Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes

message: Thank you all for agreeing to mediate this issue at hand, which is namely to find consensus on how the episodes of Lost should be written about. From what I can tell, the two opposing viewpoints are basically whether each episode should have its own article, or be grouped with other articles from the same season. Currently, I've seen it done both ways on Wikipedia. However, I saw a proposal before (I cannot seem to find it now, and I've been looking for about 30 minutes), which I find to be very relevant to this discussion. Basically, it proposed that TV articles should expand as such: At first, only have an article about the show. However, if the "Episodes" section becomes too long, then expand into seasons. However, if the seasons article becomes too long, then expand into individual episode articles. I've seen lists done two ways, with List of SHOW Episodes and List of SHOW Episodes (Season X), but the former is more prevalant across Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. Thoughts? Concerns? -^demon[yell at me][ubx_war_sux] /11:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to start out, one of the arguments being size, I point out that the Season 2 episode summaries is 159 kilobytes long; but Wikipedia:Article_size says 32 KB is strongly recommended as the maximum. I also find it somewhat difficult to scroll down that page and look for specific info, which is a "readability issue" and one of the reasons to consider dividing up a page according to Wikipedia:Article_size. Since one of the few exceptions on that guideline page is that there might not be a natural point to cut up large lists, I say that dividing up into individual ep summaries is pretty natural, highly organized, and very useful. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with ArgentiumOutlaw. When there is a great deal of information on one page, then it makes sense to break the long page up into shorter pages.  In the case of Lost, where the mystery behind the show makes it difficult to create short summaries (since we're never sure which details in a particular episode are most relevant), having all episodes on one page is excessive. I believe that polls have been conducted on this issue, and the majority consensus was that there should be separate episode pages, but the main stakeholders refused to accept consensus, saying that only those who regularly edited the articles should really have deciding votes. --Elonka 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize for my late reply.  This issue has been discussed so much that it's difficult to keep talking about it without repeating yourself.  Are the article sizes a problem?  Yes, of course.  But one thing we have seen with the individual articles is they tend to include more fancruft, speculation, and information that has no relevance to the recurring story lines.  So we have to make a trade off: either one long article that contains synoptic information about each episode, or many, shorter episode articles that contain a lot of crap.  You'll notice that after the episode guidelines agreed upon in that discussion were adopted, the episode summaries did a 180 .  As a result, the entire first season was summarized in 75kb, which is quite small considering what an involved show Lost is.  I know we can do the same with season 2.  One thing that really concerns me about the individual articles is that they are so long and in-depth that an argument can be made that they violate copyright law because some of them give a blow by blow recap of everything that happened in an episode.  So reading one of those episode summaries could arguably replace the need to watch an episode, causing ABC to lose money. Jtrost (T | C | #) 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason that the individual articles arent that great right now (eg too long, scattered fancruft), is that people dont want to work on something that will potentially be deleted, merged or lost in these discussions. The reason that I don't edit any of these pages is because they might be deleted by a discussion similar to what we're having now. If the editors for both the long page and the individual eps came together and worked on the individual articles, it would solve the size/clarity problem, and it would eventually remove all of the fancruft and lengthy details. Also, I dont believe that organizing these pages with the editors' convenience in removing fancruft in mind is a good idea. These pages should be organized so that the reader can benefit, not the editors; but I am not suggesting that it is ok to have organized pages at the cost of fancruft, I am merely saying that we should organize the pages with the reader in mind (like all wikipedia pages should be), and then work on fancruft as a seperate problem. To organize by the editors convenience in this case, is similar (but exagerated) to suggesting that we merge all television shows together so that it's easier for us to remove fancruft that sneaks in. One final comment, I don't believe that saying ABC will lose money if we create individual articles is a useful or relevent argument for putting everything on one page. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If people aren't willing to work on the individual articles because of the risk of deletion, then why do people edit the season articles?  Don't those editors face the same risk?  Also, fancruft is not the only issue with the individual articles.  Many of them suffer from bad grammar, original research, and statement of facts that simply aren't true.  Currently, such mistakes can go unnoticed for weeks at a time on these individual articles.  If we worked together, we might be able to make the individual articles better than they are, but I don't think that we could keep them at a standard of quality just because of the sheer amount of them.  I agree with what you said about convenience to the reader, and I think that the season format serves this purpose much more effectively.  A reader does not have to scroll down the page, and if a reader is looking for a particular episode, they can click the link on the top of the page.  With the individual articles, the reader would find the articles easier to navigate, but would simply find a bad article that may not serve his or her needs. --Kahlfin 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome! 

message: Just so I can better grasp who is on each side of this debate, can you each please sign below, with your respected affiliation, if you will? -^demon[yell at me] 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for Clarification 

message: * Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seasonal Articles

message: *ArgentiumOutlaw 01:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individual Episodes

message: Also, in thinking about this earlier today, an idea came to mind, and I'd like your thoughts on it. What if we were to begin by having season articles, and then slowly break out into indivdual episodes, as they required? For example, in Season 1, episodes 1, 2, 6, and 9 might have their own articles, whereas the rest of the season is still within a joint season article (which accordingly links to the episodes where needed)? This would allow you to keep the more minor episodes from having their own (AfD-prone) articles, and the more important ones could be allowed on their own. This also cuts down on the length of season articles, as well as helping to keep the overall number of articles to maintain to a bit lower (and more manageable) number. Thoughts? -^demon[yell at me] 18:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be offensive, but I strongly believe we need to affirm one system as the system.  In this case, I do not believe we should have overlapping systems any longer.  If we have some episodes missing from season episodes and some episodes as individual episodes, gradually and eventually I think the whole season will make it into both systems.  This discussion is important and could set a precedent for databasing other television episodes, not just LOST.  But I think all of us here can say that we appreciate the time and effort you're taking to help us out.  --  Wikipedical 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to agree with Wikipedical, we definetely should pick just one of the methods of organization. If both exist the way you described, the information will be somewhat chaotic and unstructured. This would be confusing and frustrating for the users who are looking for information on the episodes. In my opinion anyway. ArgentiumOutlaw 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not fully opposed to this idea.  While each episode of Lost has an involved storyline, in the grand scheme of the show (or what we have seen so far) many of the stories within each show really have no relevance (i.e. Hurley's golf course).  Some episodes, or parts of episodes could be considered fillers, and therefore the information contained within that episode wouldn't be encyclopedic.  I think if we are able to trim down some of the less important episodes, and expand out some of the more important episodes, we can find a happy medium.  I wouldn't mind adding a dozen more articles to my watchlist and contributing to them if they really do warrant their own article.  However, having 50+ Lost episode articles will inevitably cause problems, and it already has. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a big fan of LOST and am dedicated enough to help maintain its Wikipedia article.  But frankly we can't and shouldn't decide what episodes are more "important" to the reader.  Hurley's golf course has "no relevance"... to what?  The plot?  Maybe.  Again, I don't think that we can just generalize that episodes that cover more plot are more important.  We should trim speculation, repetition, and details that are truly truly excessive, such as Jack's costmues and every latin phrase on the Blast Door map.  But other details that are not as important to the plot, such as character pasts and information that is not relevant to Michael's finding Walt, are what make up LOST and are definately encyclopedic.  --  Wikipedical 02:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is not a bad idea, especially if we decide as a community which articles are ready for individual status.  Here's how it might work:  say a user thinks that the section of the season page pertaining to the episode "Numbers" is ready for it's own article.  That user will create a section on the talk page proposing that "Numbers" have it's own article.  The LOST community will have a discussion about whether or not "Numbers" merits its own article, the main criteria being whether the section on the season page is good enough and whether the LOST community can handle another individual episode page at the time of proposal.  The community will try to reach consensus, and if an episode is rejected, it can be resubmitted if any user thinks that circumstances have changed since the last submission.  This sounds like a good idea, and I would support it. --Kahlfin 03:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't support this, I'm afraid.  I feel that it doesn't map to Wikipedia's essence.  Specifically, the nature of Wikipedia is that we (the LOST community that Kahlfin refers to above) don't really decide a whole lot, when it comes to day-to-day insertions. Anyone can edit. Anyone can create an article. Things that look like gaps (e.g., some episodes without articles) will be filled by eager contributors, in the honest belief that they're helping out, and we'll have to spend lots of time in AfD justifying why this article should be deleted but not others. -- PKtm 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Idea, Your Thoughts? 

message: This mediation has been pretty much dead for some time now.  I made a topic on the admin's noticeboard about this since all of our attempts to contact people to take care of this have been ignored.  You can view it here and add anything you think I may have left out. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I have Essjay's talk page on my watch list and I see you've been very patient while both the chair of the mediation committee and your mediator have gone on hiatus.  Although I am not a member of the mediation committee, I would like to offer my services as replacement mediator.  Alternatively, you can try directly contacting the official members of the committee listed at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee.
If you would like me to mediate, the (remaining) active participants should sign here to indicate their agreement.  Also, if you could post a link to a different television show article that would best serve as a model for how you would like the Lost pages to be orgainized.  If there is agreement I will read up on the history and get back to you. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher, thank you for your offer.  However, are you an admin?  Have you ever done any kind of mediation before?  If so, could you please provide a link?  Thanks. --Elonka 23:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin yet, although I have over 7000 edits and work with Essjay as a checkuser clerk.  Regarding mediation skills, I survived editing Al Seckel, which was a battle between the real Al Seckel and someone who has been a critic of his for many years (see Talk:Al Seckel, including the archives, and User talk:Thatcher131/Archive3, although I had an admin delete a lot of it).  If you want someone with pre-approved credentials you should definitely stick to the other members of the mediation committee. Thatcher131 (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  If the others are willing, I too am willing to accept you as a mediator in this situation.  In terms of a representative model on how I feel that the Lost pages should be organized, I am most in favor of something like List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes or List of Babylon 5 episodes, where a central list article contains brief descriptions, and links to more expansive individual articles on each episode.  This already exists with List of Lost episodes.  In terms of the current Lost "Season" articles, which summarize by season instead of by episode, I think that they are oversized and should be deleted/redirected, since they duplicate the information that is already in the episode articles; however I am willing to accept a compromise where the season articles are scaled back to a more manageable size, with perhaps a summarized 500-word description of each episode, and then a  link from each summary to the individual episode articles that already exist.  --Elonka 05:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, let's see what the other current parites in the dispute think (about me and the list). Thatcher131 05:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with accepting you as a mediator as well. I went hunting for suitable models, as you asked, and afraid I didn't come up with much.  Many shows have episode articles, to be sure, but many of these (e.g., Star Trek: Voyager articles, South Park, etc.) have what I consider to be a very high level of fancruft and sloppiness, sometimes don't even use literary present tense, etc., and thus bring down the overall level of Wikipedia.  Other shows have just loose plot summaries (e.g., The L Word, and no intention to mention every detail of every scene, every line, every camera angle, that characterizes Lost episode articles at their extreme.  I do think that Lost is a different case from many of these other shows, with their sheer amount of interconnection, purposeful insertion of trivia and crossover references.  In short, I don't know if searching for a suitable model is all that useful to solve the very real issues discussed above, particularly the issue concerning the ongoing (and major) vulnerability/susceptibility to the insertion and reinsertion of endlessly more detail.  Ground rules need to be established and adhered to, and there are some proposed above that I think are useful. -- PKtm 06:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to PKtm's findings, I've found one other series that uses season articles, Alias.  As for the articles, they are mainly 1 or 2 sentence lines, which are about equal to what we have in List of Lost Episodes.  Here:Alias episodes (Season 2)  I am sure that no one would want to change the season articles to the Alias model.  As for other TV series, please note, as PKtm said, that the norm on Wikipedia is to have individual episodes.  I have a little bit more optimism than PKtm, however, and faith that our editors and the newly started Wikiproject Lost, if committed to individual episodes, can make them a true model for other TV episodes and for Wikipedia.  --  Wikipedical 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When it rains... 

message: Elonka asked me to take a look at this page and comment or somesuch. I generally work with informal mediation, so I can offer you some suggestions which I think might help, but I'm completely inexperienced with formal mediation. These are the problems I see at hand:
#Quality of articles
##Manageability thereof
#Ease of navigation
I know the stated debate is one long article vs. several short articles, but it would seem that the proponents of one long article believe this to be the better solution because the quality would be significantly worse if they were broken down. I don't see many arguments which don't have quality at their root, which is great because this is what we're striving for.
Now for a solution. There are many precedents, actually. See for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes. This has great suggestions for how to manage individual episode articles. Also, the consensus is that once a series list gets long enough, it's spun out into episode articles. 100kb isn't pretty on dialup. Centralization is nice, but encyclopedias are for their readers. You could also take a leaf from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, where there's a suggested format for television episode articles. You could tweak it together to minimize the cruft and maximize what would be interesting to the reader. Assume they've already seen the show, what would they want to see? Symbolism? Explanation of references? Trivia (groan, but they probably want a bit)?
Finally, one should note Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost. I hear it's recently created and it seems like a good way for all of these articles to be coordinated. Even if one of you can't monitor all bajillion episode articles, they could all be listed on a page where people could volunteer to watchlist them. Then there are editors looking for vandalism and fancruft. If an editor finds that an article needs cleanup and they don't have the time, there can be a page for ones which need attention. Also, any new editors to Lost articles could be directed to the Wikiproject and shown what the more experienced editors think is closest to Wikipedia's ideals for these articles so they can contribute in vein. This is what most highly popular TV series projects appear to have done, of course each with their own success rates.
It seems to me that overall, keeping huge articles is not a good idea and there are other ways to ensure quality which should be pursued. I know that article size is a guideline, but it's a very good one. I think that if you all try to work together and trust that each of you want these articles to be of the highest quality, you can work together to make a very nice system which will ensure that even if the Lost universe or what have you expands to a great size, it can all be controlled for quality.
Anyhow, my two cents, take it or leave it. :] I wish you all the best, and if you want me to comment more or something else from me, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Cheers! --Keitei (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keitei, as always, your comments are thorough and thoughtful, and I thank you for taking the time to offer an additional view on the situation. --Elonka 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have carefully considered all the arguments, the various talk pages, and the straw polls.  I believe all the parties have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, although they differ on how to achieve this.  My personal sympathies are with the season group, particularly when I read one comment to the effect that having individual articles "will allow the article to expand indefinitely." (Although I believe that particular editor is largely inactive.)  I also considered the previous compromise offer to divide each season into 4 articles.  While this plan may be good for the editors, I don't believe it would be good for the readers who we are writing for; at best it would be neutral, at worst, confusing.  There is also little support for such a scheme anywhere else in Wikipedia, and I think there would be a rapid movement to split the articles back into individual episodes.  In the end, while there is not a clear consensus for individual episode articles, as consensus is generally defined here, having individual articles linked to List of Lost episodes has more overall support, and is consistent with how popular television shows are currently handled.  Therefore, I suggest the following:
;Proposal regarding List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 1) / (season 2) / (season 3)
#Each episode of Lost (TV series) will have its own article, linked to List of Lost episodes.
#Season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), etc) are deprecated, and should be phased out, after carefully merging their content with the individual episode articles.
#In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles.  These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments.
#To maintain article quality, the following guidelines are adopted
#:*Episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour, more or less
#:*should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research
#:*should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article
#:*should contain little or no references to actual dialog, other than (as a rare exception) lines that are pivotal to plot swerves or character revelations
#:*Episode articles might contain a section on "Storyline significance" highlighting (briefly) the relationship of events in a given episode to other episodes.  Setting them apart might cut down on the amount of explanation needed in the main article text.
#:*Articles should have limited or even zero trivia. Instead, a link can be offered to the episode's entry on Lostpedia.  There is no need for Wikipedia to duplicate this content, much of which may be unencyclopedic.
Please signify your acceptance or objection to this proposal, or suggest modifications for discussion.
;Accept
*Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. Thatcher131 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We can make an infobox similar to the one we have regarding the future episode policy, and put it at the top of every talk page.  We can also make a very prominent HTML comment at the top of each article telling users to read the episode synopsis policy.  Now that the Lostpedia bit is out this looks like a good solution. Thanks Thatcher. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Allowing trivia creates an open-ended "oh, it's OK to add stuff here" invitation. I have previously cited, as an example of the dangers here, a long argument I had with one anon editor, who persisted in adding (under "Trivia") details about the DUIs of the two actors last year, simply because it was verifiable.  Verifiability cannot be a sole criterion.  Hence, I'm generally reluctant to specifically mention trivia as permissible. In fact, I would prefer to restore Thatcher's proposed tenet above, in the form of his first sentence, "Articles should have limited or even zero trivia."   I actually just now noticed that Wikipedical added the sentence to the proposal "Trivia is permitted as long as every statement is cited with a reliable source."  I cannot accept Thatcher's proposal with that addition of such an unqualified statement.  I also don't think we should be changing the proposal (adding or deleting) once people have already signaled their acceptance, because it casts their acceptance in doubt. -- PKtm 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely: the anon editor felt (vehemently) that it was relevant, because it pertained to the actors being killed off.  Relevance is very subjective. Again, specifically permitting trivia with the sole criterion that it be verifiable is a recipe for fancruft. -- PKtm 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the message to post on every talk page, I've taken a stab at a "Guidelines" page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, where I've attempted to incorporate everything we've talked about here.  Feel free to further modify it, and we can then post a link to it at the top of each talk page. --Elonka 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be fine with that.  But it's worth noting that one must get the facts right, especially when discussing the third type of trivia.  The DUI incident, for example, did NOT change the storyline at all.  This has been stated countless times in interviews with nearly every producer of the show. But many people continued to post it as trivia anyway on both the episode page and the season page.  Another example is that in the episode Two for the Road (Lost), many people thought that the episode's title itself referred to the DUI incident, and, as such, put it in as trivia.  The episode's title does NOT refer to the DUI incident.  If we were to allow the third type of trivia, one would have to provide a verifiable citation for every trivia point. --Kahlfin 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedical's amendment, as so tersely stated, is far too much of an open invitation for me to feel it's acceptable.  Specifically, "Trivia that is entirely within the fiction of the show and/or trivia that crosses the fourth wall are permitted as long as every statement is cited with a reliable source."  A) I think that Thatcher's original examples should be included for both those types; B) The entire statement needs to be preceded by something like, "If in keeping with all the other stated episode guidelines, inclusion of epsiode trivia ... is possible, albeit rarely, if that trivia is entirely blah blah blah."  Probably needs some wordsmithing :)
-- PKtm 08:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The season 1 episode summaries were rewritten to meet ther 500 word limit, and they turned out just fine.  Having that limit in this proposal is why I am supporting it.  We can keep quality under control that way.  I don't think there is a single hour of the show that cannot be summarized in 500 words. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why haven't you done so to season 2?  ...also, season 1 didn't turn out just fine, in my opinion. Most of the summaries there might as well be badly written lists of a few extremely generic events that occured in the episode; I do not believe that that it is acceptable as a summary for any Lost episode. I'm not looking for a scene by scene analysis, but (as an example) I would like some explanation as to what "and they dealt with it" and "discovers about her past" mean; the 500 word limited summaries don't explain how or why these kind of things happen. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been done for season 2 because the individual episodes starting popping up just as we were finishing season 1, and we didn't want to write a whole bunch of summaries if they weren't going to be used.  As for your complaints with the season 1 summaries, can you give specific examples?  It's difficult for me to reply to you said without specifics. Also, I am asking that you please compromise some here.  I am willing to accept individual articles if certain restraints are put on them.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to accept 500 word limits as one restraint. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should test it out first.  If we do realize this constraint is a problem, we shall change it later.  --  Wikipedical 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking as someone who has been actively involved with condensing the episode summaries, we need to change this number to be something more like "500-1000 words".  Even after both Radagast and I have been through an episode article, slashing and burning, we still tend to end up with something in the neighborhood of 750 words.  I think it would put an artifical hardship on editing, to try and force articles down to an arbitrarily-chosen number of 500 words (especially when, as Argentium pointed out, even the Season article summaries often exceed that).  I was in support of a 500-word summary as a "mini-summary" for the Season pages, as long as there was a link to an individual episode article with expanded text.  But to try and force the individual episode articles to shorter versions doesn't make sense to me. --Elonka 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 500 was an arbitrarily chosen number (if I recall correctly I think I was the one who originally suggested the limit).  I don't want to repeat what I have already said, but the season 1 page proves that 500 words work fine per hour. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know what that really means in the Wikipedia universe. "The authority"?  I don't think so.  A number of the editors participating in the project have been less than, um, strict constructionist when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines in the past, with respect to Lost articles.  I myself don't feel comfortable, yet, signing up as a participant in that project, for that and other reasons which admittedly may fall away as the project proceeds.  I do note that other participants here in this mediation, and other long-time Lost editors, have also stayed away from signing on to the Wikiproject, although I think I'm the first to comment on possible reasons (i.e., mine) for that.  In any case, declaring that project as "the authority" indicates somehow that that group of editors will have its judgment prevail automatically, which makes no sense to me unless or until that project is shown to have a balanced, methodical, cautious approach. -- PKtm 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I meant was for the Wikiproject to help out with these guidelines.  Youre right, authority is a strong word and not what I meant.  --  Wikipedical 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed resolution 

message: a link can be offered to the episode's entry on Lostpedia. If that part is removed I will be happy to accept.  It shows favor to one fansite and will invite more people to linkspam their fansites.  I agree that trivia should be limited or even nonexistant because if a particular fact is notable it should be worked into the prose. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. Thatcher131 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We can make an infobox similar to the one we have regarding the future episode policy, and put it at the top of every talk page.  We can also make a very prominent HTML comment at the top of each article telling users to read the episode synopsis policy.  Now that the Lostpedia bit is out this looks like a good solution. Thanks Thatcher. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Allowing trivia creates an open-ended "oh, it's OK to add stuff here" invitation. I have previously cited, as an example of the dangers here, a long argument I had with one anon editor, who persisted in adding (under "Trivia") details about the DUIs of the two actors last year, simply because it was verifiable.  Verifiability cannot be a sole criterion.  Hence, I'm generally reluctant to specifically mention trivia as permissible. In fact, I would prefer to restore Thatcher's proposed tenet above, in the form of his first sentence, "Articles should have limited or even zero trivia."   I actually just now noticed that Wikipedical added the sentence to the proposal "Trivia is permitted as long as every statement is cited with a reliable source."  I cannot accept Thatcher's proposal with that addition of such an unqualified statement.  I also don't think we should be changing the proposal (adding or deleting) once people have already signaled their acceptance, because it casts their acceptance in doubt. -- PKtm 00:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely: the anon editor felt (vehemently) that it was relevant, because it pertained to the actors being killed off.  Relevance is very subjective. Again, specifically permitting trivia with the sole criterion that it be verifiable is a recipe for fancruft. -- PKtm 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the message to post on every talk page, I've taken a stab at a "Guidelines" page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines, where I've attempted to incorporate everything we've talked about here.  Feel free to further modify it, and we can then post a link to it at the top of each talk page. --Elonka 22:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm thinking there are 3 kinds of trivia that usually find their way into TV episode articles.  Trivia that is entirely within the fiction of the show (The song John sings while exploring the jungle is The lion sleeps tonight); trivia that is entirely outside the narrative (The underground scenes were filmed in an air-raid shelter built for families of sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor); and trivia that crosses the fourth wall (The storm was written into the episode after a real storm damaged the sets on location, or Jane's disappearance was written into the story to cover the last two months of the actor's pregnancy which was not part of the story).  Jtrost's point seems to be that trivia of the first type should be written into the article if its really important, while Wikipedical's citation suggestion seems to apply to the third type (since an actor's DUI would only be relevant to the story if the story were changed because of it).  (The second type, while potentially interesting, is not related to the episode and could go somewhere else.)  Could this be the basis for a compromise? Thatcher131 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fine with that.  But it's worth noting that one must get the facts right, especially when discussing the third type of trivia.  The DUI incident, for example, did NOT change the storyline at all.  This has been stated countless times in interviews with nearly every producer of the show. But many people continued to post it as trivia anyway on both the episode page and the season page.  Another example is that in the episode Two for the Road (Lost), many people thought that the episode's title itself referred to the DUI incident, and, as such, put it in as trivia.  The episode's title does NOT refer to the DUI incident.  If we were to allow the third type of trivia, one would have to provide a verifiable citation for every trivia point. --Kahlfin 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedical's amendment, as so tersely stated, is far too much of an open invitation for me to feel it's acceptable.  Specifically, "Trivia that is entirely within the fiction of the show and/or trivia that crosses the fourth wall are permitted as long as every statement is cited with a reliable source."  A) I think that Thatcher's original examples should be included for both those types; B) The entire statement needs to be preceded by something like, "If in keeping with all the other stated episode guidelines, inclusion of epsiode trivia ... is possible, albeit rarely, if that trivia is entirely blah blah blah."  Probably needs some wordsmithing :)
-- PKtm 08:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia compromise?

message: I'm having a bit of a problem with the 500 word limit. If you check the Lost Season 2 page, you'll see that almost every single one of the episode summaries there are well over 500 words. I don't understand why the editors there (jtrost, and etc) are ok with this 500 word limit, if the summaries that they maintain themselves are usually around 1000 words or more. Now I would think that a 1000 word limit is much more reasonable and still puts a limit on fancruft. Does anyone agree/disagree? ArgentiumOutlaw 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The season 1 episode summaries were rewritten to meet ther 500 word limit, and they turned out just fine.  Having that limit in this proposal is why I am supporting it.  We can keep quality under control that way.  I don't think there is a single hour of the show that cannot be summarized in 500 words. Jtrost (T | C | #) 20:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why haven't you done so to season 2?  ...also, season 1 didn't turn out just fine, in my opinion. Most of the summaries there might as well be badly written lists of a few extremely generic events that occured in the episode; I do not believe that that it is acceptable as a summary for any Lost episode. I'm not looking for a scene by scene analysis, but (as an example) I would like some explanation as to what "and they dealt with it" and "discovers about her past" mean; the 500 word limited summaries don't explain how or why these kind of things happen. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't been done for season 2 because the individual episodes starting popping up just as we were finishing season 1, and we didn't want to write a whole bunch of summaries if they weren't going to be used.  As for your complaints with the season 1 summaries, can you give specific examples?  It's difficult for me to reply to you said without specifics. Also, I am asking that you please compromise some here.  I am willing to accept individual articles if certain restraints are put on them.  I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to accept 500 word limits as one restraint. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we should test it out first.  If we do realize this constraint is a problem, we shall change it later.  --  Wikipedical 23:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking as someone who has been actively involved with condensing the episode summaries, we need to change this number to be something more like "500-1000 words".  Even after both Radagast and I have been through an episode article, slashing and burning, we still tend to end up with something in the neighborhood of 750 words.  I think it would put an artifical hardship on editing, to try and force articles down to an arbitrarily-chosen number of 500 words (especially when, as Argentium pointed out, even the Season article summaries often exceed that).  I was in support of a 500-word summary as a "mini-summary" for the Season pages, as long as there was a link to an individual episode article with expanded text.  But to try and force the individual episode articles to shorter versions doesn't make sense to me. --Elonka 22:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, 500 was an arbitrarily chosen number (if I recall correctly I think I was the one who originally suggested the limit).  I don't want to repeat what I have already said, but the season 1 page proves that 500 words work fine per hour. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 500 word limit

message: I think that if this proposal, which I must commend for being fair to all parties, is accepted, then we should ask WikiProject Lost to be the authority on maintaining the guidelines.  --  Wikipedical 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that really means in the Wikipedia universe. "The authority"?  I don't think so.  A number of the editors participating in the project have been less than, um, strict constructionist when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines in the past, with respect to Lost articles.  I myself don't feel comfortable, yet, signing up as a participant in that project, for that and other reasons which admittedly may fall away as the project proceeds.  I do note that other participants here in this mediation, and other long-time Lost editors, have also stayed away from signing on to the Wikiproject, although I think I'm the first to comment on possible reasons (i.e., mine) for that.  In any case, declaring that project as "the authority" indicates somehow that that group of editors will have its judgment prevail automatically, which makes no sense to me unless or until that project is shown to have a balanced, methodical, cautious approach. -- PKtm 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I meant was for the Wikiproject to help out with these guidelines.  Youre right, authority is a strong word and not what I meant.  --  Wikipedical 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion

message: Since the discussion seems to have slowed a bit, and I'm going out of town until Sunday night, let me throw out a modification.  Also, we eventually need to have agreement from all significantly involved parties (certainly everyone who has commented on this page in the last month or so). If modifications are made after some people accept, their acceptance will have to be reconfirmed when the proposal is finalized.
;Proposal regarding List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 1) / (season 2) / (season 3)
#Each episode of Lost (TV series) will have its own article, linked to List of Lost episodes.
#Season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), etc) are deprecated, and should be phased out, after carefully merging their content with the individual episode articles.
#In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles.  These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments.
#To maintain article quality, episode summaries
#:*should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research
#:*should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article
#:*should contain little or no references to actual dialog, other than (as a rare exception) lines that are pivotal to plot swerves or character revelations
#:*It is expected that by following these guidelines, most episode summaries should be around 500-700 words per story hour.
#Regarding trivia sections,
#*Listing of trivia that exists entirely within the fiction of the story  (e.g. The song John sings while exploring the jungle is The lion sleeps tonight ) should be avoided, as significant facts should be included in the main summary.
#*Listing of trivia that exists entirely outside the narrative of the episode (e.g. The underground scenes were filmed in an air-raid shelter built for families of sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor ) may have a place somewhere but not in the episode summary article.
#*Trivia that crosses the fourth wall (e.g. The storm was written into the episode after a real storm damaged the sets on location ) may be included provided it is properly sourced.
Please signify your acceptance or objection to this proposal, or suggest modifications for discussion.
;Accept
* --Elonka 02:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion above was not incorporated, specifically, The entire statement needs to be preceded by something like, "If in keeping with all the other stated episode guidelines, inclusion of epsiode trivia ... is possible, albeit rarely, if that trivia is entirely blah blah blah."  The problem I see with the "fourth wall" bullet as it stands is that it will be cited as an excuse to include anything along these lines.  It becomes a sole authority for inclusion of an item, which I think should be rarely exercised, especially given the brevity constraint that should trump. -- PKtm 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you didn't fully write out your thoughts above, I'm not clear on how your intent differs from mine, except in the inclusion of the word rarely.  Was there more to your intent than that? Thatcher131 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm trying to say that it be explicitly mentioned that trivia should be kept to a minimum, otherwise these guidelines become a veritable invitation to include trivia.  So, for example, I'd say that you should change the intro to point 5 to read something like "Regarding trivia sections, these should be kept to a minimum, since the preceding guidelines are paramount.  Trivia, if included, should follow the following guidelines:" -- PKtm 00:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What exactly does "It is expected that by following these guidelines, most episode summaries should be around 500-700 words per story hour" mean?  What if an editor makes a summary that's 1700 words long and then tries to defend it by saying that it's an exception to the rule?  While 500 is arbitrary and not necessarily a good number, I think that the guidelines should have a definite maximum word limit (Something like "Under no circumstances should a summary be larger than 800 words per story hour", for example).  If this happens, I'd accept. --Kahlfin 02:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Episode summaries should be limited to [number] (500, 750, 800, we will pick) words per hour."  I agree with Kahlfin on that one, it needs to be definite as we are making guidelines.  But other than that, I think the trivia section is looking nice, and it's a good compromise.  Once those changes are made, I'll accept.  --  Wikipedical 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I'm alone on this, but I don't like the concept of a solid upper limit, it will force editors to degrade the quality of certain articles just so that they can meet the guideline. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opposite is true- the limit will create more focused and consise editing.  --  Wikipedical 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I don't like the upper limit either, but, it isn't a deal-breaker for me.  Given the other elements of the compromise, I think we've got a good solution here in terms of the major issues, which we should grab while the grabbing is good. Let's put this mediation to bed, and move on.  :) --Elonka 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has provided evidence that 500 words is not enough for a summary.  I'm sorry, but unless some concrete evidence can be provided I won't budge on this.  We're suppose to be compromising here, and proposal 2 is further away from a compromise than proposal 1. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My amendment was made only to create an actual limit and reduce unnecessary flexibility.  The number I'm not concerned about, I'll change it to 500 if we wish.  --  Wikipedical 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also willing to sign off on the 500 word limit as a recommended guideline, though I'll repeat that I think it's going to be extremely difficult in some cases.  For example, I've taken multiple passes at "Live Together, Die Alone (Lost)", and even though I've chopped it by about 40%, removing (what I regard as) several key plot elements, it still takes about 1000 words just to cover all the flashback sequences, and then another 1000 words for the rest of the episode.  I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at it and demonstrate just how exactly to get it to 500 words, while still maintaining a high quality summary. --Elonka 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that episode is two hours long, the summary should be 1000 words.  So far both season finales have been rather dense, so I can understand exceeding it sometimes.  However, with most episodes 500 words should suffice. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, and a good summary of the issue, Thatcher.  I believe strongly that we can't go down the road of thinking that episode articles should be a replacement for watching the show, because that, in and of itself, is a recipe for having them expand, include dialog, camera angles, people's expressions, etc.  In fact, imposing an upper limit on the text is a great way of driving home the point that these articles are not substitutes. -- PKtm 15:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By all means, please demonstrate. --Elonka 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that if these articles were to be 'replacements' for watching the episodes as you called them, then the summaries would be enormous in size. I'm more concerned about writing high quality summaries over lengthy summaries. Currently, I feel that the 500 word limited articles are badly written. As a quick example look at 'Confidence Man' in the Season 1 summary page, the summary just doesn't flow, it feels like a list that was put together as a paragraph. By forcing such a small maximum limit, these summaries can never really be improved. ArgentiumOutlaw 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2 

message: Given the previous discussions I think we are down to limited options.  The "strict construction" approach appears to be at an impasse over the 500 word limit, with at least one person either holding fast to a strict 500 word limit, or objecting strongly to the 500 word limit.
I was hoping that if both sides accepted a set of common guiding principles, that would pave the way for a "loose construction" solution.  With all parties agreed that summaries should be brief, workmanlike, not fancrufty, and not try to recap every detail for fans who missed the episode, each article could be dealt with on a case by case basis.  WIth good faith editing and negotiation, one side might find that some episodes can be well summarized in under 500 words, and the other side might find that articles don't become cruft magnets when edited by a large group of people who have acknowledged a common set of principles. 
There doesn't seem any way that I can write a "strict construction" solution that satifies all parties.  Would there be any support for a "loose construction" agreement based on loosely defined common principles, without predetermined fixed rules? Thatcher131 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to accept the 500 word limit, under proposal 1, so that we can end this mediation; leaving only PKtm to decide (everyone else had agreed to accept proposal 1). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fantastic. Thatcher131 22:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By my reading, PKtm already agreed with Proposal 1 , and we're in agreement on PKtm's requested changes. --Elonka 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How's this look for a talkpage template?   --Elonka 23:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still would like to clarify what "zero to no trivia" means.  --  Wikipedical 23:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's probably a typo (since it's a duplication of terms).  Feel free to change it per the discussion with PKtm above. --Elonka 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Impasse?
 

message: If we have agreement on the 500 word limit, the remaining issue is trivia.  It seems that using Wikipedical's amendment to proposal 1 plus Ptkm's suggestions, we should be somewhere near the following:
;Proposal regarding List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 1) / (season 2) / (season 3)
#Each episode of Lost (TV series) will have its own article, linked to List of Lost episodes.
#Season articles (Episodes of Lost (season 1), etc) are deprecated, and should be phased out, after carefully merging their content with the individual episode articles.
#In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles.  These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments.
#To maintain article quality, episode summaries
#:*should not contain brilliant prose, speculation, fancruft or original research
#:*should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article
#:*should contain little or no references to actual dialog, other than (as a rare exception) lines that are pivotal to plot swerves or character revelations
#:*It is expected that following these guidelines, episode summaries should be limited to 500 words per hour, more or less.
#Trivia sections should be kept to a minimum, since the preceding guidelines are paramount. Trivia, if included, should follow the following guidelines:
#*Trivia that exists entirely within the fiction of the story  (e.g. The song John sings while exploring the jungle is The lion sleeps tonight. ) should be avoided. Insignificant details do not meet guideline 4, while significant information should be included in the main summary.
#*Trivia that exists entirely outside the narrative of the episode (e.g. The underground scenes were filmed in an air-raid shelter built for families of sailors stationed at Pearl Harbor. ) may have a place somewhere but not in the episode summary article.
#*Trivia that crosses the fourth wall (e.g. The storm was written into the episode after a real storm damaged the sets on location. ) may be included provided it is properly sourced.
While I would like to assume that I have figured it out correctly, I think this call for a (final?) re-vote.
;Accept
* Elonka 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait 24 hours after the last vote (which makes it my breakfast time tomorrow) and if he hasn't answered by then, assume his approval per his previous approval of prop 1.  I'll post notes "on behalf of the mediation committee" on Talk:Episodes of Lost, the Lost project, and Talk:Lost season one and two and close this officially at the main RFM page.  I really want to thank everyone for being patient and coming to a final settlement. Thatcher131 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need.  I accept.  And my internet access has been limited over the past few months, but I plan to become more involved as of a few days ago. --Kahlfin 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'll finalize this late tonight, then (kind of "at work" right now ;) Thatcher131 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 3 

message: As a note,  (the last person needed to signoff on the mediation), has been an infrequent Wikipedia user over the course of the summer, averaging less than 10 edits per month. Based on his last entry though , I think that his agreement can fairly well be assumed.  Therefore, in the interest of moving things along, would anyone object if we proceeded with the agreed compromise?  Or must we wait for his official signoff? --Elonka 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to wait 24 hours after the last vote (which makes it my breakfast time tomorrow) and if he hasn't answered by then, assume his approval per his previous approval of prop 1.  I'll post notes "on behalf of the mediation committee" on Talk:Episodes of Lost, the Lost project, and Talk:Lost season one and two and close this officially at the main RFM page.  I really want to thank everyone for being patient and coming to a final settlement. Thatcher131 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need.  I accept.  And my internet access has been limited over the past few months, but I plan to become more involved as of a few days ago. --Kahlfin 20:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'll finalize this late tonight, then (kind of "at work" right now ;) Thatcher131 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary