Talk:List of Lost episodes

Template:RFMF Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Archives
March 2006 – May 2006

Redundancy / Merge

I am astounded by the level of effort and will that is being expended to try and defy simple consistency.

The whole point of this page (and other lists like it) is that so there is a short overview of each episode and to provide a encyclopedic and informative listing of episodes.

By boiling down Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) per consensus into Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts, you are just boiling down each episodes to a few paragraphs and provide listing of episodes-- the exact same thing this article is doing without conforming to guidelines, naming conventions, and the design/consistency of most TV shows' episode listings on Wikipedia. Yes, we like episode guides like Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) to fill us in if we missed an episode, but I would submit that for the vast majority of Wikipedians that a list like this page is more **encyclopedic** and informative than (what seems to me, and I'm sure many people would agree) a long, linear article like Episodes of Lost (season x) designed to feed you the linear story of Lost. Here's an experiment: show Episodes of Lost (season x) and this List of Lost episodes page to someone who hasn't seen the series, the audience for a general-purpose encyclopedia-- and see which one they find more concise, clear, and consistent. I think our passion for Lost is blinding our judgement here-- we just like Lost too much just for an episode listing that is concise and easily accessible to everyone-- otherwise it just feels so empty!

P.S. I'm not that concerned about the issue of individual articles, but what's worrying to me is that you're purging huge amounts of content from Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) with the new drafts at Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts-- and I think it's better to create additional articles on each article (although yes, there would be [gasp] 50 more articles to Wikipedia's 1 million already) and suffer its consequences (e.g. more pages to maintain and watch) rather than deleting all this content that make an Episodes of Lost page the ~300-something largest page on Wikipedia-- especially when many TV shows have long, blow-by-blow recaps of episodes anyway.

So, basically what I'm saying is: that this page is more encyclopedic and that it follows the convention of most other articles out there on TV shows. Plus, Episodes of Lost (season x) does not follow naming conventions while this one does, and it's becoming more and more like this page anyway (see Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts) with shorter and shorter summaries. I propose that this page become the "official" Lost episode page-- and the links to individual episodes on this page point to either episode subsections on Episodes of Lost (season x) or (preferably) to individual episode articles to save the content that will be deleted when the drafts go live.

Cws125 20:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though this discussion has been had a dozen times over, I feel like it's necessary to have again, so here are my replies to what you said above:

• The rewrite of the episode guides was done with very strict guidelines to provide a synoptic overview of the episode without fancruft. Having each episode in its own article invites vast amounts of fancruft, which we spend a great deal of time reverting. It's barely manageable with all of the episodes on the same page, I'd hate to think what it would be like with all of the episodes on separate pages.
• The goal of the episode guides is not to "to fill us in if we missed an episode", it's to provide a brief, encyclopedic overview of what happened in an episode. If we were writing to fill people in, each episode would be thousands of words long, whereas we have a guideline to limit episode guides to 500 words.
• I have a feeling that if the authors who do want separate articles get their way, they're going to make the individual articles, and then leave them for us regular authors to clean up. Trust me when I say we do far too much reverts and clean up of fancruft the way it is (you can look at my history as proof, especially during January and February). Bottom line is that Lost is not like every other TV series on Wikipedia quite. People treat it too much like a fansite, so the best way to maintain data is to keep it short and conscience. I welcome you guys to stay here for a month and enforce the guidelines we have set for articles. You will end up cleaning up so much fancruft that I think you'll end up agreeing what everything I'm saying.

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 15:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Each and one of your arguments can also be used against centralization. Hell, it's even worst when you have it cloggered together because if the article is edited various times in the same day your watchlist will only show the last modification done on the article, ignoring the previous one. You say it's barely manageable while being on one single page; one can argue that such thing happens because information is centralized.

You say there is a guideline stating that summaries must be limited to 500 words, but that contradicts the natures of wikis, that is meta:wiki is not paper and therefore there are "no size limits in the Wikipedia universe". A guideline is just a guideline, it is not a rule, it is a recommendation.

I do not know why do you think the articles will be "left to 'us' the regular editors" when in reality the article(s) can and will be edited by many people, 'regular' or not. The 'regular' editors do not own the Lost articles.

Lost is a TV series, period, it's no different than The Simpsons, South Park, or 24 (in a descriptive sense). It will have fans the same way that those series do, and be prone to fancruft the same way that they do. Stating that Lost is "different" from other TV series on Wikipedia is a personal opinion, not a fact. It can methodically and systematically be treated the same way that the other series were.

You say that the best way to treat it is by keeping it short, and this contradicts the nature of Wikipedia enormously. We are not writing summaries, we are writing detailed and concise articles. There are no limits.

I believe that the reason why you are cleaning articles so much is because you made a set of unrealistic guidelines in the first place. You need to understand that one of Wikipedia's philosophy is that "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow". We want everyone to contribute to articles, not only 'regular' editors.

I have made a suggestion to you personally which IMO is the best solution for this. We can have List of Lost episodes and individual articles for each episode, while at the same time having articles such as Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2). Anyone can contribute to both formats.

—Joseph | Talk 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the page as it is. Considering the nature of the show, it is very common to refer back to other episodes for reference or to refresh one's memory and if they are all on separate pages, that will be more trouble. Thank you, Lost Fan 99

First of all, thanks for engaging in the discussion, guys. If anyone has comments, please do... comment.

Fancruft and maintainability

Yes, I realize that some people on Wikipedia go on and on with brilliant but totally unnecessary prose that span paragraphs but can just be said in one sentence-- and that it will be harder to enforce guidelines with all these different articles.

However, putting in comments something like this at the episode article might work:

==Plot==

<--This article has a policy adopted by consensus at Talk:Lost (TV series)/PlotSummaryPolicy. The plot summary for this article:

* should be limited to 500 words.

* should not contain brilliant prose, fancruft, speculation, 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 section in the main Lost article.

-->

Blah blah blah here goes the plot summary blah blah blah.

Two separate goals, two separate pages

When I think of "brief encyclopedic overview" for the episode listing page, I'm thinking of TV Guide-style one paragraph overview (like the ones on this page), not five paragraphs of plot summary in which the whole thing is a spoiler (argh!) and is too much effort to read unless you're actually interested in that episode-- the new drafts are still the same thing, just trimmed down! What if I just want to know what the episode is about, like "Claire with Kate and Rousseau try to find the place where Claire was taken so they can find a cure for Aaron's illness."?

WHY NOT just a simple episode listing table like this with brief summaries, production code, airdate, etc. (which is more pretty, encyclopedic, organized, follows naming conventions, and exactly what many other shows like Star Trek, Family Guy, have standardized on) and links to individual article pages for those who want the plot summary (or want to go into more depth into that episode)?

Cws125 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not both indeed? I support a single page listing all Lost episodes with a very brief (one sentence) description that then links to the season episode summary pages. As a trial, I've linked the Season 1 episode titles on the List page to the summaries. Take a look. I don't support a separate page for each episode. I can't think of any TV series that merits separate episode pages in Wikipedia. Perhaps in a specialized Wiki (Memory Alpha for example), but 79 articles on the Star Trek original series episodes? Too much. Rillian 14:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we can have both. I don't remember which TV show uses that format but I have seen it on Wikipedia. Alien vs. Predator (film) used this format (it was changed, don't know when). You can have a Summary section that is a short and concise paragraph describing the episode, and a Plot section describing the episode completely. Both need to have a spoiler warning. About the guidelines, you can not have any guideline that *limits* the content on articles, none. That guideline is absurd in Wikipedia. I have reverted your edit on List of Lost episodes, leave that page as it is, that is, an episode listing linking to individual articles. If you want to do that on Episodes of Lost (season 1) go ahead, but leave List of Lost episodes as it is. You need to browse other shows on Wikipedia so you can notice that we use that format already. For example, South Park has a listing of episodes where each episode is detailed in a Plot section (example: Cartman Gets an Anal Probe). —Joseph | Talk 17:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to state for the record that I'm with the idea:

• [[List of Lost episodes]] providing links to [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] and [[Title of episode (Lost)]]
• [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] - pages with a short (one paragraph) summaries of all episodes of the season
• [[Title of episode (Lost)]] individual pages with long, detailed description for every episode

I think this way everyone will be satisfied. NowotnyPL 17:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Would you be willing to help? =) For example, each episode has its own article but they need to be reverted back because someone redirected them to List of Lost episodes. I have been doing so but only when I get the chance to look at each episode individually. —Joseph | Talk 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure... when it comes to cleaning/other technical stuff I'm there... Since english is not my mother language I'm not so good with the writing though... But I think before we start reverting things a strong consensus should be worked out... So what do you say Jtrost? ;) NowotnyPL 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a great idea, as well-- except the names to better comply with naming conventions for TV series:

• [[Lost (TV series)]] points to [[List of Lost episodes]] as the official page for episodes
• [[List of Lost episodes]] points to [[Lost (season x)]] for brief plot summary
• [[Lost (season x)]] points to [[Title of episode (Lost)]] for long recaps
• [[Title of episode (Lost)]]

This way, we can have List of Lost episodes for table listing and REALLY brief overviews without spoilers (like most TV shows out there), have something like Lost (season x) (like 24 (season 5), for example) for those who want a brief plot summary that follows the 500 words/no fancruft/etc guidelines, and individual episode article pages for those who want blow-by-blow recaps. Is there anyone who disagrees?

Cws125 08:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Only I would like to keep this nice tables we have in List of Lost episodes and only add [[Lost (season x)]] link above it if we follow the plan above. Something like this for example. NowotnyPL 13:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of putting the List of Lost Episodes as the official page for episodes on the Lost (TV Series) page. I think that the [[Lost (season x)]] should be more easily accessible, as I think many people looking for episodes summaries would want to go to the [[Lost (season x)]] page rather than the List of Lost Episodes page. I'm not sure of an adequate solution to this problem, other than to either feature both the list and the [[Lost (season x)]] on the main page or to have a link to each [[Lost (season x)]] page at the top of the List of Lost Episodes page. --Kahlfin 20:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more encyclopedic to have List of Lost episodes as the official page for episodes-- for fans of the series, you'd probably want Lost (season x). But for the audience of a general purpose encyclopedia, I think an almanac-like listing of episodes without plot summary or spoilers would be more in line of what they would be looking for and more accessible (less information, organized into tables).

However, I do think your solutions to make Lost (season x) and List of Lost episodes coexist are brilliant. However, out of (a) have both Lost (season x) and List of Lost episodes on the main Lost TV page or (b) have a link to Lost (season x) at the top of List of Lost episodes, I would prefer (b) but I would be more than happy with (a), too.

Cws125 00:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

ALIAS has been using the current format for its 4+ seasons and it seems to have worked fine for those pages. I think the current format is much more efficient, but I would be fine with both. --Kahlfin 19:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistency is vitally important to Wikipedia We can't just change convention willy-nilly just because a few people want to turn Wikipedia in to a fan site. I vote for a merge. OldManSin 03:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a detailed summary for each episode (per episode or per season) should be left for fan sites. Leave all the tid bits and trivia and cross overs for the fans to devour in their speculation. This site should only have this page for Lost episodes, but with separate pages for each season to keep things shorter and more to the point. -DJM. (fan of Wiki, not an editor and don't want to be)

Individual episode articles

To clarify my position, I support having a List of Lost episodes article. I don't support separate articles for each episode. The season summary pages are more than enough. Based on the lengthy and repeated discussions on Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2) there is not consensus among Wikipedians for having individual articles. Perhaps a straw poll will help? Rillian 19:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See List of South Park episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of That '70s Show episodes, tv.com's Lost episode guide, Lost's official recaps, Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, meta:wiki is not paper, and information overload. There's really no need to discuss the matter further. It has been done before, other websites do it as well (the official website being one of them), and we have WikiProjects related to this. Basically the reason behind it is that while you see it as 'nough, other readers and contributors don't. Episodes can have infoboxes, quotations, trivia, analysis, etc. There are contributors willing to help with such tasks. —Joseph | Talk 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen all those episode lists and most of them look like shit. I just went to one of the South Park episode pages, and I found a ton of spelling errors, crap grammar, way too much fancruft, and pointless trivia. So don't use that as an argument for breaking up episodes into articles. Danflave 17:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been an absolutely collossal discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television_episodes about the issue of separate articles (definitely much larger than the one at Lost) with every imaginable argument against and for each side-- however, I found their guideline on "Creating articles on television episodes" that was adopted by consensus to be quite reasonable and wondering why Lost shouldn't also follow it.

More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show. However, it may still make sense to add information about a television episode to Wikipedia. The following process is a suggested method of doing so:

• First, create an article on the television show.
• Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show.
• Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles.

In my opinion, Lost definitely has enough information to justify spinning episodes off into their own articles-- FOR ORGANIZATIONAL SAKE ALONE, I would absolutely demand individual articles. I have failed to see an argument why Lost is special or unique enough to not have separate articles-- not general arguments against this guideline (e.g. increases my watchlist, more articles to police, etc.)-- and I feel allowing the episode subsections to become "article-size" in a new article away from the main article is better than someone constantly maintaining (deleting stuff from) the main article so that the episode subsections are "subsection-sized".

Also, I found this quote (on the talk page of that article) from Jimbo Wales in 2004 (so his view may have changed) but I thought it summed up the argument precisely: "Why shouldn't there be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly crosslinked and introduced by a shorter central page like the above? Why shouldn't every episode name in the list link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia? Why shouldn't each of the 100+ poker games I describe have its own page with rules, strategy, and opinions? Hard disks are cheap. --Jimbo Wales" (emphasis mine)

Cws125 09:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't seen an argument as to why Lost is unique enough? Lost has a completely linear storyline, and each episode relates to the next and many before and after it. And unlike other TV shows with linear storylines, episodes of Lost have details that can be incredibly important to the episodes before and after them (e.g. Locke and Boone, on their way to a plane, find the corpse of a Nigerian drug runner dressed as a priest; 14 episodes later, it turns out that this man saved Mr. Eko's life). This may not be the best example, but things like this happen all the time in Lost, and as such the episodes should be compiled in a format in which someone can get a general idea of the storyline at a particular point in the show, not an idea of what happened in a particular 42 minutes of the storyline that aired at a certain date. I know this from experience, as I once wanted to know a part of the Lost storyline that spanned seven episodes, and would have found this immensely difficult if I had had to visit seven different pages in order to find what I was looking for, especially if I had wanted to save it to disk and later paraphrase it. I think that when most people visit the Lost summary pages, they're there because they're looking for a general idea of the storyline at a certain point, not because they missed an episode and want to catch up. Lost is a continuous storyline, and thus requires a continuous page. --Kahlfin 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is an extremely weak argument. That '70s Show (List of That '70s Show episodes), Stargate SG-1 (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes), and Xena: Warrior Princess (List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes) have linear storylines as well and their episodes are separated. The Sopranos is linear as well and recently some contributors have started to create individual articles for their episodes (List of The Sopranos episodes). —Joseph | Talk 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in my opinion, the Lost storyline is more connected and detail oriented than any of the shows you mentioned. Second of all, the list format doesn't necessarily work for those shows either. Third, I wasn't disagreeing outright with the idea of a list of episodes, I was simply providing an argument as to why Lost was unique enough because Cws125 claimed not to have heard one. --Kahlfin 19:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every show has fans who think it's totally unique and different from everything else. The fact is that regardless of what kind of show it is, it should still follow guidelines and precedent (and the ideals of Mr. Wales). Consolidating the season pages and writing individual episode articles worked well for the List of Futurama episodes and other pages; I believe it's what should be done here. CWMcGee 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second... So you're saying that because it worked for Futurama that it's going to work for Lost because they're both TV shows (and have almost nothing in common besides that)? The guidelines and precedent may work well in general, but in my opinion I don't think they'll work well for LOST, and all personal biases aside, here's why: I think the current format is easier to read and research. Within the current format, if someone wants to look at any number of LOST episodes, they can easily do so without having to load many different pages. If someone only wants to view a particulat LOST episode but is confused because they do not know what happened at the end of the last episode, they don't have to go to the list, visit another page, and then go back to the page they were reading first. In addition, there's the point I made in the above paragraph: If someone wants to research and save to disk part of the LOST storyline that spans many episodes, they will have to save many pages, which is inconvenient. I know other linear storylines have adopted the list policy, and I'm curious as to whether they've considered this. That being said, it's not so much the list I oppose as much as the prominence that people seem to want to give it. I fear that with a list linking to 40+ seperate articles, the articles will no doubt be full of original research, fancruft and grammatical errors due to the fact that it will be much harder for the Wikipedia commmunity to watch 40-some (eventually 144) articles. By no means should such a page replace the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages as the main episode page for LOST. --Kahlfin 19:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of maintaining both-- a season page (for season-wide plot summary) as well as an article page on each episode (episode-wide plot summary) like has been suggested above)?

The main Lost TV show page would link to a standardized list of Lost episodes (this page) for an encyclopedic and bird's eye view of all Lost episodes, a format that is more consistent with other TV shows. That page would then link to [[Episodes of Lost (season x)]] (or Lost (season x) for better naming consistency), which is now being shortened into Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts with strict guidelines-- e.g. 500 words, no brilliant prose, no fancruft, etcetera.

I think that's a good idea, except for one thing: I'm afraid that the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages will be overlooked by people who are new to the Lost pages and don't necessarily know about them. Here's what I think should happen: There should be links on the main Lost (TV series) page to both the List of Lost episodes and the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages. That way people can choose which one to visit. Are there any objections to this? Because if not, I'm going to add the List of Lost episodes page to the main Lost (TV Series) page and otherwise keep the Lost (TV series) page exactly the way it is. Does anyone have a problem with this? --Kahlfin 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the content on the current Episodes of Lost (season x) that will be deleted would be saved on the article pages for each episode.

Yes, there would be 40+ something articles, but seeing (a) how other fancruft-inviting shows with this format don't seem to be that problematic (b) we're saving content from deletion (c) and some people just prefer viewing articles on episodes (just click Next or Previous Episode to navigate), don't you think this satisfies everybody?

Cws125 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a preference. You would like it to be centralized, even tho individual articles are easier to navigate through. Your proposal is similar to how countries articles were developed years ago, until contributors found out that it was incredibly tiresome to edit and read an enormous article. Contributors then began to create summaries about sections while linking to main articles about a particular subject (example: History of the United States).

Your format requires a user to download say, 50K, when he will only use the last 2K of the whole page. It's unnecessary, but you are forcing them to do so. I highly recommend that you read a book about web design. This kind of discussion has technical implications. It has been researched for years. Most users don't spend time reading long passages of text presented on a screen. A computer screen provides a limited view of a long document. Your first screen capture (1024x768 as of today, moving towards 1280x960) is what makes the user stay on the page. If you don't give them what they want in that space, they will browse something else. Long documents lose people. Links exists so you can create chunks of information that can be presented in a structured form. I understand your point of view and this is why I do not oppose that other contributors develop and maintain summaries by season, but allow other contributors to create individual articles as well. —Joseph | Talk 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree... plus, no one forces anybody to have 40+ pages in the watchlist... This is your choice... You don't want to keep track of all the changes in the episodes' articles...? fine... you don't have to... there are people who will... NowotnyPL 12:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The point about a long document is a good one, however, I think it's best to keep both formats incase someone does want to look at the whole season. As for no one forcing anybody to have those pages on their watchlist, I agree with this as well, but I'm worried about who is going to do it. I know someone will eventually, because this is how Wikipedia works. But as most of the regular Lost editors seem to oppose the list (correct me if I'm wrong), I'm simply afraid that these 40+ pages will grow out of control with fancruft and speculation for months before anyone volunteers the time to watch them. I mean, sure, people will watch pages here and there, but I think it's going to be a while before every page is watched by a regular Wikipedian. --Kahlfin 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how it's so much easier for someone looking at the whole season to scroll down a bit than it is to click a link on the side of the page. Furthermore, the "regular" editors not wanting do it is not an adequate argument. :( At any rate, do you really think smaller pages will end up containing that much more fancruft than a couple of giant pages? CWMcGee 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't do it because regular editors don't want it, I said I was concerned about who's going to do it. I realize that it doesn't matter what "regular" editors want, but do we all want 50 bad articles that don't adhere to guidelines? Not that this is a reason not to do it, but I just thought I'd express concern. --Kahlfin 19:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If we have individual episodes articles, which it seems we now do, should we delete Episodes of Lost (season 2) due to redundancy? --M@thwiz2020 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a current guide under development at Talk: Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts, but since it isn't complete yet, we could either leave the article the way it is and have it be redundant until the new guide is done, or we could delete it and have no Episodes of Lost (season 2) page until the new guide is done. I'm really not sure which is a better option. --Kahlfin 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The usefulness of the individual episode articles is still being disputed. The best course of action in my opinion is to keep using the articles with the episodes on one page until this is resolved. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 18:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, I think it's much easier for people to have just a small list like the one in List of Lost episodes, then if one wan't more information they can click on it to see it's full information. Plus some episodes can go really deep such as Lockdown (Lost) and I bet you don't want to put that with other lost episodes and pile up god only knows how many episodes (or not) --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to keep both formats?

From what I have read in this discussion, it seems that while there is dispute about where to put them, there seems to be a general consensus to keep both this page and the [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages (by moving the current content on the season pages to individual articles and using the [Talk: Episodes of Lost (season x)/drafts] to replace the current [Episodes of Lost (season x)] pages). As such, if there are no objections, I'm going to remove the mergefrom tags from both this page and from the Season pages. Does anyone have any objections to keeping both episode formats and/or to removing the mergefrom tags? --Kahlfin 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait -- no. What is going on here? I am gone for 2 weeks and I come back and there are these hideously redundant episode guides?? Who are these "Joseph" and "Cws" guys? Why are these strangers dictating how long-term Lost editors should edit and maintain the page? These people are rudely imposing their whims on editors who have spent incredible amounts of time and energy on these pages. My question to "Joseph" and "Cws" and these other bullies who have suddenly shown up -- are YOU ALL going to be adding the 50+ new Lost articles to your watchlists? Are you all going to spend hours editing and cleaning up all the cruft and vandalism that these pages will attract? And don't use that argument that South Park and other shows have their own episode pages. I have seen those episode pages and THEY ARE CRAP -- absolutely glutted with spelling errors, bad grammar, outrageous cruft, pointless trivia, etc, etc, etc. I can't believe you people coming here and making these enormous changes and then abandoning all of us long-term Lost editors to take care of your mess. So NO -- there is NO consensus. I think having two episode guides is insane. KEEP IT THE WAY IT WAS. Danflave 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that there is no consensus. We're trying here, collectively, to create a quality encyclopedia, folks, and a proliferation of fragmented articles pretty clearly has the precedent of doing the opposite (just look at the South Park and Simpsons examples that have been cited): poor grammar, spelling, tense, etc. We now have 40+ standalone episode articles with slightly varying text from the summary page, with cruft added daily in one or both places for multiple articles. What a fiasco, and we should set about putting all of these into AFD. Yes, let's keep it the way it was, and exercise absolute draconian control over the constant addition of "more more more" to episode summaries, so we can keep things short. "More" is not better, "more" is NOT encyclopedic in and of itself, "more" is just pushing us towards a junior high product in terms of level and sophistication. -- PKtm 20:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, this a collective effort. Draconian control is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. While you may like draconian control, others have already argued that this is contrary to progress. About fancruft I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Fancruft which is NOT an official policy. It is still a hot debate simply because what you consider fancruft may be informational and useful to others. And about consensus, it seems that you haven't even read Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes, or meta:wiki is not paper. —Joseph | Talk 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion about this. Please read the following links: Wikipedia:WikiProject List of Television Episodes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes, meta:wiki is not paper, and information overload. About who I am, I'm a contributor, just like you. No one is dictacting anything, we are following conventions and consesus reached by other contributors (see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes). About adding Lost to my watchlist, no I won't, because I don't even use the watchlist tool. I have had 0 articles in my watchlist for months. It helps immesively beleive me, articles are better built when many contribute to them, don't be overzealous about them. Like I said before, the 'long-term Lost editors' do not own the Lost articles. You need to understand that just because you dedicate more time to the Lost articles that other contributors, this doesn't make you its de facto manager. The articles will be edited by many (Wikipedia has 1,000,000 contributors), and not only by you or a small group. Keep this in mind. —Joseph | Talk 22:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the centralized discussion: More important than having many articles on TV episodes is having good articles on those TV episodes. Therefore, it may not be a good idea to create small articles on every episode of a television show. What that tells me is that each show's editors must decide what's in the best interest of the quality of the articles. I think I speak for myself and many others here when I say that we strongly believe that the best way to maintain quality is to keep episode guides short and to the point on one page. We can hold a straw poll and see if that helps resolve our differences. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You speak for me, too, but up until now, as I've been one of the only ones even trying to keep the original episode pages, I was kind of hoping to work out a compromise. However, if a straw poll is the best way to resolve this, I'd definitely take your position. --Kahlfin 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)'

Danflave, I respect your opinion-- but try to realize that some people think that the List of Lost episodes page (with sub-articles) is considerably more encyclopedic, prettier, and more standardized and that the current Episodes of Lost page is awfully long, full of fancruft and spoilers, and a little disorganized.

I would prefer that the main article on Wikipedia on episodes of Lost to be nicely organized like an almanac and be more accessible for the audience for a general purpose encyclopedia, and link to additional articles for more detail. Some people prefer an episode-guide-like article with the plot summary all on one page.

I think having two different formats is a good compromise, instead of degenerating into a cut-throat war of which one should be removed. I know there is some redundancy now between the individual episode articles and the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages, but that won't be an issue when the new drafts with the 500 words/no brilliant prose/etc. episode plot summaries go live on the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages.

P.S. I think fancruft is definitely a problem with having separate episode articles. However, in my opinion, it's the lesser of two evils-- 1) constantly battling fancruft/quality/etc. when absolutely everything is all on one page since it leads to it having really super high visibility, or 2) having a really nice, accessible, short-and-pretty front page like List of Lost episodes that links to other subarticles-- when you have fancruft, it's on a less visible subarticle so it doesn't need to be as urgently fixed and isn't as bad.

P.P.S. Could some of you point out some specific examples of episode articles of South Park or the Simpsons that have bad grammar, spelling errors, or outrageous cruft so that we have a better idea of what you're talking about? I promise not to fix them... :)

Cws125 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should we have a straw poll here to decide the fate of Lost articles? --M@thwiz2020 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Define what you mean. Are you concerned (as I am) about the proliferation of articles on minor topics? Or does this pertain to the episode summaries? Or something else? -- PKtm 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So this is like a straw poll to decide if we should have a straw poll :p I think we should have one to decide if we should stick to single page summaries or have a separate page for each article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

sure, let's do that--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that having both is also an option. --Kahlfin 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We currently have three formats in existence:

1. List of episodes with really short summaries
2. List of episodes with really long summaries
3. Individual episode articles

We have to decided which of the three to keep. Hence, a three-way straw poll? Keep it open for one week - I can't vote until Saturday, unfortunately :( --M@thwiz2020 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

three?? really,, I only know about two, the one with really long summaries Episodes of Lost (season 1) and List of Lost episodes, which one is the one you got labled (#1) in yout list? --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Season 1 contains short summaries (under 500 words each) and season 2 contains long summaries (many are over 500 words). Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

ohhh,,, I though you mean like a third type or somthing like that lol, anyways it's too early in the mornin' for arguing,, so good mornin' guys :P,, got classes to go to ;),,, peace --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Equally, see the shortened summary work that's been done at Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts and Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 2)/Drafts. I don't necessarily like the specific summaries in every case yet, but I do think that keeping each summary to a defined (and relatively short) length is one way of keeping out the incessant insertion of fancruft. -- PKtm 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You people are just complicating too much. There is obviously enough material for separate episode's articles so why not having a list of all and one for each episode? This has been tested and works perfectly. See Startrek or Stargate.--Tone 21:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the above discussions. There are plenty of arguments not to do this, and I'm not going to repeat them here. An article for each season has worked for shows such as ALIAS and 24. I definitely think that a straw poll is a good idea, but until we decide to do one (or not to do one), I'm not going to argue this much further. My point is that there is clearly divided opinion on the matter, and that not everyone would agree with you're argument. That's why I think a straw poll is a good idea; we need a definitive solution to this. --Kahlfin 13:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was that we have:

1. Short summaries: List of Lost episodes
2. Long summaries: Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2)
3. Individual articles: Lockdown (Lost), etc.

We should have three straw polls. The first is should we keep the list, yes or no. The second is should we keep the longer pages, yes or no. And the third, should we keep individual articles, yes or no. Then we go from there to decide the actual content of the articles. --M@thwiz2020 00:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

well really the short-list and the individual articles are kindda one,, they link to each other, so it's really between the one with all the episodes included in the page or the one with the breif list that has details on episodes articles, so it's only two not three--muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of this page is to replace the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages. It's to serve as a list that links to all of the episodes across every season. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my previous experience is that the individual articles start out the same as the summaries on the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages, they just become different because people will edit one without editing the other. Hence, maybe we can have a poll with three voting options:

1. Keep List of Lost episodes and Dave (Lost), etc. but delete Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc.
2. Keep Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. but delete List of Lost episodes and Dave (Lost), etc.
3. Neither of the above (please explain what you want to happen)

Will that work? --M@thwiz2020 19:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This page originally linked to the episodes on one page, and I supported creating this page because I liked the idea of having a link to each episode on one page. So I would like to keep this page and the Episodes of Lost (season x) pages. I think the options should be (I have bolded the changes I made):

1. Keep individual episodes Dave (Lost), etc. and redirect Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. to List of Lost episodes
2. Keep Episodes of Lost (season 2), etc. and redirect Dave (Lost), etc. to List of Lost episodes
3. Neither of the above (please explain what you want to happen)

Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! When do we start the poll? --M@thwiz2020 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If everyone else is okay with these options I would say asap. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep? Please only include your name or signature in the voting area. Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard WP:STRAW and/or WP:POLLS. This poll will end after 1 week (on 04/24/2006 at 13:30:00 UTC). If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward. For the purposes of this poll, the following terms will be used: Episode articles are Lost-related articles that pertain to only one episode. This includes Dave (Lost), Lockdown (Lost), etc. Season articles are Lost-related articles that pertain to only one season. This includes Episodes of Lost (season 1), Episodes of Lost (season 2), and articles created in a similar manner for future seasons. List article refers only to the article List of Lost episodes, which lists all the Lost episodes for all seasons and a one-sentence summary for each. Keep the episode articles and redirect the season articles to the list article Joe 15:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Matt 20:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Cws125 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Jake11 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Sfufan2005 22:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Sarahjane10784 23:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Megapixie 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Behun 02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Alexignatiou 11:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Matharvest 17:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Tomcage9 22:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Lumaga 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Maelwys 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) SLC1 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Blade 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC) gabby 05:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Ekalin 14:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Rikkyc 01:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC) danyoung 12:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC) ArgentiumOutlaw 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Total: 22 Keep the season articles and redirect the episode articles to the list article --LeafGreen Ranger 15:25, 17 April 2006 (BST) NeoThermic 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC) PKtm 04:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Kahlfin 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Manipe 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC) --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) --torritorri 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Rillian 19:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Danflave 22:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) NostraDogbert 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Chris 42 21:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Total 12 Neither of the above (please elaborate below in the "discussion" section) Discussion I'm remaining neutral for this vote (so I guess my vote goes here). If we redirect the episode articles, then the season articles will get way too long with fans going out of hand and elaborating forever. But if we redirect the season articles, then having all those episode articles instead will be more to watch on my watchlist for OR, NPOV, etc., and people can use that as an excuse to write more cruft. And if I vote neither, then I have to choose an outcome, and, as I don't want to choose now, I guess I shouldn't vote but instead discuss it here. --M@thwiz2020 14:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I'm voting as per below comments. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I'm 100% for Articles and the List, I belive that the Season should just have season Highlights or somthing like that --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Is there anything wrong with having both formats? I mean, I know it would be convenient to have one or the other, but if opinion is strongly divided, wouldn't having both be an acceptable compromise? I would rather have season articles, but would be willing to compromise, and as such will wait to cast my vote. If either option wins, lots of good or potentially good wikipedia writing would be deleted forever. I hope there's a better solution to this. --Kahlfin 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Apparently not. I'm casting my vote for season articles unless someone wants to propose a compromise, in which case I'd be willing to change it. --Kahlfin 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I think that the season articles are unweildly and inflexible. With full articles, episodes can be expanded indefinitely. Plus, the list article allows users to quickly browse episodes from ALL seasons, with more information than just the title, and then read up on detailed information on demand. With the season articles you only have just episode titles, or browse through a massive page of text just to read up on the basics of episodes. And I don't think we should have both formats, because its much harder to keep up with. Thus we should just go with the best one.--Jake11 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Not only that, but the formatting is much cleaner with individual episode pages and a single "list of episodes" page. The "list/episode pages" format has been successful for several other shows on Wikipedia, most notably South Park and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (though the Buffy episode pages could use a smidge of cleaning.) Season pages are kinda useless in comparison with this method, becoming increasingly long and load-heavy. Adding those sassy episode boxes for each episode on a season page would just be plain murder. In the end, with the list/episode manner of things, it's just each user's responsibility to not create useless episode pages (? (Lost), cough cough) and to keep pages tidy if things definitely look out of hand. --Matharvest 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC) This page will remain here regardless. Its content is not what we are voting on here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Individual articles will be impossible to maintain. Already there is speculative content that does not abide by the policies we've agreed on for episode synopses. For example: speculation on future episode titles (? (Lost) and Three Minutes (Lost)), ungodly long summaries (Lockdown (Lost)), non notable trivia (Lockdown (Lost) again), and speculation on flashbacks (see this article). It's hard enough to control all of this on one page with one talk page. Sooner than later we'll have over a hundred articles with a hundred talk pages. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC) Okay, you've convinced me to vote. When I gave conflicting reasons above, one for each side, I thought the two sides were equal. Now, though, I see that it is an extremely tilted seesaw, and I must vote. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) It's not impossible, its quite easy actually! Keeping all the articles in one page is not reasonable, the page will be long and heavy on some browsers. All pages should have some Screenshots to better explain the episode, so let's say there are 2-3 screenshots per episode, that would be at least 50-70 images in the episodes page, what if someone has a slow connection and they are looking for the newest episode (the one at the very bottom), that would be a problem because all the images will have to load. Plus in the individual articles you have no limit on how much to write, but imagine if you made long descriptions on every episode, think how thin the sidebar would be. The small list is convenient because it has a 1-2 line description and a small thumbnail organized nicely, and if I want more info on one episode I can just click the episode and that's all there is to it!--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Have you given much thought on how to maintain the quality of the synopses? In the past 6 months I have made 158 edits to the Episodes of Lost (season 2) page. Each edit had been a cleanup of some kind. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you have been watching that article and cleaning it up. Do you plan on enforcing the policies regarding trivia and future episode information we have created across every single episode? You even created some of the episode articles that I listed above as pure speculation. I am extremely worried that if we have individual articles the quality will take a turn for the worse and no one will care because it's impossible to clean up all of those pages. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I understand you point, but if more try my best to keep the articles clean, they are clean right now, it's true that some are "speculation" such as Three Minutes but that's not listed in the episode list yet, but it's not "Pure speculation" because if it was it would be deleted because the episode will not be named like this, for example I made sure that "The Foundation" episode was not created untill it was official, so if you go in the Three Minutes epi you will just se [Season Finale] as the next episode, It's really easy to maintain and plus, you get the Infobox, which is really useful. thanks--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 13:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Here is the policy concerning future episodes in case you missed it. According to that policy those episodes not yet confirmed should be listed for afd. You can't use what will likely happen to make episode articles. I highly encourage you to follow that policy. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I understand your point, and I did hide the episodes that are not confirmed, so if you see the list they are hidden, did you ever see the Simpsons list? they have episodes that are listed for a year to follow, that's like me putting Season 3 in the list! but I try my best to keep it clean, maybe an epi slipped from the hidden code but that's ok i guess. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also on a second thought, if you see the future tv show template that is placed on future episodes of lost you read this, "... [This Article] contains information of a speculative nature based on commercials for the show, its website and/or other advance publicity. The content may change as the date of broadcast approaches and more information becomes available.". thanks --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Is the Simpsons the same as Lost? Do they have the same policies? No. Lost has policies related just to Lost. That template is not a policy, so the Lost policy overrides it. That template is designed for other shows, such as the Simpsons, that either have no policies or have policies that state they can write speculation. Please cater Lost articles towards Lost policy. --M@thwiz2020 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC) and who makes up those policies? All shows should be treated the same, If the Episodes articles are being watched as much as the Season articles, can you give me one reason of why would you say the Full season list is better...--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) LOST is a continuous storyline. If someone wants to do research on the storyline over a period of time, they have to view many different pages. If they want to save those pages to disk, they have to save many different pages. I know this from personal experience. I once wanted to research the LOST storyline from Man of Science, Man of Faith (Lost) through Collision (Lost) and I would've found it very difficult if I had had to look through and save 8 different articles, especially if they were as poorly written as some of the current articles. This is in fact how I became involved with Wikipedia in the first place. But that doesn't matter, because individual episode articles are not going to be watched as much as the season articles, no matter how hard we try. I mean, just a few days ago I hid four uncomfirmed episodes that someone had put on the list. THE LIST. If we can't even watch the list effectively, how can we possibly watch 48 seperate articles? --Kahlfin 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC) BTW, as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Future TV shows, Template:Future tvshow has just been nominated for deletion. --M@thwiz2020 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC) Quality? don't try to pull that on me, All the articles I created for the episodes is just copied and pasted from the season article because I don't want to make somthing up. I said it and I will say it again, if the Lost episodes/list articles become the main articles belive me they will get more attention from many people including those who where focusing on the season episodes, On my point of view I think the season article should have a season brefing, and have a link to the episodes for more detail, it's just common scene. And to reply about the FutureTV template, well that's too bad for the person who made it, but it's not a big deal for me personally, I just want to focus on making the LOST articles on Wikipedia better :) peace --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 23:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I hate to say this, Muhaidib, but if you are going to be monitoring the new Lost episode articles for spelling and grammar, then I am very scared. Danflave 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC) yeah? Well excuse me! but if the Lost episodes articles remain I would expect some people to help me out with the articles, will you be helping out? --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC) If these individual articles stay I can honestly tell you that I will not ever contribute to them. I have helped extensively with keeping the episode synopses for season 1 short, free of fancruft, and informative. What you are campaigning for reversing everything myself and many other authors have worked so hard on, and encourages the very things we're discouraging. So if you do get your way, I do wish you good luck because you will be receiving no help from me. Jtrost (T | C | #) 17:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC) well you know there is copy/paste, you can do that if the article already exists at the season page, wikipedia is not about who created what, I think i made some small edits in the season articles, I don't think they are bad or anything--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 17:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC) That's true. I'm sorry I commented about the current quality of articles, as I don't think initial quality is anyone's main concern. See PKtm's comment below. --Kahlfin 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Muhaidib, with all due respect, I don't think you're hearing what Jtrost and Danflave et al are saying. The issue is not the initial population of the story article, but rather the ongoing maintenance, fighting against the constant insertion of incorrect, inappropriate material, not to mention out-and-out vandalism. Which is exactly what's already happened; the last three episodes, for example, each have about 30 edits already to their individual story pages. As Lost expands to even more episodes, it's just not going to scale well (it already doesn't scale well). If this approach prevails, it is going to have the end effect, I have to say, of damaging Wikipedia's quality. -- PKtm 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC) I'm new to Wikipedia, but I definitely think the season article is more organized and easier to use. --NostraDogbert 15:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Another reason why the season articles should stay: Stuff like this will happen... a lot. Jtrost (T | C | #) 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC) OMG. I had no idea what I was about to click on--it was even worse than I'd imagined. We need to resurrect Leflyman's good proposal, Wikipedia is not a fansite. If the individual articles are retained, I tend to agree with Jtrost, and I too will not be participating in a losing proposition of trying to keep them clean and Wikipedia-like, because I'm not into futility. -- PKtm 01:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Jtrost and PKtm, the article was cleaned up, relax! we don't have enough support for the articles yet, the articles can be cleaned up as easily as the other list--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC) The fact that the article was created in the first place is a problem. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I was just at the Episodes of Lost (season 2) article, there was speculation all the way to the last episode (check the history. And for some really wierd reason it didn't have the LostNav box... anyways I made some fixes and stuff like that, you know anyone can edit these pages, don't take anything personally but it's all in your head. I mean Wikipedia is not a place for fighting and you have to make little things like we are agains you or your enemies. I am here just like you, learn from Wikipedia and contribute. I translated the LOST page to arabic, you can see it at the translation box, and the List of episodes too. I just hope you don't get any negative vibe from me --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 03:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I guess my biggest concern, Muhaidib, is that you yourself were the originator of that completely speculative article. Doing so, with it riddled with out-and-out statements such as "This could be all wrong, partly correct, or totally it", and tons of fan-oriented, non-encyclopedic content such as "now for a drum roll"... it all indicates to me that we are in serious disconnect about fundamental Wikipedia tenets about notability, verifiability, abhorrence of speculation, etc. (See the obvious: WP:NOT etc.). Again with all due respect for your energy and enthusiasm on these matters, I'd have to gently suggest that you may want to reconsider whether your goals are in alignment with Wikipedia's, and consider alternative avenues such as Lostpedia. -- PKtm 05:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) thanks for the offer but no thanx, and I am not here in Wikipedia just for LOST, I just copied and pasted the last episodes' note, didn't even read it, you know what this discussion is getting too long I don't want to talk about this anymore, I can't see where the thing starts and where it ends, thanks for your time--muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, I don't know what to vote for but what happens when the LIST article stays? what happens to the SEASON articles? I think they should just have a season synopsis no details about the episodes, maybe links to them, is that option in the vote list? --No time87 18:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I'm remaining neutral but I want to stress the importance that one of these solutions are reached, because the current format (lists with recaps + articles), is crazy! Arru 19:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) You know, I want to question the argument that having separate episode articles will be oh-so-much-work and will degenerate into an unmaintainable mess. People who write fancruft and speculative stuff about future episodes are going to do it anyway, whether it's on the main season page or on individual episode articles. I would prefer they do it on a very low visibility article than do it on a high visibility season article that needs to be constantly watched by a dedicated team of Wikipedians. And these low visibility articles *are* cleaned up-- take a look: ? (Lost), Three Minutes (Lost), Live Together, Die Alone (Lost). They're clean. Yes, they were bad at one point, but I'm also sure that the season pages contained speculative fancruft and bad grammar at points, too. You know, I seriously doubt anyone goes to a future episode unless they're *looking* for speculation. If they don't want to be spoiled, they're not going to go there. Yes, it's bad that these articles usually contain speculation and content of bad quality-- but some good Wikipedian is going to clean it up. I would prefer this stuff be banished to a low key article (e.g. a "seedy" district of Wikipedia) where it can be fixed without much ado instead of constantly battling these guys on the main season article where innocent users can stumble upon fancruft and whatnot if they're at the right place at the wrong time. Cws125 10:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) So your reason for supporting the individual articles is because you think fancruft is impossible to maintain, so you rather spread it across many less visited articles than one large article? Do I need to even point out what is wrong is that argument? Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) No, I'm saying that I would rather have a few bad apples on future episodes (that can be fixed without a lot of visibility) than have this appear on a season article that is constantly being edited. Most of the ~24 articles on episodes that have aired, in my opinion, are very stable. Cws125 01:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) You know, this has gotten insane. If you notice, the dedicated Wikipedians who have been diligently editing the Lost articles for months all voted the same way. However, a large group of random, overzealous individuals came in and basically just made an enormous change to the Lost articles even though they've put no effort into the pages (nor will they most likely be involved in the new changes.) They're all being led by some guy who doesn't understand Wikipedia rules and actually CREATED an article of complete Original Research. I am with PKtm and JTrost. I am done with the Lost episode articles. I am still happy to help maintain the main Lost page and the Characters pages, but I am not going to let myself be stressed by maintaining 100+ episode articles. And can I please just add -- over and over and over, people keep using this argument about how The Simpsons and South Park all have episode articles and it's "worked out fine." I want to ask all of you -- what are you talking about??? I constantly see bad grammar, original research, misspellings, cruft, cruft, and ubercruft in all of these episode articles. It's atrocious. And now this is what we'll have for Lost. Thank you Muhaidib. I hope you will maintain these new articles with better spelling and English grammar than you've displayed in your Talk comments. Also, you really need to read this. Danflave 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Thank you so much for saying this, Danflave. While I myself am relatively new to Wikipedia, I've been here for five months and dedicated most of my time during those five months to editing the LOST pages (150+ edits), particularly the Season articles. Like Danflave said, pretty much everyone who actually maintains these pages voted to keep the season articles. In fact, with the exception of Muhaidib, I don't think anyone who voted for seperate articles has made more than a few edits to any pages having to do with LOST. A few bored Wikipedians came in and imposed this ridiculous protocol on a TV series that didn't need it, all because other TV series' do it. Like Danflave said, it doesn't work for those series', either. And now, guess what? They're going to go to other series' who are busy editing their season pages and tell them about how LOST is using the new format and therefore they should as well. I'm with the other regular editors. I'm going to watch the list itself, as well as the main Series article and many of the character pages. But as far as the episode articles go, the people who imposed this can take care of their own mess. --Kahlfin 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) You guys talk about me like I created this whole thing, I DID NOT create the List of Lost episodes, and I DID NOT create this Straw Poll, I just casted my vote.I don't want to delete or redirect the season articles, I just want them to have a season briefing, no episode details, Danflave you you think your perfect? you can't even write wikicode! Quote [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research|'''this'''] you did two mistakes here, if you want to do an external link, you put a " "(space) after the URL, not a "|" the second mistake is that you don't need to do an external link, you can just write [[Original_research]]! Nothing further to say --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Man, my slight typo in wikicode is nothing compared to your hideous mangling of the English language in the past two weeks. I've fixed the typo. Danflave 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC) You know, Danflave, I would like you to support your arguments. While I'm glad that you think your side is the one with all the "dedicated Wikipedians" who have been editing Lost dilegently for months, please substantiate them. Are you sure you're not confusing "regular editors on the Lost article" with the "people working on improving the *season* articles with new drafts"? Finally, you know, I disagree with your assessment about Lost. All the other popular TV shows that have episode recaps (like Star Trek, Stargate, 24, Family Guy, and etcetera) are *ALREADY* on individual episode articles. We're using these shows as ARGUMENTS for why Lost should do the same, not using Lost to convince the other guys to do the same. Also, I think all these shows (especially Stargate) have fantastic episode articles that I enjoy reading while Lost's season pages are a huge 80K mess. Cws125 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Having done a fair bit of copy-editing on the the main Lost article, I have to add that there is no way that I am willing to wade through the pile of bad grammar/spelling, ceaseless repetition, linkarrhoea and fancruft that will surely result from having individual articles. To those that favour this proposal, if it goes ahead, then good luck to you — you'll need it. Chris 42 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I'm curious about your theory of spontaneous generation that speculates having separate episode articles will actually create more bad grammar/spelling/ceaseless reptition/linkarrhoea/etc, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Cws125 02:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Simply because virtually every addition to the Lost main article has required some sort of clean-up, if not by me then by the likes of Jtrost, Leflyman, Danflave et al (who all do a very good job of it). Multiply this task by 50 or 100? No thank you. Chris 42 09:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Reaching a consensus We have to reach a consensus about which article to keep. The Poll was finished today with 22 votes to redirect the season articles and 12 votes to keep the season articles. How does it work? As I already explained, I don't want to DELETE the Lost season articles, I just want to make it a small and brief article that talks about the season in general, and have a link to the Lost episodes for more detail. Its really just common sense. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) So, the poll is over. I would say that, as per WP:CON, we have not reached a consensus. What should we do next? --M@thwiz2020 20:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I dunno, that's what I'm asking, PKtm said I can't make any major changes untill we reach a consensus. --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I have reverted the many edits made by Muhaidib that somehow assumed that the straw poll results were binding, contrary to WP:POLL. Such a poll isn't binding in any event, but that's especially true in this case given the number of votes made by non-participating users. My suggestion is that we continue with the season articles; every long-standing editor here on these pages has voted for that. -- PKtm 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Yeah we know you want that... Wikipedia is really complicated with it's consensus and surveys.. I have exams soon so you guys enjoy playing with the lost articles... Peace --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Clearly there are a larger number of people who want individual articles, however the discussion seems to favor the season articles. Out of the 22 people who voted for individual articles, only two or three participated in the discussion, and even then I did not see any clear reason why the status quo needs to be changed. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I don't want to speak for everyone, but I was under the opinion that this was simply a vote, so that is all I did, or would expect anyone to do. Just because many of the people there didn't "discuss" the topic with you, doesn't mean you can ignore their vote, or declare that the poll becomes void and things go back to the way they were. I don't know about most people, but I think that if one side has nearly twice as many votes as the other side, then there is a pretty clear consensus. Also, you can't simply claim that the proceedings aren't "binding" and ignore the whole thing just because the outcome wasn't your vote. It is pretty clear that a great majority of the people here wanted this outcome in the vote, so why aren't you guys cooperating with the majority? ArgentiumOutlaw 21:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC). I also thought that this was just a poll, not a "Justify your answer" assignment. Lumaga 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC) A majority is not the same as a consensus, and Wikipedia operates on consensus, not majority. Please read WP:CON. To quote directly: "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." The poll is not being declared void, and the proceedings were never binding to begin with, as the function of a poll is simply to test for consensus. There is obviously no consensus. Thus, because there is no consensus, we have to keep discussing solutions to this problem until a consensus is reached. --Kahlfin 22:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC) "There is obviously no consensus." You're not taking the opinions expressed by votes into account when you say that. I have a question for you, if neither side will ever agree, when will we reach a consensus? (hint: the answer is never, simple calculus). ArgentiumOutlaw 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) There's this thing called a compromise. It's for people who aren't irrational elitists who insist on getting their way no matter what and have no regard for other people's opinions. And by the way, I actually was taking into account the opinions expressed by votes. The vote was 12 to 22, which means that although a majority of people want it, it's not just a few people that don't. Like I said before, "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy". If you would actually read the policy instead of making fun of people, maybe you'd understand that. --Kahlfin 23:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I think Argentium wasn't being very irrational at all. Straw polls are there to see what the "community" thinks (even the ones who are usually silent) and just there to help build (or better aid in determing) consensus. While I do think from the discussion there wasn't a clear consensus, the results do help show that there is more consensus for episode articles than season articles. Cws125 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC) That's true. However, since, as far as I can see, there isn't a definite consensus among everyone, I don't think immediately redirecting the season articles is the best idea. --Kahlfin 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC) It's also demonstrably true that many (at least 14, in fact) of the 22 people who voted for the separate episode articles had not previously participated in basically any Lost-related editing before this controversy (say, using the date of March 12 (when the separate episode articles started to be created), and using the criteria of "2 or fewer Lost-related edits prior to that time"). E.g., Matt, User:Cws125, User:Jake11, Sarahjane10784, User:Megapixie, User:Behun, User:Alexignatiou, User:Matharvest, User:SLC1, User:Siva1979, User:BladeHamilton, User:GRB, Ekalin, User:Danyoung. Um, the phrase "stack the deck" comes to mind... -- PKtm 20:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Just to humor your thought for a moment, you forgot to mention that there are at least 5 (that I can see quickly) on the opposing side that have never even edited a Lost article before the poll [eg. User:LeafGreen Ranger, User:NeoThermic, User:Torritorri, User:NostraDogbert, User:Manipe], and at least 1 other one that only really edited punctuation and grammar. Also, I would like to point out that you specifically said March 12 as the cut off date, I wonder why you chose that date which is about a month and a half ago and plenty enough time to be a legitimate part of this? (*cough* Special:Contributions/Cws125). In addition to that, I can say that at least several of the people you just listed are avid wikipedia editors that should definitely know the policies and rules by now, not to mention that some of them do much editing on other TV shows as well. Playing along with your calculations and including mine, we can see that it approximately reduces both totals by a half (more so for the 22 side under your count). Either way, you can't just ignore votes, its a poll, everyone's opinions matter (even if you or I may disagree with them). ArgentiumOutlaw 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC) It's not exactly a mystery about March 12, since I actually stated above why I chose that date: it's when the separate articles for episodes were created en masse, without previous discussion, in 2 1/2 straight hours of editing by someone who had provided two format-related (trivial) Lost-related edits, ever, prior to that time. And I never suggested "ignoring" votes, but rather, I was just putting some of the votes into context. It seems quite odd to me, frankly, that we'd get so many votes (for either side, as you note) from non-participating editors. And although everyone's opinions matter, certainly, I do think that this issue revolves around the article maintenance burden, which will be borne by regular, participating editors. I'm much more interested in seeing how they vote than I am in the views of people who don't contribute here, and it greatly influences (and should influence) the view of what "consensus" is in this matter. -- PKtm 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Since there's clearly not even a consensus about whether or not there was a consensus from the poll above, I've asked Stifle to see if he can come by and give his input. He'd previously offered to act as a neutral party in any misunderstandings like this on the Lost pages (since he's an admin with 0 interest in the show, so he hasn't contributed to either method and won't have any bias towards either method), so I thought it might be useful to take him up on that offer here. --Maelwys 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I dont believe that you are correct in your first line, the only people that don't seem to agree that there is a clear consensus is a minority of the minority side who will claim anything to keep from losing. I also don't believe asking an admin is necessary or even useful (regardless of his unbiased position), simply because it is obvious that the side with 200% more votes has won. Also, the point of a poll is for the decision not to rest on one person, I mean, if he happens to like one of the minority voters, who's to stop him for agreeing with his decision? (not that he would, but I'm just saying the poll was to avoid that kind of thing) If the opposing side had prevailed in convincing those on the other side with their arguments, then they may have won, but 22 people still maintain a yes vote. I believe that according to the minority minority side, no consensus is reached until they themselves change their votes, that doesn't make sense, a poll is a poll, you don't have to convince 100% of the voters to win. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC) ArgentiumOutlaw, please read WP:CON and WP:POLL. Thanks. -- PKtm 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC) PKtm, please be logical. Thank you. ArgentiumOutlaw 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC) In all honesty, I don't think the people who voted "yes" were looking to be persuaded. Only a couple of those people are regular contributers to Lost articles. The vast majority of the regular contributers voted no. Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC) That may be true, but the same can easily be said of the other side, I doubt anyone on that side came there with an open mind for discussion and ideas, so that balances out nicely. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a democracy. There are plenty of TV series with articles on each episode, and more with articles about seasons and series. The rough consensus here is that each episode should have its own article, while the articles on the seasons should redirect to the list of episodes. I strongly recommend creating a template box with links to the previous and next episodes, to put at the end of each episode's page, so that people browsing through can go easily through the episodes. Finally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite or a review site, so long reviews don't really have any place. Hope this helps. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure if they were there when you posted this or not, but does the template on the right side of each current episode count? It has the previous and next episodes listed for every episode already, but I'm not sure if you meant that we should put one of those templates that go at the bottom of the page (instead of what we have currently). ArgentiumOutlaw 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) So that's it? just keep doing this like untill someone gives up? --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | ) 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious Consensus Problem

The Season 1 and Season 2 articles are 80 KB and 156 KB, respectively, which is WAY farther than the 'maximum' of 32 KB. We have talked about this for a very long time, but right now we NEED to come to a consensus on the Season articles/individual episode articles. Currently we have two conflicting systems that will not continue to work together; we have two different 'articles' about each episode that are not the same. This can continue to drag on, but before we get to Season 3 I think it is crucial to end this issue right now. PLEASE comment here. -- Wikipedical 22:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. This issue has not exactly suffered from lack of comment (see above: #Straw poll, #Consensus, etc.) All the basic arguments have been put forward again and again by both sides.

Let me try to shed some new or perhaps slightly different light on the discussion, though. Things to note:

• Virtually every long-standing contributor to Lost-related articles voted to keep the season articles and not have the individual episode articles.
• With no consensus having emerged, we've let the individual episode articles "happen" for 2-3 months now.
• For a couple of reasons, several long-standing contributors (myself among them) who had declared their lack of support for individual articles have refrained from contributing/editing those individual articles.

Take a step back and look at the results, dispassionately. Look at (just for example, but there are countless examples to choose from) Live Together, Die Alone (individual article) vs. Episodes of Lost (season 2)#Live Together, Die Alone (section of the season article). What do we see?

• The season article has four trivia bullet points for this episode, all of which strike me as arguably notable;
• The individual episode article, however, has fifteen trivia bullet points for this episode, including obvious speculation, original research, non-notable items, and fancruft. E.g., these points use language such as "most likely a reference" and "possibly an allusion". They include pointing out of continuity errors, which is fan material, not encyclopedic material.

I could go on with further examples from the body of the text as well. My point is probably obvious: without the attention of the various seasoned Lost editors, these articles have deteriorated and contain material that is contrary to Wikipedia goals and tenets. If those editors had participated, the articles would have been kept in check in these matters. But the editors I'm referring to don't want the inundation of the multiple articles, for precisely this reason! It obviously falls on their shoulders to keep out the trivia etc. If they're not there, the trivia mounts up, literally. Without the stops and checks and balances, people seem to simply follow the "more must be better" philosophy, but more is not better, and we can see that tangibly now.

The results speak for themselves, in other words. Let's stop this discussion and go back to manageable, season-oriented articles containing reasonably short synopses. -- PKtm 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that this wiki is available for everyone - not just regular editors (i.e. majority voted individual pages). -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.217.225 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia is not a democracy. My points had everything to do with quality and not with sheer numbers. Please do sign your posts, by the way. Thanks. -- PKtm 05:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Back when we had a straw poll, I voted for keeping the list and episode articles, because I think the idea of them, and the design of each individual episode page looks much nicer, and the information is much more accesible. I stuck by my decision until very recently. Now, however, I have come round to another way of thinking. There is no doubt about it -- there are a handful of editors who actively contribute to the season articles, and keep the quality of the episode summaries very high. These editors spend a lot of their time monitoring the season articles, removing pointless trivia, etc. (this has already been mentioned). So here is my new argument to just get rid of this list, even though it seems so nice on the surface. Just now, I looked back at some of the season 1 episode articles. I thought, that because of the nature of a television show, the much older episodes would not be edited much nowadays, so would be pretty encyclopaedic. Here are just a few of my observations:

• All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues: (trivia) "In episode 10 "raised by another" Claire's boy friend claims that she has daddy Abandonment issues."
• Hearts and Minds: (last two sentences) "Sayid figures it must be faulty because its magnetic north does not align with true north. This last bit may have something to do with the magnetic fields coming from the Hatch."
• Exodus: (section titled 'Climax') "Though we don't know what lies inside yet, one thing is certain-- it's a long way down...and the ladder won't be taking them down......."

No joke -- these are just copied and pasted. These are just three points I quickly picked up on. Most of these articles have at least something in them which is unencyclopeadic. There is also, of course, the fact that the pictures have now been removed from this list article, and from the discussion, in my opinion, it doesn't look like they'll be back. I reckon it's just about the right time to start deleting a whole load of articles. Tomcage9 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm a long-term reader of Wkipedia but more recently, a contributor too. I believe this list with individual episode pages should prevail for the following reasons. Firstly, aesthetics. This list is very well laid out, clear, intersting and extremely professional. The other two lists don't achieve this standard and look amateurish. No offence intended to the editors. Like it or not this will attract readers. There are numerous templates on Wikipedia for keeping a uniform look to certain subjects. This occurs for a reason. Secondly, ease of reading. The first two lists have way too much information on for a quick scan, and not enough for an in-depth look at the episode. Lost is one of the most popular shows of our time and consequently the most talked about. There is going to be a lot of information on each episode both contributed and demanded. Say you remembered something from an earlier episode and wanted to find that episode quickly. You would have to read a lot of information, we're talking pages and pages, before you found the episode you wanted via the two lists. This is unacceptable. In this list you can scan down the table and find that episode extremely quickly. Then, if you so desired, could visit the individial page and learn a lot more. Obviously not possible on the other two lists. I find it disheatening that regular contributors to the other two lists would 'throw their toys out of the pram' because another list has been created that is better. If you see meaningless trivia in the individual episodes then delete it. If something isn't necessary then change it, or delete it. There isn't two teams here. It is a community. Refusing to edit certain articles smacks of jealousy to me. I vote to keep this list and the individual episode articles and discard the unwieldy, cumbersome and dated first two lists. Gary Fothergill 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that because of the complex nature of the Lost episode format, that an entire page for each episode is appropriate. For some other television shows, a few sentences as a general synopsis is fine, but Lost by its very nature requires more room to explain what's been going on, often with snapshot (yes, fair use) images to clarify certain complex descriptions. When all episodes are on a single "season" page, this lends to a looonnnnng page with a lot of images, and it is cumbersome. A better way to handle things is to have a "hub" season page (sort of like the "?" Station, heh), which includes a brief 1-paragraph synopsis of each episode, and then spokes out to a "main article" with more information on each individual episode. I do understand that this would mean a lot of merging, and that some people would be upset that their work might be wiped out. I empathize, because I too would see some of my own writing deleted in this manner. But something clearly has to be done, to avoid this constant forking where entire episodes are getting basically duplicated descriptions on two different pages. --Elonka 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I obviously didn't make my points clearly enough. The question is not with the list, which I agree adds value (photos or no photos, but I won't go there for now). The question is with the individual episode articles--i.e., having many additional dozens of Lost articles to keep track of and manage out the constant deluge of fancruft, non-notable trivia, original research, etc. The long-standing and most energetic/involved editors here have all weighed in on this, and almost unanimously don't support individual pages because of the increased load monitoring all those articles would place on them, versus monitoring a single per-season article. And, as we've seen, without those editors' involvement (see my comments and Tomcage9's comments above), the individual pages obviously do deteriorate, away from Wikipedia's goals and tenets. It's not a case of "throwing our toys out of the pram" (or, in the American equivalent, "taking our bat and ball and going home"). It's not a case of (!) jealousy. It's a case of not being willing to sign up for something that will be inundating and unsupportable, particularly when there's a viable and supportable alternative already at hand.

By the way, the List article can just as easily link to sections of the appropriate season article (as it used to); there's absolutely nothing that ties the List article to the individual articles, in other words. -- PKtm 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've taken your points on board. Apologies for the jealousy jibe, it was in the heat of the moment. I'm aware that the list isn't attached to the episode articles but the polls and debate have been choosing between them. I was just trying to keep it simple. I think there should be individual episode articles for the following reasons. As i've already said, Lost is more than just a TV show, when compared with Prison Break or 24. It goes beyond just television and almost becomes a conspiracy theory. Do a search on Google for lost forum and see how much talk there is about individual episodes. There are whole forums for a single episode. Therefore, I contend that the level of detail on Wikipedia should match the level of interest there is for the show and it's mysterious content. I agree and commend the quality of the individual lists and accept they are a higher standard than the individual episode articles. However, I do not think that there is enough information in those two lists. In order to actively discuss theories and predictions about the show you need a lot of information at your disposal. The two lists are not helpful for this purpose. Neither are they helpful to a person scanning the page to find out what happened in a particular article - they're too long. In fact, after reading the discussion pages on the other two lists I have found that certain episodes (e.g. the pilot) have had to be cut down in order to keep the uniformity of the article. I think this is unacceptable. Clearly said information was important but couldn't be used. Individual episode articles solve this problem. Overall on this point, I feel that due to the unique nature of Lost and the vaying levels of detail needed for each episode, individual articles would be beneficial. Onto your second point. I agree the quality of individual articles is low. I also agree that considerable effort has gone into the other two lists. The two aren't, however, mutually exclusive. The contributors to the others can move their synopsis' over and expand on them. Refusing to contribute is sad to say the least. As a new contributor I am willing to help improve these individual articles with help from others. Remember, the Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't not create pages because of the work involved and nor should we. Sure, people are going to be disheartened that the original lists will be lost but if they helped with the individual articles we can have a Lost database (so to speak) that was extremely beneficial to avid Lost fans/conspiracy theorists and new viewers alike. --Gary Fothergill 20:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We are in a deadlock. The arguments for both systems are equally supported, so I would like to request a Mediator. I'd like to see what people think before I put in a request first. -- Wikipedical 21:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has equally valid opinions on this subject so I think mediation would be a good idea. --Gary Fothergill 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As one of the "patrollers" of the main Lost article, I'd just like to add that much as though I'd love to spend my days doing my bit to ensure the individual episode articles are kept up to scratch, I do have a life away from my computer! (Don't forget we're talking 50-plus articles here: if I had all those on my watchlist, before long I'd be seriously questioning my sanity.) IMO, the argument that Lost on Wikipedia needs the same phenomenal amount of detail that is already available elsewhere on the Web is specious. Yes, it is a popular show and demands substantial Wiki coverage, but not to the extent that every word of every script is analysed to the nth degree — that's what fansites are for. Chris 42 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "the main people who maintain these articles want to keep them a certain way", doesn't carry much weight with me, as it strikes me as a clear violation of WP:OWN. Nobody "owns" articles on Wikipedia. If articles get more traffic, then that means that more eyes are looking at them, and changes are going to be instituted by the community. Yes, some will be good and some will be bad, but I don't feel that we should avoid making any article on Wikipedia simply because someone says, "I don't want it to show up on my watchlist." And yes, I did pay attention to the argument about how the main stakeholders went on some kind of a strike to make a point about how the quality of some articles suffered, but I draw a different conclusion from the situation -- I look at the fact that the forking of the articles was already a major problem, as it made it difficult for any one person to try and keep both articles updated. If the forking problem can be addressed by maintaining only one major article per episode, I think it will be much easier to maintain. I also think that if every single "major stakeholder" of the Lost articles were to suddently drop off the face of the planet (or onto some remote computer-less island somewhere...), that the Wikipedia Lost articles would still mysteriously continue to grow and adapt. Maybe not as smoothly or as quickly, but ultimately I think the amount of attention on the subject would work just as it does for the thousands of other articles on Wikipedia -- community consensus, among editors who communicate with good intentions and in good faith, tends to produce quality content. --Elonka 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that we shouldn't do this because the regular editors don't want it. Nor is anyone arguing against this because they don't want to put it on their watchlist. We're arguing that because of the massive amount of articles, there aren't enough people to watch them, whether or not we "go on strike". In theory, having episode articles is a good idea. But in practice, it doesn't work. We have an ongoing project (that I really, really wish people would work on) to develop a more concise season page for season 2. We already did this for Season 1, and while it has grown in size since we put it up, I really think that it's the best way. I invite you to look at Episodes of Lost (season 1). Then, I invite you to look at the episode pages for all the individual articles of Season 1. I don't know how much you follow Lost, but if you do, you'll notice that many of these pages flagrantly violate the Original Research guidelines, ridiculously more so than the sections of Episodes of Lost (season 1). At this point in time, there aren't enough editors to mantain these pages, even if every one of us participated. Sure, it might look neater and be more aesthetically pleasing, but you have to ask yourself if we really want to replace a massive article that has a good number of errors with a bunch of medium-sized articles that among themselves have hundreds of errors. Maybe it would be more worthwhile just to reduce our season articles in size. Another thing worth noting is that on these episode pages, large errors and even vandalism can probably go unnoticed for weeks on the less popular pages without anyone fixing it, whereas something like that would never happen with a season article. --Kahlfin 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I'm trying really hard to understand your point of view, and I think that calm discussion is a very very good thing.  :) For my part, I don't see it as a problem if an article has errors in it for a certain period of time. I routinely participate in the editing of hundreds of articles on Wikipedia. I have over a thousand articles on my watchlist, and every week I make it a point to scan for a few articles in some subject area that I've never been involved in, just to kind of glance through and see how I can help. I spend a lot of time at Category:Category needed, doing my best to whittle down the list.  :) Anyway, as I poke around Wikipedia's million-plus articles, I routinely see articles that have errors, or articles that need cleanup, or articles that are vanity, POV, etc. etc. Many of them are in nooks and crannies where the articles only get a couple edits every few months. One part of me says, "Eww, must fix everything, now!" Another part says, "Go with the flow." Overall, the Wikipedia system works well. If an article isn't getting a lot of edits, it probably means that there isn't much attention on it. If there's a lot of attention, it's going to get more edits (just look at The Da Vinci Code, heh). So if a Lost article gets tucked away and isn't getting a lot of attention, I don't see that as a problem, because it means that not many people are reading it anyway. If there's an error on it, well, it'll get fixed eventually, by someone who does read it. Given a choice between one lonnnng article with dozens of different subsections though, or several smaller articles that are more focused, I'll generally vote for the individualized articles. And in the case of Lost, where synopses are going to be longer than usual because they have to be (since we don't entirely know what's going on!), I still strongly feel that individual articles for each episode is the way to go. Now as for whether the "hub" article is an "all series" list or "by season" list, I'd personally vote for "by season", but I'm more open on that one. --Elonka 21:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. However, I disagree with the fact that we should "go with the flow". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and like Britannica or Grolier, every single article within it should be held to certain standards. In my view, the fact that there are many articles within Wikipedia that have many errors or are blatantly POV only happens because Wikipedia doesn't have enough editors, or because not enough Wikipedians want to edit those articles. I don't think this is the "Wikipedia system", I think that this is the way Wikipedia happens to work under circumstances that are not ideal, and I don't think it's what Wikipedia is meant to be at all. In my opinion, we as Wikipedians should try to make sure that no article that we encounter has errors in it. Of course, none of us have the time an energy to single-handedly do this. But that doesn't mean we can't try. I think that under no circumstances should we actually support errors in articles --Kahlfin 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fansite. It is not our purpose to serve all the needs of "avid Lost fans/conspiracy theorists", as was expressed above. Sites like [Lostpedia] exist to admirably fill that need. -- PKtm 23:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd better clarify what I mean before this goes further. By alluding to the fansites I was not suggesting that Wikipedia contain all that information. However, there needs to be sufficient information about what happened in the episode, speculating about what different scenes mean, etc. has no place on the episode page. Say, for example, there is a discussion on a fansite about a long running theory. A person may need to refer back to a particular episode to clarify what actually happened. People don't record the episodes and unless you have the DVD (and can be bothered to fire it up) you're going to reach for the internet. The current episode synopsis' are too short to help such a person. It tries to be a short look at the episode for casual browsers and a long enough article for avid fans - it fails at both. --Gary Fothergill 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that the episode summaries right now are too short to help someone researching a theory? How so? I don't see that the current summaries leave out any necessary information. Whether they're sufficient or not depends on the theory being researched. If the theory is something like "What Locke is wearing in every episode reflects the state of affairs on the island", then they're not sufficient, nor should they be. We can only have so much information, and I think that what we have right now is adecquate. If you don't agree, please cite some examples. --Kahlfin 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What Happened To The International Airdates of Lost Article?

I'm just wondering where the international airdates of Lost article is. I came on here in early May and the article was still there, and when I go to old edits of the article, it includes the link, but it just redirects to the current page. What happened? Did someone delete it? 210.50.189.83 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted, see the same raised topic above [1], and here's a link to the AfD page. [2]. :) Ss112 08:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to Wikipedia for film/TV articles

For anyone who feels that fair use is being interpreted too strictly on Wikipedia, you are free to copy Wikipedia content and edit at http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/Main_Page . Arniep 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

that wiki is really not the best one if you decide to go after LOST,, i would say lostpedia or the tviv --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot in subarticles

I personally find it irritating that the way the subplots are depicted on the show is not mirrored in the article layout. It's not faithful to the show -- we should not just honour the plot details, but the way it is presented to us as well. Dysprosia 11:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have just filed a Request for Mediation to help resolve our consensus problem. The page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 2). For interested editors: 'please be aware and for those who may be interested in joining in the mediation please add yourselves.' -- Wikipedical 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

while your at it can some one see what to do about the pictures --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what any of this 'request for mediation' means exactly, if there is a place where the mediators are going to be discussing and hearing the arguments, I'd like to know so I can post my vote/opinion (if that's even how it works). That request page doesnt even have a link to the previous straw poll discussions which went on forever, that is a very important piece of info to help them in the decision. Also, I thought mediators should be people that have nothing to do with these pages, shouldnt it be a bunch of people that are unrelated and come in and evaluate both arguments to decide what the consensus is (or what the best decision is under no consensus). By the look of that page, it didnt seem that way. Btw, how long do these mediations usually take? Also, I second Mo's request for someone to include the picture debate, I'd like to see some law-abiding admins/mediators discuss the issue. ArgentiumOutlaw 03:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

From what i'm aware (bearing in mind i'm new) if you wish to contribute to the arguments add yourself to the list on the page linked to. It's not possible to observer because the mediation is done in private. The mediators are unconnected with the issue and will be neutral. There is a team of mediators for this reason. --Gary Fothergill 10:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The mediation request [3] was rejected, although no reason appears to have been given [4]. I don't really know the procedure so I'll let a more experienced editor take action. Tomcage9 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: My best guess is because User:Leflyman, User:Danflave and User:ArgentiumOutlaw didn't agree to mediate.

• I'm not sure why I was supposed to be drawn into this "mediation"; I haven't been involved in the ongoing discussion (as one might note by this being my first comment here). Back in February, on another Lost Talk page I stated my original feelings about individual episode articles. Seeing the mess they've turned into, my opinion has drifted the other way. While I'm officially staying neutral, I would prefer that editors stop trying to turn what should be encyclopedia-type articles into fansite-type pages. Those who are interested in detailed play-by-play for Lost have many other places to look and contribute, outside of Wikipedia.--Leflyman^Talk 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've been away for several days and I dont have time to go through a 14 day mediation of repetitive crap. Second of all, had we agreed, the conclusion would have been the same as the straw poll discussion, which is exactly why we needed a third party to mediate (hence defeating the purpose of asking me and other lost editors to do the mediation). If the issue needs to be resolved, it must be done by a third party, I've discussed the issue all I'm going to discuss it. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ArgentiumOutlaw, I think you should probably review the Wikipedia:Mediation page. You're incorrect in thinking that "you and other Lost editors" were going to do the mediation. -- PKtm 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The person who commented on my talk page said "indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate." After reading the actual Wikipedia:Mediation page, I think the word 'Disputant' is a more correct word to have used. Also, that mediation page is pretty badly written and put together. Many of the sections overlap on the information, and it is never explicitly stated what happens in the actual mediation process. I can only assume that it means we are to present our points to the actual mediators and they will then take the time to decide. After reading that page, I can't help but feel that it's trying to keep some secrets from me. ArgentiumOutlaw 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, so far there's nothing here except for ed enforcing a pretty clear policy, and a bunch of fans protesting because they like the aesthetic value of the pictures. I'm coming to this as an outsider, with no great affiliation with either the show or ed. It doesn't look to me like this is worth all of the hullabaloo, and I haven't seen one compelling fair use rationale for the images. Generally we discourage against using fair use images in lists and things of that nature, because they don't meet the critical commentary threshhold. I can almost virtually guarantee that you are not going to win this one, as someone who has spent a lot of time in various copyright arguments on Wikipedia. Your time can probably be better spent elsewhere, just my recommendation. --Fastfission 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What the are hell you talking about? The mediation request has nothing to do with Ed or the pictures, they are debating season articles vs. individual episode articles. I suggest you read read before you post! 88.109.129.10 10:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we did put the image issue under other issues, so I suggest that you reread your posts as well. -- Wikipedical 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, what next? Can we compromise or will everyone still remain firm with their views on the episode issue? -- Wikipedical 15:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Update: the request for mediation [5] has been restored. We still need a few agreements if it is to proceed. Perhaps uninterested users can remove themselves from the list of parties? Is this allowed? Tomcage9 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

it's back, ummm I liked the way that people from BOTH PARTIES (the episode list and the season list) where both fighting eddy to bring back the pictures,, ummm I still belive it's not fair! --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tomcage9, I'm confused. What do you mean about "uninterested users removing themselves to get a few agreements"? --Elonka 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I just meant that if users such as User:ArgentiumOutlaw didn't want to be part of the mediation maybe the should remove themselves from the list of "Involved Parties". Sorry if I mis-understood the mediation process. Tomcage9 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So you mean that any user who places their name under "Involved Parties", should also be sure to add their name in the section that says they agree to mediation, yes? That part can be confusing, I agree. As for why the request was rejected the first time, I think it was just an honest mistake on the part of the admins. The mediation requests before and after the Lost one were both rejected, and I think ours got included accidentally in the copy/paste. It has since been restored, so all should be well now.  :) --Elonka 17:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: our request was accepted. -- Wikipedical 19:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

separator lines

What's up with the really fat separator lines? Seems kinda ugly and a waste of space. Not sure how this renders in all browsers, but with no height defined it looks fine for me (Safari 2.0.3) -- Ned Scott 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

the hight is defined, take a look

|-
|colspan="6" height="5" bgcolor="#DBE9F4"| <!-- Putting in a nice space between episodes -->
|-

It looked much better when the pictures where around, take a look at this May 26th version --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 23:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody Doubts it looks Better before. However we are currently Arguing about whether the images are fair use and if we are allowed to have them. In the meantime This page has been Illegitimately protected. Protection is meant to stop an edit war, not to endorse a version. And if we had to protect the page without the images The least the could have done was Fix up the look of the page. Some Fair Use Police Take No considering of Page aesthetics Even after the Fair use pictures are removed. Its Annoying how some Admins/Arbitrators think they can get away with doing whatever they want to do in the name of Policy--E-Bod 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's defined, but it just looks too thick to me. -- Ned Scott 05:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For those of you without '/use of images' on your watch list

For those of you without Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images on your watch list, I would like to make a serious effort to actually get somewhere in this debate. I have posted a comment there to at least allow us to understand what is being debated there. Please add the talk sub-page to your watchlist and reply to my latest comments there. I'm only posting this message on the main talk page because it does not appear that everyone has '/use of images' on their watch list, so please continue the discussion there and not here. -- Ned Scott 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I Don't think the issue is people don't have the page on their watch list. My watch list is so long I could very easily miss it. The thing is People Just Don't Care anymore The page has been protected since 26 May 2006. The Admins are just trying to make a Point about fair use, or Every other admin does not want to cross the Person who blocked the page because he is an arbitrator. If an admin Undo one of Jimbo's Blocks it is almost certain desnoypeing. This issue has been talked to Death already--E-Bod 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected the article so that it can be worked on again. Due to various legal issues we cannot just have a huge gallery of screenshots to go along with every episode summary. People who do this will be reverted, people who do this repeatedly will be blocked. Editors cannot trump Wikipedia's legal policies. I'm simply telling you all the way it's going to be. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For fair use to apply, the text should be discussing *the image itself*

That's why we can't use a magazine cover to illustrate the depicted subject's article, since the article would have to be about the magazine cover itself. Likewise, here we aren't discussing the images, we're not even discussing the episodes (only listing and adding small synopsis). Thus I advise people to show restraint and not readd the copyrighted images -- Drini 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment The policy stated at WP:FUC does not appear to say anything about what you seem to think justifies fair use, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW- I can use annoying font sizes and colours too--Temers 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is not merely "advising" people not to re-add the copyrighted images, this is telling them not to re-add the images upon penalty of block. --Cyde↔Weys 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has got it right. Repeated attempts to violate fair use policy will be met with considerably less tolerance than before. Our explanation of policy has been reiterated in a few dozen ways by several different admins. In all probability, future attempts to make blanket additions of screencaps without thought to a commentary on the screencaps themselves will not be treated as benignly as before. Repeat violators will be blocked. Johnleemk | Talk 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if I understood you correctly. It would be okay to re-add the images as long as the text next each image to talked about what was in the image? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 19:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because this is an article about a list of episodes ... it is not an article about explanations of a number of random screenshots. Please just stick with the purpose of the article. --Cyde↔Weys 19:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's the case... have fun with this article, too. Lumaga 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of those images probably does not constitute fair use either, and they should also be removed. The improper use of images elsewhere is not a justification for the improper use of images here. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but these high and mighty admins are really only doing this because they're all scared shitless to actually do it to a popular article like South Park. --205.246.11.66 22:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is simply not correct. For example, Phil Collins, a featured article, features a Rolling Stone magazine cover, only two sentences other than the image thumb even mention Rolling Stone magazine. The topic was not the article, but quotes were taken from it. "That's why we can't use a magazine cover to illustrate the depicted subject's article, since the article would have to be about the magazine cover itself. "

Identification of an episode is WHY we have lists of episodes. TV shows are visual in nature. Information is being discussed about each episode, just in a short, list style way. If Wikipedia wants people to stop using fair use images, then they need to say "no fair use images allowed, at all". According to policy, and US law, the screenshots for this article meet ALL fair use requirements. Many requirements are loosely defined, and are not black and white. Admins such as Cyde and Ed are just trying to push the idea that no fair use images should be used at all, which is not what policy says. They are using opinion on what the article informs to the reader, and how the screenshots affect the article, NOT POLICY. You cannot enforce such opinion as policy. Administrative access does not give you the right to interpret policy based on how you feel about the article, no more than anyone else, at least. If you wish to enforce a no image rule for lists of episodes, then you need to change the current policy to reflect and support that. -- Ned Scott 05:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil Collins is another poor example in terms of your argument. The caption to the image, which reads "Collins made the cover of Rolling Stone just before the peak of his 1980s popularity", clearly addresses the actual image, ties the image in with the surrounding text (about Collins' increasing popularity at the beginning of the 1980s) and is used as part of the critical commentary which identifies that period in time as the peak of his popularity. Most significantly, that particular image is chosen because being on the cover of Rolling Stone is an strong indicator of popularity, and the caption points that out. It is a good example of fair use.

The images that were displayed in this article were not captioned and the text did not address them. They were used for the purpose of decorating the list, not for any valid purpose. As I've said above, the images are much more likely to be fair use on the article about each episode, where the text can actually address the image. Gratuitous use can never be fair use. --bainer (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I believe the magazine cover is covered under fair use, obviously. I was making a point about the issue of using the amount of text to claim fair use. That is, one can not judge fair use based on how many sentences are used to talk about the subject matter. Could the images be used for an individual episode article if that article is a stub? Where do we draw the line between a listed entry and a stub? Is this a list, or an article in a list format?

The images could all be captioned, maybe not with the typical image thumb, but with a message at the bottom of each summary that says "In the image to the left...". The images are being used for identification, the same reason we have the text. This is not much different than showing a picture of a fish and not having the text say anything about that exact fish. Identification is a valid fair use claim (although, with this list, not all images were being used properly for identification). For a visual work such as television shows, such identification is greatly beneficial. Is it necessary? No more necessary than the article itself. Rather, I believe it is as important as the text summaries. I am not speaking hypothetically here, either. I can't tell you how many times I've found which episode I was looking for when it came to South Park episodes by using the images. I believe such use of the images is important to the articles. It's not about the images and the text, it's about the images and the context. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The image itself must be the subject of the text. An episode summary is not something that is represented by a single image. A paragraph about how someone was featured on a magazine cover is. ed g2s • talk 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is of the events in the episode, the article is about events in the episode. How is this not working for you? Phil Collins has been on a lot of magazine covers, but one was chosen as an example for his rising popularity. Two sentences (three if you count the thumb message) where written to directly tie in that image to the article. There are a lot of frames in a Lost episode, we found some that serve as examples about what is happening, and if we have to, we can write 2 or 3 sentences per episode entry to directly tie in the image as well (as in, what exactly is happening in the image and why that identifies the episode, although I feel that the text-image-relationship doesn't need to be literally explained in text for fair use when it's obvious how they relate to each other). I really don't see how that is any different. How is an episode entry different than a full article or a stub article? There are many articles were there was more than one subject matter, the subject matter of this article is the events of multiple episodes. -- Ned Scott 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is fair use has a great deal to do with perspective, it is not a black and white issue. As such, it cannot be treated as a black and white issue when enforcing copyright policy. Ed and co. had made up their minds from the start, despite fair use clearly being an issue that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Even our Wikipedia policy says this. Instead, a blanket "policy" of no fair use on a list of episodes is being enforced on this article, without the fair use argument even being heard or discussed. The policy only asks that we make a fair use argument and use our best judgment in applying it. There is a variable where people are bound to disagree on, the judgement on applying fair use rational. Yet we are told that this is an obvious issue that is black and white. This is simply not true. Personally, I think Wikipedia would be on a lot safer legal grounds to not allow fair use at all. But that is not the case, and currently we are allowed, with additional restrictions, to use fair use images. Wikipedia says two things, one, be try to use free images for GFDL re-distribution, and two, get as much information you can while following our policies. It's a thin line. It's not black and white. Enforcing this as if it's obvious and that if anyone disagrees they are a "vandal" is ridiculous. -- Ned Scott 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First off we are allowed to argue about fair use all we want as long as we don't edit war over it. I would Like to Thank Ned Scott For taking the appropriate Course of Action and, Despite his Strong Pro Image POV, he understood Edit wars are disruptive and that others feel the use of images is in violation of our policy and Reverted another editor who re added the images. Ned Scott, You proved the Wikipedia system works and that we can be trusted to edit pages. Ned has earned the Right to argue as much as he wants against the fair use Police because he can be trusted not to let his POV interfere with his editing.

Further more I Totally Ageee that The fair use Policy Even on Wikipedia is not Black and white and Some of the Fair use Police take it too far, Like Ed (Sorry ed for singling you out and I understand you edits are ~100% Policy and you aren’t doing anything wrong except that you Don’t Cite your Policy you only Expect us to read it the same way you read it)

What we need to always remember is that our Current Fair use Policy Was a Great Compromise. The Policy reflects a Huge Struggle between editors. Some wanted No Fair use at all and some wanted everything that we can legally get away with. We have come to some agreement that we can use a few Fair use images when the image is the main focus of the article (Such as the Company logo for an article on that company or A screenshot of an episode for an article on that episode) and No Far use images when they do not Contribute to the Content of the article at all (Such as No fair use on Userspace when the content is not even mentioned and it is Only Decoration) We as editors Should be fine with Anything in-between these 2 Extremes (Having or not Having Fair use images) and not revert war over it.

The problem in this specific case is that we use Featured articles as precedent and the precedent has been to include the image 3 times. For this reason I recommend we leave the fair use images off of this page and Crate a Policy page solely for this one propose. While Some Fair use Police feel that any Fair use images on this page is a Blatant Violation of policy others of us Disagree and claim the Current Policy does not prohibit fair use on this page. Because, despite where the truth lies. We should make a redundant Policy Specify for the Media list Scenario and dispute it till the end of time on that page and let our Articles rest in Peace. The policy page Should not be so vague unless we are willing to accept room for interpreting. I do feel the Fair use of images on this page significantly improves the function of this article, To navigate. If you want to dismiss the Fair use Rational for navigation we need a special Policy to talk about navigator. Especially when the Policy is Contra to Precedent. We all need to acknowledge that it is possible we may be wrong. Meta Conflict should not be argued at the article level

All in all. It is not an obvious violation of FUC if all the Precedents agree with the image. IF this is going to be the first Media list article we remove Fair use images we need to have a clear policy. The Featured articles should be a model so you don’t have to fix every little individual page with its list of Supporting editors.--E-Bod

The DVD covers should at least be added back. I would have never seen the Season 2 DVD cover if I hadn't seen it here... that's the point of an encyclopedia, to give information. Since the table is specificlly giving information on DVDs, having the covers make since... seems like fair use applys to me.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.167.180.190 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Goals Of Wiped Seam Unspoiled to The Hard Truth of the Fair use Conflict. Even if we Should have images. The issue has complicated its self because our goals are big and strict. I totally agree with you, however it has come to this. We can't use the images. It is a very Complicated matter that contradicts itself a few times. Wikipedia:Image copyright issues for dummies is the best Explanation i can find I apologize for the Title.--E-Bod 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Table Formatting

I Agree with Ned Scott's Edit to make the Page with Adjustable [6]

Over the Prior [7]

Having the Page with Vary Is Definitely the way to go. If your Screen is small then It will automatically Fill what needs to be filed. If you make the window bigger or smaller it should accommodate this. If you have a big screen and do not like how the bars take up too much room you should not view the page on full screen. Normal articles have the images on the right Move with the page. Why should the rest of us have Most the image cut off. You should appreciate your full screen or not use all of it. Don't put on a sweater and say it is too hot. Take the sweater off. Set your window size to a page and adjust your text size for your computer if you have a problem. The page Should not be optimized for only one View setting. It should be dynamic and Self adjust to whatever Page size you are using. I shouldn't have to Scroll left and Right because on your screen the tables are too big. Because on mine they are too small. If you wish not to use the full screen Don't set your computer up to use the full screen.--E-Bod 22:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

someone asked how does a large screen makes it different, well having a large screen = more pixels, and a table that goes across 2048 pixels is really really ugly (that's what happens when you have a table that goes 100%), the size should be set at this size and that's how it should stay --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 04:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Liquid layouts makes usability very tricky, which is why I prefer static layouts. I use a 1680x1050 screen resolution, so when the table is stretched to 100%, the table data is smashed together, and it is very difficult to read. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second... what kind of logic is this? MOST websites look horrible stretched out at those sizes. But you have a browser window, that you can re-size. Why do the rest of us have to suffer via poor use of space? The same formatting was applied to List of South Park episodes and no one complained there. This is a really petty complaint.. Large monitors, although becoming more popular, are the minority. And even when you use one, you can easily resize a browser window if something doesn't look right. More web browsers don't display Kanji (はじまりの鼓動) correctly, but many articles still use that. Technical limitations of this nature should not dictate article formatting. -- Ned Scott 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

While I completely agree with your statement, I still think that a fixed layout at 775 is better. Whether we like it or not, the Wikipedia "column" is going to be there no matter what. I'm currently viewing this page on a 13-inch public monitor with who-knows-how-small resolution. With the dynamic (liquid) layout, the Wikipedia column creates this huge gray bar that stays on the side of the page no matter what, and as such, the rest of the page looks crushed in and too small, in my opinion, no matter what size and resolution you're viewing with. If there was some way to change this (I know you can change it by changing the User skin, but keep in mind that most people who visit pages are not Wikipedians and don't know how to do this), I would support the dynamic layout. But for now, I just think that the fixed layout looks neater. --Kahlfin 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Huge gray bar? I've checked the article using Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari, and I see no such bar. I've heard other comments about how some browsers render the tables, but this is the first time I've heard about the gray bar. I'm thinking this is not something the average reader is experiencing? -- Ned Scott 03:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're just so used to Wikipedia that you don't notice it. When you're reading this comment, look to your left. You'll see the gray column that I'm talking about. At the top of the page, there's the Wikipedia logo. Under the logo, there are links to the main page, community portal, etc. But after all that stuff, there's just a gray bar that keeps going forever. In my browser, I usually just scroll so that the gray bar is out of my window. But when the table is being formatted for your window, it doesn't take the gray bar into account, and it squishes the table so that the gray bar and the actual List of Lost episodes both fit into your maximum window and you don't have to scroll. In my opinion, this makes the table look crushed and too narrow. --Kahlfin 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that should have NOTHING to do with how articles are formatted... -- Ned Scott 05:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what you're saying. Why not? People see it, right? We need to take it into account. Because of it, the table is too narrow with the current revision (in my opinion), at least from the way I'm looking at it. With the width fixed at 775, I can scroll so that the table takes up my whole window. Without it, I can't. --Kahlfin 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Trost "This user has a dual monitor configuration." wikipedia is not Optimized for your special Dual Monitor configuration. If you want To Customize your layout please do so using Greasemonkey. Also Please read my Post Before you make new ones. I already suggested you just use a smaller window. There is no reason I need to Scroll to see the whole page because you don't want to shrink your own window down.--E-Bod 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Table formatting straw poll

Alright, I know that polls are evil, but I just want to get quick and dirty feedback on this issue. Note, this straw poll should not be used as a strong reason to do one thing or another, it's just one method of feedback.

Basically, how should this article have the width of it's table's formatted?-- Ned Scott 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

By percentage

Using a range of 90 to 100%, making the table fill up more of the browser window at any size, as it does on this edit.

1. Ned Scott 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Wikipedia Articles should be Optimized so that that Everybody has the option to View the page Properly regardless of their configurations. If you want the tables to take up less room because you are on full screen then switch to window mode and don't use the full screen. It seems like an common sense "Wikipedia:Don't Optimise page layout for only your configurations. Let the rest of us use the page
   • I can view the page at several different window sizes properly on percent. Only one Window size works optimally for Fixed numbers. Don't be selfish. You are using a really rare configuration.--E-Bod 18:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed width

Fixed width of 775, the table stays at this width and is independent from the size of the user's browser window, as it does on this edit.

1. Kahlfin 03:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (see above comment)

DVD Covers

I've added fair use rationales to the DVD covers, if someone would like to put them back in the article please do. Modulus86 11:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The DVDs themselves are barely discussed. All that is mentioned is their release dates and number of discs. So we can't use these images for the same reasons as the screenshots. ed g2s • talk 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed. Can you Please Stop trying to Explain the Fair use Policy. All you do is remove Fair use Images. Make Blank arguments and leave it up to us to actually find out what the fair use policy is. Your frequently chose the wrong reasons why we can't use fair sue images in that scenario, however you frequently happen to remove images that should be removed for other reasons. Your argument above is blank and has no content. Pleas re add the images or Actually explain why we can't use the images. Saying we can do XY&Z is meaningless. Saying we can use the images because we strive to have a fee content Encyclopedia is another. I left a message on your talk page about this. I'm not sure if you are justified in removing the images or not, However Your Reasoning Way Back when you removed all the Fair use Images just Complicated the matter because your reasoning was wrong but other admins felt we could not have the images for other reasons. We had a long debate because Ned had disproved your Removal rational so while the other admins were trying to explain the Actual removal rationally Ned was still arguing with yours because yours was wrong. Please You have a very poor understanding of fair use and you rarely cite a real policy. and when you do the policy says why it is the way it is and often that reasoning does not apply (However another one does on a separate policy page.) If you are removing Fair use images it is your responsibility to Properly explain yourself. If you are unable to do so you should leave it up to other admins who know what they are doing. You Constantly are getting into conflicts. Are the other Fair use Police Wikipidians getting into as much trouble as you are.

Your argument above is blank. You are supposed to Debate it on the talk page and then revert. You reverted after you left a Blank Information less statement that we can't use the fair use, but you give no reasons. Please give reason and wait for us to respond before you keep reverting. We are all talking about it on the talk page why can't you.

I can understand how before when we had all those images it was excessive and unacceptable. However these 3 images are very few and your arguments make no see. if you really want this to be according to your misinterpretation of the policy then place add to the page until it describes the images enough. such as

The image on the left depicts the Lost Cast. The chrome Cover is supposed to represent the Plain. For season 2 the Brown background represents the houses they live in. Something like that should meet No Objects by you.

Ed. Please be civil and use the talk page

A revert war is worse than an unlikely But not Definitely not a violation of Fair use policy. Wikipidia has precedents and your Blank statement is not enough to overall our precedents. Place actually point to a policy that you have read. I think it is very possible your you to find a real reason we can't use the image, but please don't vaguly give us your opinions and enforce it. All you are doing is annoying us.

It Doesn't mater if we are allowed to use the images or not. What matter is if Somebody Objects and can make a clear case for either side. you did not even look at the fair use rational. or say what it is missing --E-Bod 20:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've used the exact same rationales for the DVD covers that are used on the South Park episodes page. If they're fine for that page, they're fine here. You're just dragging your heels now Ed, please just stop. Modulus86 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Read the large red warning above. The text must discuss the image itself. If you want to write a lot about the significance of the box cover designs then you might be able to use them. ed g2s • talk 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The boxes are represenative of the entire DVD sets, and the DVD sets are being discussed. Again, your misinterpretation of the fair use policy, and yopur hasty edits are causing yet more problems on this page. You must learn to use the talk page before making rash edits. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

These images do meet the guidelines in the fair use policy. Furthermore, ed, you have been removing a self-made image by muhaidib, and justifying your actions through the fair use policy, which does not make any sense seeing how it is not a fair use image. Please be more careful in the future. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What's being discussed is a list of lost episodes, and not DVD sets specifically. Further, your attempt to undermine someone's credibility by bringing up mishaps is not going to fly. Vic Vipr ^T_C 22:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles can have more than one topic. I'm really thinking about printing a list of Lost episodes and taking a picture of the paper list, as that seems to be the exact requirements based on this logic. We are not discussing a list. This is information presented in list form. -- Ned Scott 23:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't present unfree media in a list form. The images can only be used when they themselves are being discussed. They can't justify themselves by their content. There is almost no text discussing the DVD, let alone the cover art. As for the "cover missing" graphic, there is no point having it if we're not showing the covers - or have I missed something? ed g2s • talk 00:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't present unfree media in a list form. so wait, if I were to take the same text of one article and reformat it so the layout appeared to be a list, then any fair use arguments on that article would be invalid? List "status" does not change fair use arguments or Wikipedia's own policies. Simply put, Ed: you. are. wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ed. I can't remember if you have ever Quoted a policy page. Do we really need to file a WP:RFC#User-conduct RFC on you. You can't remove Fair use images without a proper Explanation. Such actions are only counter productive because we won't understand why your removed them and users will revert you. If you actually Bother to Explain yourself or Direct us to Where it is properly Explained and Clearly Supports your actions then you should have no more Trouble with all these complains. We would be complaining on the Policy page. But we aren't because you aren't linking. I do not Believe the Any Policy Pages would abject to only those 3 images. You have to be able to compromise. We have not been re-adding the images except for that ip person. We are all open to what you have to say but you haven't said anything But. X is against policy. You never say X is against Policy because Y and Y is important because of Z. If you Don't understand the policy you should leave it to somebody else to enforce it who can actually defend their edits. You can't so just leave us alone or Quote policy. I'm not in favor of you Quoting a listserv by Jimbo but you gotta do what you gada do if it is not on any policy page. If you quote to the policy we can argue with it. If you Don't even know what the policy is Don't talk about it.--E-Bod 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat my above comment again, because after reading your comment, Ed, you understood what I was saying. I will ask you to look at the Chicago, Illinois article, specifically at the first image in the infobox. It is a photo of the Chicago skyline. Now nowhere in the article is the Chicago skyline discussed, however the skyline is representative of Chicago as a whole. Likewise, the DVD covers are representative of the DVDs as a whole. The DVD boxsets are discussed, though not in prose form, in precisely the amount of detail they need to be discussed without repeating information found elsewhere on Wikipedia and without detailing fancruft about the DVDs. I believe I have adequately addressed your problem with the DVD covers, and if you have any other problems I would like to hear them. I also believe that it is clear that using these images do not violate the fair use policy. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Chicago example is completely irrelevant as it is a free image and therefore not subject to our fair use policies. ed g2s • talk 10:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then look at the title screen image in The West Wing (TV series) (a featured articled). This is a fair use image, and the article does not discuss the title screen at all, however the title screen represents the show as a whole, thus justifying its use. Additionally, in this article are synopses of every Lost episode. The DVDs contain each episode of Lost. What more would you like discussed here? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ned. Why are you Giving Ed a list of pages to attack after he finishes with this one. You are just begging him to remove those images. And we all know ed is one of more ready people to remove fair use when it is remotely questionable.--E-Bod 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember the Fair use Policy was a Great Compromise. Some people Did want Any at all while other wanted everything we can legally get away with. It would be unfair for somebody to delete all fair use images or to use fair use as Manny fair use images as we can get away with. Please realize that the policy itself was a compromise and you have to compromise with this article to. Especial when you are outnumbered and we don't just disagree with the policy but we disagree that you are acting according to policy. --E-Bod 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from bickering, I have yet to see the problem with the use of DVD cover images. According to Template:DVDcover, It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers to illustrate the DVD in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. -- Wikipedical 16:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you totally on this and, as such, I have now restored the DVD boxset covers to the article. I've refrained from adding the screenshots to the episode commentaries because I feel there is still no clear consensus, however, personally I would prefer to have these screenshots (see the many arguments made previously by others as there is no point in needlessly repeating them all). --Temers 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Images (AGAIN!)

Ok, I'm getting a bit tired of this blockade, and no, I'm not letting it go. Clearly we've proven (or at least made the stronger argument) that Wikipedia's fair use policy is not clear enough to enforce such a blanket ban on images from this article. Ed and co., who I seriously doubt are legal experts, provide little to no response to our claims. The question is no longer about what policy says, but rather, which side is correct in their interpretation of the policy. I seriously think taking this to arbitration wouldn't help, as we've already seen that there is possible bias (for the no-images side). Ideas? Maybe we can get some verifiable legal experts in on this, or take the initiative to update the policy wording to be more clear on the issue. What does everyone think? Clearly, just providing arguments (even very good ones) doesn't seem to matter to the anti-image-editors, they made up their mind long before this all happened. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we request a peer review? I know a peer review won't singlehandedly settle this one way or another, but it'd be interesting to see what a lot of people who aren't LOST editors or Administrators think. --Kahlfin 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a LOST editor or a Lost Fan, and Support the use of minimal images (Not none) and conformity with our Featured lists as models (Which have lots of Fair use images for identification and navigation). I got hear because Ed tried to ballot box the page with a a link to it on the Fair use Policy page.--E-Bod 07:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a peer review is a good idea. Unless someone has a strong reason against (can't think of any), I think it's safe to do it. -- Wikipedical 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize that there are people like yourself and Ned Scott who aren't administrators or LOST editors; however, I thought it would be effective to get the perspective of many (not just a few) general Wikipedians who aren't heavily involved with this article or enforcement/debate of the fair use policy. --Kahlfin 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to take this dispute to Arbitration, but I can tell you that we will almost certainly reject what you think of as the core of this because it's a content dispute, but accept to see if actions and behaviour with regard to the repeated set of policy violations was worth doing something about.

I would strongly caution against trying to impose your view against (what I would consider to be) the consensus of commenting admins about policy - do so and you almost certinly will be blocked.

James F. (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"the consensus of commenting admins about policy" you are talking about are only admins who were sent here when Ed ballot Boxed the page with an advertisement on the fair use policy page. Ballot Boxing does not create consensus. Also as far as it being "admins". Admins are only approved to be users with tools, not users with a better understanding of wikipedia. If I applied for an Admin Position and got it would I suddenly get a stronger voice on wikipidia? Don't be an M:Instruction creep. The consensus of admins was about when we had All The images up. Now we are only debating about 3 images. 3 images is way more reasonable. They were objecting to the mass of Screenshots.

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_experiment_in_anarchy

Nor a

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making

--E-Bod 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a peer review, not a submission to Arbitration. --Kahlfin 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

<Joke>It Only won't get anywhere because the Arbitrators on in on it. The Admins are in on it and who whole wiki-Community is in on it. We are the only ones left who aren't in on it. It's Conspiracy<Joke/>Seriously, Not all the admins are actually agreeing on Why we cant have the images. They are agreeing it is against policy but for different reasons. Once the admins can unite behind one reason we can't have just those 3 images then we will get somewhere. But the featured lists should be the first target not the last boecause those serve as a model for this one. Featured articles are heavily watched and if the admins from this page get those articles to remove their fair use images all the others would fall. If the admins can get every one but those then they haven't actually probed the images are against policy because because navigation pages are never addressed. They are an exception that the rule hasn't addressed yet.--E-Bod 00:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am asking we resolve the issue of all the images, including screenshots. Also, I seriously doubt this is the feeling of the majority of admins. I've already come across a few admins who think this issue is stupid and don't agree with Ed and co. But I think it would be unfair to ask them to come out and say anything, as no one wants some crazy admin-powered revert war. -- Ned Scott 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria

As per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing policy resolution of March 23, 2007, this document serves as the Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Wikipedia.

Rationale

• To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media
• To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law
• To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia

Policy

There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method. Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.

1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanNo free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.
2. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanRespect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material.
3. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanMinimal usage:
   1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanMinimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
   2. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanMinimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low-resolution, rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
4. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanPrevious publication. Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Wikipedia editor.
5. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanContent. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanMedia-specific policy. Non-free content meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanOne-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanContextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanRestrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
10. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanImage description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanIdentification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources § Multimedia.
    2. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanA copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. Talk:List of Lost episodes/spanThe name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Enforcement

• A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added.
• A file on which non-free use is claimed that is not used in any article (NFCC 7) may be deleted after being tagged for seven days under speedy deletion criterion F5.
• A non-free file lacking a non-free use rationale may be deleted after being tagged for seven days under speedy deletion criterion F6.
• A file in use in an article that does not meet F5 or F6 may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion F7 as follows:
  • Media from a commercial source which are not the subject of sourced commentary may be deleted immediately under F7b.
  • Non-free media which fail NFCC 1 (no free equivalent) may be deleted after being tagged as such for two days under F7c.
  • Other media with invalid fair-use claims may be deleted after being tagged as such for seven days under F7d.

Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.

Files for discussion is the central venue to discuss whether a particular image meets the non-free content criteria, regardless of whether the file should be deleted or not. For example, a discussion might be held about whether it is appropriate to use an image in ARTICLE1 even if it unquestionably meets the criteria for use in ARTICLE2.

Comments

The Above Is a Template so It will Change to the most Recent Version. That being Said If the Below Does not agree wit what is said above the above may have been edited.

1. Yes--E-Bod

2. Yes--E-Bod

3. Yes for the 3 DVD No for the rest--E-Bod

4. Yes--E-Bod

5. Yes (But this is Debatable)--E-Bod

6. I have no clue what this Means. Where is the Policy for TV?--E-Bod

7. I still have no Clue what this says--E-Bod

8. This can be debated but I have herd admins say this is not the issue.--E-Bod

9. Yes (But I disagree with this criteria if it meats all the others)--E-Bod

10. The Fair use rational is being Debated--E-Bod

Overall

Many Fair use Police contradict the policy. For instance Ed has said their are no Exceptions for 9. Ed has argued that 8 Charita is not meat while another person said "The images are an attractive addition to the list, no doubt about it." Depending on how you read attractive. I think it is attractive in the sense as the images provided Significant ease in navigation. The Purpose of this page. However If you read attractive as decoration then I agree the

Images don't belong on the page. I an not really advocating for or against the policy or the inclusion of the images. I am advocating for a specific policy for Media lists so that the Feared articles agree with the policy and if we have a problem with the policy we can debate it on the policy page and not on the article page. The policy is not Obvious because I can't understand parts of it and I seem to be the first to actually Stick it up hear as proof. Everybody read it differently. we come from different backgrounds and take different stings out of this--E-Bod 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above.

Because the images pass the quick test nobody can argue it is an obvious violation of FUC. Saying it is Obvious is Uncivil. Even if it is a fact of life.--E-Bod 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I just Read somebody's comment that makes it Obviously the article does properly use of Fair use see Temers' comment[8]--E-Bod 22:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)