC," I don't see where you're going with this.  As per your original statement, we should use what ABC.com, an official verifiable source, lists.  --  Wikipedical 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point with that comment was more that TV.com should never have been used as a source in the first place, not that ABC's absolutely always right. I mean, they're either wrong now or they were wrong then, showing their fallibility, because production codes don't change. And I definitely think they're wrong now. But if no one agrees with me I'm not going to change it, just stating my opinion. -- DocNox 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we are citing the main episode guide page, I think it's appropriate to use what we're given.  If they 'correct' them in the future, we will change it then.  But until then, let's just leave it.  --  Wikipedical 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Codes 

message: What is the hold up? Why are there still no illustrations on this page? Most other episode lists have pics. Pinkyetti 00:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im currently uploading screenshots for the 1st season. I can also also upload screenshots for season 3, but im affraid season 2 I can still get but not sure about the copyright information for season 2. Samaster1991 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be exceptionally silly to upload anymore images at present.. they'd just be orphaned at present. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well hopefully it gets done soon because it would be awesome. --129.198.241.67 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshots

message: I support this list's promotion to featured status. However, I noticed that two other featured episode lists—List of South Park episodes and List of The Simpsons episodes—incorporate their season lists into the table of contents (TOC). Maybe this should be done here as well. --Cliff smith 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The replaced TOCs are extremely confusing. It is not, for example, immediately obvious the the numbers are section links. It is much better to have a standard TOC and a season summary. In fact, breaking the TOC is an extremely bad idea, and I'm going to change those pages. ed g2s • talk 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree, leaving a standard TOC makes things much easier. -- Ned Scott 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Seasons 

message: The episode articles if more then 1 or 2. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Jon 

message: Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix - a debate over the use of disambiguation titles for episode articles of a TV show when no disambiguation is needed. -- Ned Scott 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting comments for Lost episodes 

message: There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Lost episode articles.  All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is related to the above note, and newcomers to the discussion should go to the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions directly instead of the Lost talk page. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming conventions poll

message: I don't necessarily disagree with DARKDAYS' color changes.  I mean, the really faded ones we have now are not as pleasing as the brighter colors.  Thoughts?  --  Wikipedical 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the brighter colors as well.  They're also in keeping with the season DVD box colors, it seems to me. -- PKtm 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The colors need to compliment the Wikipedia colors.  The original colors do just that, while the new colors clash with the Wikipedia colors. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The new colours are way to bright.. theres a list of optimal colours here. Deus (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the general theme on list of episode articles is to use a color from the DVD. Cburnett 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season colors 

message: all moved. -- nae'blis 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been what, six days now?  How do these get closed?  Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, per WP:NC-TV and the discussion there. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes against what the nom claims, that these three are the only three with suffixes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what i claimed. But Elonka's statement is indeed misleading. The current guildline says to "disambiguate ONLY when needed". This is the guildlines that all lost articles, except for these three, follow. These three do not follow the guideline because they are disambiguated when there is absolutely no need for the disambiguation. I linked to the category of lost articles in my nomination so people could click on it and see/judge for themselves. --`/aksha 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Lost articles have already been debated at the Lost WikiProject." As a participant at WikiProject Lost, I find that statement rather.. odd. The only debate that took place was the one that lead into this current debate. The mediation on Lost episode articles never talked about episode titles. So where was this discussion? Was there reasonable rational for this explanation? How many people were involved in the discussion? -- Ned Scott 07:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And my question still goes unanswered. #Answer this question Jay32183 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments
*I wish to point out that "we should keep it the way it is for convenience" is not a valid argument if someone can be found willing to make the change. I note that Elonka and Ned Scott dissent over whether this issue was discussed on WP:LOST. I've found a debate on its "guidelines" page that involves several editors also active here, and does not seem to have the claimed consensus to "always use suffixes". So I would say that yes, it was discussed, but no, it was not concluded. If I'm missing something here, please give me a link. (Radiant) 09:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been what, six days now?  How do these get closed?  Seems like it's been long enough, and sure looks like a consensus.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently listed as backlog (here) on the Request Moves page, so i'd assume it will be done once an admin with spare time comes around and sees it. --`/aksha 11:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I notice a lot of little reverts go on about who is the "most" featured flashback character for a certain episode. Although, it is pretty clear in some that some episodes is more about one character than the other, wouldn't it be just easier to say "Flashback characters" and list both? The fact of the matter is that the interaction between the two characters (such as Boone and Shannon, or Jin and Sun) is just as important as which character is being focused on. Although they are separate characters, one could fairly see them being used as a single element in those contexts. (Of course, we wouldn't want to include cases where one character walks past in the background of another character's flashback) I don't see the big benefit of isolating one character from their usual "pair" when there wouldn't really be a story if both were not involved. Lets look at it this way, is this the flashback event seen by X character's eyes, and we list X character, or is this a flashback that tells us the history of some characters, even if it focuses more on one than the other? -- Ned Scott 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, "Adrift" would be considered a Michael [i]and[/i] Walt episode even though he didn't appear in the island segments at all and he was like a year old in the flashback, and Boone would be credited for flashbacks in "Exodus" and "Abandoned," despite being dead at the time. After all, there would be no stories in those episodes if Michael and Boone weren't involved. Jon Hart 02:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the basic idea, yes, and I see no problem with that. The whole point of the flashback parts of the episode is to give background information, and listing who's background information is given is the point of listing the characters here. -- Ned Scott 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to be attached with the "old way". I think this would also help us out in the next Featured list candidacy, since it was brought up that the whole "featured character" part of the list seemed confusing to readers who hadn't seen Lost. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusing how? It seems to me it would be more confusing to claim Boone has a flashback in an episode in which he is dead. Jon Hart 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we're saying Boone (or anyone) is actually having the flashback. There are times when it is obvious that the character is thinking about the moments we see in the flashbacks, but there are other times when the flashbacks just seem to happen as general information. In other words, us as editors really shouldn't be coming to that conclusion for the reader, but just state that's going on. -- Ned Scott 23:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashback characters 

message: Seven days ago I added a motion to dismiss the proposed amendment for fair use images in lists (Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists#Move to dismiss) - The message also included restoring the screen captures on this LOE. If anyone has anything to say then please do so at the page. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A motion? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. As much as I would like to include the screen shots, I don't think just sneaking them in like this, because the discussion died down, is a good idea. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned knows exactly what I am talking about :-) - and it's hardly "sneaking" them in messages have been left here and there. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a great idea.  It's the best chance we have to ever getting them back.  --thedemonhog 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except the part where it doesn't work. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  --theDemonHog 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Fair_use_images_in_lists]]