Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Archive 7

TV by the Numbers

http://www.tvbythenumbers.com is going down, kind of. The site will still be there, but Nielsen Media Research is cracking down and forcing them to delete all of their archives in the next few days containing information posted more than two weeks ago. This could be catastrophic for us, as most of our ratings information comes from that website. The DVR ratings are especially important because TV by the Numbers is the only public website that releases them and even they have been unable to obtain the last few weeks of season 5 (well, actually, using simple mathematics, we can figure them out through ABC Medianet's press releases, but I would rather not be accused of original research). WebCite is down right now, but once it is up again, we need to get all of our URL's processed through there for legitimate preservation. If you another website that serves the same function, please mention it here. Hey, and check out the pictures that I recently uploaded (they even have fun captions). –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, more tedious work to do to preserve the wiki! Anyways, I was wondering what to do with the latter half of season five's ratings; I guess we could just list the Live+SD ratings for season five instead of the Live+7 to be consistent, but then season four will be inconsistent with the rest of the seasons.... This whole Nielsen thing doesn't even really make sense. I was under the impression that TV by the Numbers got (read: paid for) their info from Nielsen and Nielsen was okay with them publishing the info, but I guess not. Anyways, nice pictures... there are a lot of people who didn't have pictures before, so kudos for improving the wiki.... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, it is about time. After check back everyday, WebCite is finally finished its maintenance and is back open. You can view the Live + 7 numbers for "Confirmed Dead" here or here. I will do the citations in the episode table at Lost (season 4). Jackieboy87 or someone else, could you do the ones for Lost (season 5)? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am on it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished, the links are in my sandbox. I'm guessing we should wait to replace the refs until the specific pages are taken down. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I have added mine to your list. It would be a good idea to grab the ones from the individual episode articles, but there is no urgency there because those can potentially be replaced with links to ABC Medianet, etc. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So it seems that they did not actually delete any old postings; they just deleted them from their indexes, so your have to have the exact URLs or you have to "search the site" in order to find them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

lost (filming locations)

There seems to be alot of availible information pretaining to filming locations used during the shooting of "lost" and the imaginative ways that they transform some of the original sites to conform to the motif of the show. Obvouisly they can not be all shared of the main Lost (TV series) article and this has been expressed before. However I believed that a well sourced article about the filming locations can be a benificial addition to the project with a redirect from the subsection to this article. I started writing up a rough draft in a sandbox Here and would sort all the information presented. It could include places shoot at, what the production team did to prepare the place, what it was during the episode, and which episode it was used in. It would require help from the rest of the editors but would like to know your opinion. In suggestions would be welcomed. Thanks in advanceB.s.n. (R.N.) 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If we can have several reliable sources and it fits an article, I don't see why not. --HELLØ ŦHERE 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a fairly good start on the article. If anyone could give any suggestions it would be greatly app. thank B.s.n. (R.N.) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is somewhat okay, I think more references are needed. I did some cleaning, but I think the most important thing is more references. It's not a large page, but more large than some, and I think more than about ten references is needed. But yes, it's a good page, but I'd wait to move it into the mainspace. But that's just me. --HELLØ ŦHERE 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would consult WT:TV before publication. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Season 6

So, I was looking and the season 5 article was created around 26 July 2008. Now, I believe we have the season 6 article should be made. We have the first episode name, several stars coming back, and several interviews with the cast and crew. That's just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, production starts next week, so now is as good a time as any. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll most likely start the page, but I'll need help. Lol. --HELLØ ŦHERE 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started it in my sandbox here. All I've done is barely an opening paragraph and just copied the information right from the main article. Can someone please help? --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work so far. I will try to pitch in later. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will work on the cast/character section and add it to your sandbox when I finish. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the cast section to your sandbox. I tried to be as vague as possible with the Locke/Man in Black part. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 22:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just read it, it looks really good. The only thing I don't get is Hurley being a millionaire chef? I know in the Comic-Con vid he made the new recipe, and he worked at/owned Mr. Clucks, but was he ever considered a "chef"? I may be wrong, but I just don't recall it. Other than that it's really good. Thanks. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and create the article now, as it's fairly close to how we started with the season 5 article. Also, the amount of casting information in the main article is a little excessive and needs to be moved to the new season 6 page. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have the sandbox page. I can understand, but it's all there, well written, if someone would like to move it, be my guest. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Libby and naming conventions

I would like to suggest that the title for each character would be the name used in the credits for the actors, with high preference on the most spoken name ala (Kate Austen not Katherine Anne Austen).--23prootie (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this not how it is done already? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Hurley and Sawyer? Going by this, we would have to move them to Sawyer (Lost) and Hurley (Lost) because they are almost never called James "Sawyer" Ford or Hugo "Hurley" Reyes.... We seriously need to come up with a standard way of doing this across the Lost WikiProject.... --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I say that we were fine before this discussion. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of Lost featured topic nominated for removal

The topic has not met its retention period, so I am sorry to say I have nominated it for removal - rst20xx (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Start class

It appears there are over 100 lost articles that are still Categorized as start class Category:Start-Class. How does one go about updating these, and possibly working them to C,B, or even GA status. Still new at this and any help will be appreciated. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The pirate speaks, Well, I'm not an expert o' anythin' really, but ye could take a look at some o' t' other C, B, and GAs, t' familiarise yourself with t' standards needed. T' guidelines on t' project page should tell ye how t' set out yer article (or, again, just look at other articles). Ye be havin' any particular articles in yer mind that you want t' improve? Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 14:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. When ye added t' [[Category:Start-Class]], it categorised this page as start-class, instead o' showin' up where ye typed it. Avast, I be havin' almost no knowledge o' categories, so I'll, arr, let someone else fix it, Lord Spongefrog, (I be t' Czar o' all Russias!) 14:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sailorly help. I suppose I'll just pick one to research and go from there. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 06:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yaaaar, ye be welcome, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Season 5/The Incident.

I am not here to report, just to gain a consensus from fellow Lost project participants. On the Lost (season 5) article page, User:Amr.eladawy continues to add this text to the section of "The Incident". I, and another editor is the past have reverted these, as they seem to be POV and OR. Can someone else help? --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is original research. I was just about to revert the latest edit when you beat me to it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who views this as such. --HELLØ ŦHERE 15:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Amr.eladawy (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Hi there, As I good viewer of the Lost (The whole 5 Seasons) I thought of adding the mentioned section to give more info about the Jacob role and this impact on every main character in the show. User:JpGrB continues to remove this part with no obvious reason. I am really getting concerned about how far wikipedia is open for everyone to add and improve. Wikipedia is just getting more more under very strict authority that contradicts with the very open nature it gives.

I tried many times talking to User:JpGrB on his talk page, and what I get is deletion without talk.

here is what I sent to him :

Hi there, I had just added a small part in the last episode of Lost season 5. And I see that you just removed it. Well, I returned it back and I hope you kindly advice why did u remove it?.

Thank you for making Wikipedia an open place for every person on earth to participate and help. Amr.eladawy (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I read ur comment, and this is my reply

1- This is not a personal opinion, please watch the last episode. 2- It is important part as it reviles the truth about how Jacob was very much connected to all these main characters, and he was there at every important moment in their lives. 3- I think that these details are very useful to reader to understand more about the series and gives much info about the next final season.

I am waiting to ur review before removing the edit.

Thanks for using the talk page as civilized way for conversation..

I hope that clears my point about how does it make feel that wikipedia has become a place for some people to only control and impose.

Amr.eladawy (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings about Wikipedia or its editors, the statement that you keep adding to the article is not appropriate here per our policy on original research. It may be implied by the show, it may even be true and revealed as such in the sixth season, but without any kind of confirmation from the show or its producers, there really is no way that it can pass our threshold for inclusion. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally I hear a sound of wise. As the text I added was refered to as Original research, I just checked the policy. I want to say that what I added was just directly from the episode itself. Which means that it is not a personal opinion nor uncertified source. Is it possible to share with you the episode in case that you did not have the chance to watch it?. This is sure what makes this text not subjected to policy. finally I thank you for your very helpful comment. and waiting ur feedback.Amr.eladawy (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no mass media, magasine, newspaper making the same conclusions, it is Original research. This is the problem with many fiction articles in general, but here we have an obvious case of OR and inproper synthesis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I have a question, Why this is not applied on this section [1] which lists what in my statement in more details? Amr.eladawy (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Is not that a good reference to my statement?

In that article, what happens in each of Jacob's visits is listed. In the statement you added, you made the conclusion that these individual scenes mean "Jacob was the main factor forming these characters' destiny". This is synthesis, a component of original research, where you drew your own conclusion on the meaning of these events. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It might just be a translation error, but that article does not cite Jacob as "the main factor"; it just says that he met them. We do not even know the significance of the meetings yet—for all we know, he did nothing more than touch them and this is what should be reflected in Wikipedia until the story develops in the show. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, this is much clear to me now. I think if we remove the last part about the aim of the visits, then the first part of the statement is compliant to the policy. am I correct?

Hi there, does this mean that removing the second part of the statement about the impact of Jacob visit will make the edit approved? Amr.eladawy (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that you could, but it is an unneeded edit. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To just list who he interacted with in that short summary is unneeded. The article talks about it. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FA nom?

It may be a little early but do any of you see any potental for a featured article candidate to present for main page before the start of the final season? Something to bring attention to the final season. Maybe even nominate "LA X" for did you know section with a 5x expansion? Well at least when the material presents itself. Just a thought. ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 03:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have actually been planning to save our 2010 today's featured article appearance for the time of the show's finale, as it seems a more important date. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. to run on the date of the final episode would be a great idea ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 05:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lapidus

Lapidus' article has just the importance assessment, but seems good enough for at least a B. Can someone take a look? igordebraga ≠ 21:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a B, but it looks Good to me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)