Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Archive 5

Lost DVD releases merger proposal

This has gone on long enough, we need to establish consensus now. What's the hold up? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has been established for months now. The hold up is that no one has bothered to merge the sections into the season pages. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I finished merging the tables, so I redirected the page to the Lost main page. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Add Lost: Missing Pieces to the Lost FT?

Seems like a no-brainer to me - rst20xx (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to this at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential GAs

"Everybody Hates Hugo", "Exposé", and "Flashes Before Your Eyes", so hopefully those will pass. Thanks to everyone who corrected my typos. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 00:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New user

Hi, I'm Music2611, and I've just joined the Lost WikiProject. Music2611 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Hi everybody, I've started a Portal about Lost, it's not much yet, but I hereby invite everybody who wants to help to come and help. Music2611 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The portal will probably be supported by others, but I feel that the TV portal is sufficient. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Seasons of Lost Featured Topic under retention

With the creation of the Lost (season 5) article, the Seasons of Lost featured topic must go under retention, meaning it has 3 months from the date of the creation of that article (or until 26 October 2008) to get the article included in the featured topic. This will obviously be as an audited article of limited subject matter, i.e. it needs "an individual quality audit that includes a completed peer review". ...I realise this doesn't completely make sense, when the end of October is so far from the start of the season, but if you think about it, the topic as it stands is incomplete without the inclusion of the season 5 article, so this rule is the best compromise to ensure that the article is of a high enough quality to be included, whilst at the same time meaning the article is included in the topic as soon as reasonably possible - rst20xx (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Production Links "One of Us"

Hi, I'm trying to improve the "One of Us" article, but I can't find that many links with information about the production of the episode, does anybody have any links for me? Music2611 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"One of Us" is good episode for a reception section, but the production section might be a bit more tricky. Take these E! and TV Guide interviews. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Lostpedia is not a reliable source. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Music2611 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

TV.com and The TailSection are not reliable sources either. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But various Lost GA's and FA's link to both The Tail Section and TV.com. - Music2611 (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a single Lost GA or FA links to The TailSection (no space; Ctrl + F). Only the articles by TV.com's paid writers are linked to. Other places in TV.com are not considered to be reliable by Wikipedia, as they are user-edited. The episode ratings can be manipulated by users and may not be accurate of how an episode was received by the audience. Chances are that some reliable source commented on fan reception; if not, it probably is not that important anyway and Wikipedia stays credible. Also, welcome to the project. We will definitely have to get you on the season 4 episode writing roster. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again -Music2611 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Despite the links you gave me, for wich I thank you, I can't find enough sources about the production of the episodes, so I hereby stop trying. -Music2611 (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

found a great site to improve the production part; GA nominee! -- Music2611 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost special

I just found this [1] which gives viewer ratings for 18-24 October 2004, and lists a lost special (possibly 2 hours) episode. However the specials section of List of Lost episodes makes no mention of a special at that time. What do you make of it, was there one in October 04? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a repeat. According to [2], The Princess Diaries was scheduled to air, but it was replaced with 2 repeats of Lost. Jackieboy87 (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Good knowledge, consider this case closed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Lost participants...WikiProject Media franchises needs some help from other projects which are similar. Media franchises' scope deals primarily with the coordination of articles within the hundreds if not thousands of media franchises which exist. Sometimes a franchise might just need color coordination of the various templates used; it could mean creating an article for the franchise as a jump off point for the children of it; or the creation of a new templating system for media franchise articles. The project primarily focuses on multimedia franchises. It would be great if some of this project's participants would come over and help the project get back on solid footing. Also, if you know of similar projects which have not received this, let Lady Aleena (talk · contribs) know. Please come and take a look at the project and see if you wish to lend a hand. You can sign up here if you wish. Thank you. LA @ 21:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Franchise naming convention discussion at WikiProject Media franchises

Dear WikiProject Lost participants...WikiProject Media franchises is currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in your project, we would like to get the opinions of all related projects before implimenting any sweeping changes. Please come and help us decide. Thanks! LA (T) @ 22:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler policy

I propose that we change the spoiler policy at {{Template:Lost policy}}. Instead of limiting information to what is confirmed by ABC, the cast and the crew, let us expand it to include other "reliable sources" (let me clarify that this does not include DarkUFO, DocArzt, etc.), but we will add a grain of salt by saying something like "Entertainment Weekly has reported that producers are casting a character tentatively named …" Those guys are almost always right with episode titles and featured characters anyway. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nice suggestion. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 05:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, as long as they're reliable sources. Doc Jensen's already given us "Because You Left" :) —97198 (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as Kristin from Watch with Kristin is excluded (she was horribly off so often last season, like 80%), I don't mind that much. Doc Jensen and Ausiello have a pretty good track record though. (DarkUFO and his fan network are even better, but they shouldn't be cited per common WP rules). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what is our consensus on Kristin? sgeureka says that she is rarely correct, but I was not so sure so I have done some research on her claims for the fourth season. I am linking to DarkUFO for convenience. Spoilers: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] (although everyone expected this). Foilers: [19][20][21][22]. Both: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] (in this one, Kristin also says that Singapore is an island). I am willing to hope that our readers take a little more salt when reading "spoilers" from E! Online's Dos Santos. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Kristen is okay. Based on the links provided, I guess she's not that bad. E! is considered reliable, so why shouldn't she? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on your research, it seems she is not as wrong as I remember her to be. But I had to smile when I read DarkUFO's note in your second link, saying "Nice to see Kristin recycling our casting spoilers from yesterday with out credit :)" (though it's possible she has access to casting info through someone else). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea to stick exclusively on ABC. I don't trust any other site if if it was 100% till now. We have to be always sure that we give official, confirmed information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan Dale

Actor Alan Dale has a recurring role on the series, but has never been credited as "starring" should his article be under the scope of the Lost WikiProject? --Music26/11 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would rather that none of the cast or crew were within the scope of the project… –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Lost

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost Cast

I've created a List of Lost cast members article, and I was thinking of getting it up to FL status, only I don't know what to put in the lead. So if you have any suggestions, please say so, or better, add them to the lead. Thanks already, --Music26/11 14:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ben's article

I've been working on improving the Ben Linus article for the past week or so and now think it's pretty good and am wanting to nominate it as a good article. The only thing is I'm pretty new to wiki and not very confident with quite a lot of things, particularly images. I was wondering if someone could check over it and make sure theres no major issues with the article or images and help me submit it for consideration to be a good article. Thanks! Sanders11 (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A few issues are that Image:JackBenAlex.jpg looks entirely decorative (WP:NFCC#8), and Image:Henrygalecaptured.jpg looks somewhat decorative (i.e. he looks like in the infobox, and we all know how a beaten-up guy looks like). The plot summary seems out of proportion (i.e. is too long) compared to real-world information, so I think there could be more trimming (not every minor plot detail needs to be mentioned - WP:WAF). I'll give the article a more in-depth look in the next few days. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. Sanders11 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Ben_Linus#Comments_on_the_article. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lostpedia

Template talk:LostNav. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DHARMA or Dharma?

I was just wondering whether DHARMA or Dharma should be used within articles? "Dharma" appears on a sign in a flashback that's in The Man Behind the Curtain, but as it is an acronym, maybe it should be DHARMA? Also the wiki page is Dharma Initiative, whereas on the mythology and list of characters pages DHARMA is used. Sanders11 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed—see Talk:Dharma Initiative/Archive 3#DHARMA or Dharma and Talk:Dharma Initiative#Requested move. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduction.

Hello, I'm JpGrB, and I know I'm a little late to the LOST party, but I guess it's better late than never. I always wanted to watch Lost, but my family was always watching stuff, but now, I've watched all the episodes on ABC.com, and I'm here because I love that show, and, even though you've all done an amazing job, I thought I may be able to help. So, if anyone needs help with anything, please leave me a message here. Thank you all for making these articles great. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article 2009

All right, I am hoping to get one of the project's articles on the main page for January 22, 2009 (Lost premieres on January 21, but it will be January 22 in UTC a few hours before Lost returns and for most of the next day after it does)—this means that we would need a nomination by December 23 (see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests). I had originally hoped to write the article for the video game Lost: Via Domus (my favourite video game for its catering to the diehard Lost fan with its interactive locations, quotes and coconuts—I do not own a consule, so I am a terrible judge—although I did not like the ending because it did not make sense), but I am going to blame real life for getting in the way of that. Let's take a look at our choices:

• Lost: Missing Pieces: my first choice, but it would need to be cleaned up a bit to meet my current FA-writing standards
• "The Shape of Things to Come" because it was an important episode and had Emerson's Emmy-nominated performance; now that I have the two most recent Lost magazines, the production section will be expanded
• Martin Keamy because I like how long the article is despite the limited screentime of the character; its production section will also be expanded after Durand was interview in the last two magazines
• Nikki and Paulo for obvious, although this needs major, major clean-up and expansion (which I am always meaning to get around to)

We also have "The Beginning of the End", "Greatest Hits", "Confirmed Dead" and "The Other Woman". We also have a few that could be ready by December 23:

• "The Constant" for pretty much being in a three-way battle with the pilot and the third season finale among fans for the best episode title; with the magazines and new DVD special features leakage to the Internet, the production section can also be expanded
• "Meet Kevin Johnson" for winning this season's only Emmy
• "There's No Place Like Home" is a great candiate because it will refresh readers for the premiere, but this one is farthest from FAC

Let's try to gain some consensus and if that fails, we will take a vote. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love "The Constant" to be TFA as it is probably my all time favourite episode. However, I'd pick "The Beginning of the End". It'd be nice symmetry to have the previous season's premiere on that date. Gran² 00:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, very hard choice. I would love to see any of those, but I agree that with Gran2, either "The Constant" or "The Beginning of the End". I guess they would be most appealing. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm really one to say anything seeing as I'm new to this project, but I would also pick The Beginning of the End. But, as I said, I'm not sure if my opinion even matters. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's opinion matters. :) Oh, and I'm guessing we chose Missing Pieces? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Season 5 episode names

As I only notice now, E! Online's Kristin did in fact write an article about the names of the first 6 ep titles last month.[30] She most likely got them from DarkUFO, a quality source I trust, although he technically isn't wiki-reliable. Lost (season 5) is currently really busy with the addition of episode titles. But since I've just had another bad experience with Kristin about the last House episode, where she made up stuff based on widely known vague spoilers but was wrong again, I am really concerned of using her as the source (I openly admit to be negatively biased in anything she says). I won't be at home for a couple of days, but this wikiproject needs to decide what is to be done per August's abandoned #Spoiler policy so that I know what to revert in the S5 article or if everything semi-reliable is allowed now (in which case the ep titles of 5x03 through 5x06 should be added as well). – sgeureka ^t•c 20:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Kristin is fully reliable and as such we should wait for other relaible sources or primary sources to confirm episode titles. In the article, we currently state that she has reported the titles of the episodes, however we are unable to make such a qualification in the episode table. As such, the information in the table is presented as being "facts," i.e. the information is supported by reliable sources and there are no reservations concerning its veracity. Therefore, we should only list episodes in the table that are confirmed by reliable or primary sources and, as we both seem to agree, Kristin is not totally reliable. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually think we should use the episode titles given by Kristen. Kristen's mistake of the House episode plot is very different from this case. She could have of made up just about anything for the plot, whereas episode titles, well she shouldn't have just thought up some random titles. We established before that we don't have to use official ABC and crew to source this kind of info, so I'm going to support the inclusion of the titles given by KdS. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jackieboy87 and sgeureka are saying that Kristin is not reliable, but they also say that the source is actually the trustworthy DarkUFO, so I have no problem with adding those titles to the table. Additionally, E! is not the only news source who has picked up these titles. TV Guide has reported on the sixth episode, Broadcasting & Cable has reported on the (first and) second episode and TV.com has a post on the first six that is similiar to that of Kristin. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

After thinking long and hard about it, I think my problem is not Kristin's snagging of reliable-but-wiki-unreliable spoilers (that's okay and actually needed to get basic Lost pre-season info into wikipedia), but her running wild with the spoilers, making up speculation as she goes and selling it as a fact (even if her speculation turns out to be true in the end). In the case of episode titles, this is likely a non-issue, but I would and will be extremely careful with citing her on anything plot-spoiler-related later on. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Writing roster

I was going to write this on January 1 as the first edit to this page after its next archiving, but Sceptre is asking me about it at my talk page and seeing as it took me two weeks to respond to his last e-mail, I feel that I owe him. Last season, Sceptre and I kind of divvied up the episode articles of the fourth season—or we tried to anyway: I ended up with eight, he got three and a half and lately, Jackieboy87 has pretty much taken over the finale—and got a featured topic out of it. This Project has acquired several promising editors over the last year or so and I think that we should be making more use of them for this upcoming season featured topic. I have already started on the premiere article in my sandbox, so I will take that one and Sceptre wants to take a bunch of the middle ones. I am busy on both January 21 and 28, so I am unavailable for the second and third episodes. There are a couple of ways to write an article: it can be basically one person or it can be a team effort. I do not like the team efforts because it makes my userboxes that say how many articles that I have written misleading, it makes the WBFAN stars less hard-earned, etc. but that is just me and maybe others prefer direct collaboration. When writing these articles, try to do them as soon as possible after the episode airs, as traffic skyrockets on the night of broadcast; it is a good idea to write some of the production section beforehand. Also keep the bronze star in mind, as that is our goal for each article, although this may not always be possible, e.g. I do not think that the production section of Something Nice Back Home can get much longer. So we have myself and Sceptre and probably Jackieboy87. We also have GA contributors Sanders11, Music2611 and Mr.crabby and Cornucopia, 97198 and sgeureka are always hanging around, but are often working on other projects. Who would like to sign up? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've got the most difficult exam of the January round of A2s on the 23rd (not the 22nd as I previously said), I'm going to have to spend what time I would use to write the article to revise (this can be really seen with the Doctor Who series 4 episodes. The first three episodes are fine, and then I ran into the May block of exams and the quality of the articles dipped and didn't peak back up until the school was winding down in the run-up to summer break). I'll probably rule myself out for the premiere and the finale, but I'm okay for any other day. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can try to help with anything. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but I am new to devoting myself to a project like this. I may need a little bit of help starting out, but I'm up for the challenge and willing to help out. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be taking up any episodes, but will definitely be hanging around and open to any copyediting, etc. —97198 (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably write an episode or two, but not the premiere or finale... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite busy with other stuff (as you mentioned), but I'd be more than happy to help and write. If the bronze star is our goal for each article, I may need some help with copyediting and so on, but otherwise I should be fine. :) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing reception and development sections for character articles as we go, so doubt I'll be hugely motivated to tackle an episode article too. Sanders11 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters.

Hello all, I have a question. I've been browsing and trying to tidy up a few character bios and I've noticed something. There seems to be an inconsistency. Certain articles start with a "Fictional character biography" heading, while others are just "Character biography", and even others are just "Arc". Is there some kind of agreement we can come to for what it should be titled? Thanks to all. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The better articles use "Arc". –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, lol. Thank you for your help, I'll change the Locke article back. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of Infobox tvseason

Hello, there. At this current FLC, an editor commented that they felt the image in the infobox section was a little big. The image in question is 200px wide, which is within the norm for episodes list as far as I understand. The editor added, "This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox." It seems to me that the consensus about infobox image width in episodes lists goes against the FLC criteria. Your input is welcomed. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a repost of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Size of Infobox tvseason images and any replies should be posted there. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, looks like I overrreacted. The matter seems settled now anyway, so never mind this. Have a nice Christmas holiday, Rosenknospe (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)