Talk:The Glass Ballerina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Glass Ballerina article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments
This page falls within the scope of the Lost WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles relating to the 2004–2010 ABC television series Lost. Information on future episodes needs to follow the policy regarding sources.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Locke

According to TV Guide, the October 11th episode will be Locke-centric. Does anyone have a source saying otherwise? --Elonka 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A good reason not to trust unofficial sources. Or, for that matter, to speculate about an episode before it airs. -- PKtm 02:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Has anyone got an image of the map that Sayid was looking at, where he was evidently charting the island's coastline? That would be a good addition to the article. --Elonka 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary length

I admit that I thought the additions I added to the plot summary a few days ago were a bit much, and figured someone would pare it down, but I think the version that I found today was a bit too pared down. IMHO, the summary should include at least not only the most salient plot points but character developments and recurring element developments as well (Jin's refusal to kill Jae Lee, Sawyer's assessment of the others' fighting skills, Kate learning Sawyer's name, the visible effect that the video had on Jack's skepticism, etc). Other points should be described a bit more formally (Jin telling Jae to leave the country rather than "disappear"), or more clearly (as when things in different scenes are described in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, giving the plot a run-on feel to it). In this way, where the flashbacks end and the present story continues is not clear on a casual reading. I expanded the section again, but it's WAY smaller than my previous edit. I hope this is a good compromise for you. :-) (I also see that for some reason, I wasn't signed in when I made my last two edits. Sorry about that.) Nightscream 04:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll support any additions that comply with Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines. --Elonka 06:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the episode table, you'll see that I marked this article for copyediting. You're welcome to make changes as long as they abide by the episode policy we've setup. In fact, this article is about 100 words too long, but it was a dense episode so I don't mind. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we divide it up into certain sections, like: "The Captured", "Sun, Jin and Sayid", and "In Flashbacks", or something? --The monkeyhate 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
How would that improve the article quality? Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
By it being more easy to find certain passages. --The monkeyhate 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If we had an excessively long article (a couple thousand words), I could see how that could be an advantage. However, this article is a mere 615 words, so I don't see the point. Also I think adding sections would increase the chances that people will add information that does not comply with the episode policy. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the Lost Episode Guidelines resources. I think the 500 word limit is a bit too little, or at least should be interpreted a bit more loosely, since it is just a guideline, and not a policy or rule. Important information gets left out, or can be presented vaguely or confusingly if we adhere to that limit so strictly. For example, in these passages:

As a child, Sun breaks a glass ballerina. Sun blames it on the maid, even after her father, Mr. Paik, threatens to fire the maid. On the sailboat...'
In a flashback, Jae gives Sun a necklace after they slept together. After she refuses it, Jae suggests they run away together. Mr. Paik finds them in bed together. Mr. Paik tells Jin to kill Jae.

Putting the bit about the sailboat, right after the flashback scene can be confusing for the unititated. And the second passage makes it seem as if Jin is right there in the hotel room with Jae and Sun in bed together. I think putting the flashbacks in their own paragraphs (for the most part at least), with the intro "In Flashback..." makes this clearer, and events that by necessity take place several scenes apart should be presented as such. I'm not advocating a scene-by-scene synopsis, but just a clear one. In addition, there were some factual inaccuracies in the article. It stated Kate and Sawyer overheard Colleen planning the raid. This did not occur. It says that the boat trio "sail clear of the mountains and start a signal fire. Jin refuses, but Sun and Sayid convince him to continue sailing." Jin refused before they went passed the mountains. This is because they were relying on his sailing knowledge. And Sun and Sayid don't "convince" him to continue. Rather, Sun tells Sayid that she too has sailing knowledge, and helps Sayid herself. I also think that ending the synopsis with the World Series bit does not accurately reflect the effect it had on Jack, or the gravity of Ben repeating his offer, since that's what that scene was about, and not the World Series. By contrast, I don't think that Kate's dress having been Alex's, or Juliet pouring water for Sawyer was very important. I made another edit with more detail, but it's still much smaller than either of my previous two edits, and I think it looks good. Tell me what you think. :-) Nightscream 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another option for providing details, is that we include links to the other wikis where this kind of information is being gathered without the strict size & verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. I'd recommend adding the following as an "External links" section:

[edit] External links

We can also add in others which have consensus approval, and potentially add a disclaimer like, "Information at these links may contain unverified and speculative information. Use at your own risk.". I strongly believe that having these kinds of links on the episode articles will help divert "fancruft" away from Wikipedia, as it will help direct people to other locations where they can post all the information that they want. I also believe that it will make the Wikipedia articles even stronger, as a useful central location from which our readers can find the information that they're looking for. --Elonka 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree, and won't take the time here to reiterate all the specific arguments I and others have cited in the Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites discussion. Elonka, I think this suggestion of yours actually contradicts a lot of the good work we did in the mediation on guidelines. In any case, rather than confine the topic to this episode's discussion page, I suggest you move it somewhere more central, such as Talk:List of Lost episodes. PKtm 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WP articles should not have fancruft or speculative information themselves. (Apropos of nothing, I'm the one who tagged the fanwank article since it has no sources). Thanks. Nightscream 18:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Jtrost has not only reverted the edits without discussing them with me here, but said in his edit summary "please see talk regarding episode policy."' You might want to check out this page yourself, Jtrost, since you were apparently unaware that I had already been engaging in dialogue with you and others here for some time. Please see my above rationale about the 500 word limit--which is a guideline, and not a rule. And since we're on the subject, here's another factual inaccuracy from the edit you favor: "'In a flashback, Jin tells Sun that Mr. Paik wants him to kill somebody." Jin never told her this. Please let's keep the plot summary accurate. Nightscream 02:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nightscream, while I agree with some of your edits, please recognize that the total length of the episode plot summary (now 859 words) is excessive. Yes, the 500 is a guideline, and we have some signed-off episodes with a slightly greater word count(see the list on the guidelines talk page here, but 859 words definitely exceeds the intent of that guideline. In other words, this will get pared down, by myself or others, so I suggest that you yourself give it a shot, keeping it as close to 500 words as you can. Thanks, PKtm 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it excessive? Nightscream 04:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, total words? I trust you mean what could you eliminate? Well, not every detail absolutely must be included. Again, please read the long discussion surrounding the mediation and this issue, and the resulting guidelines that specify that the episode summaries should focus on the flashback characters, and should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs sections in the main Lost article. For example, it's not absolutely critical that we specify that Jae has a pearl necklace clutched in his hand, or to include the detail about Sawyer being called James, etc. I realize that it often feels that everything in the script matters and bears mentioning, but that's a tribute to the careful writing of this show, in my view. Nonetheless, the goal is 500 words of the summary: shoot for it. -- PKtm 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
If you believe there are factual inaccuracies, then please fix them. However, a few mistakes here and there doesn't justify a total rewrite that that doesn't follow the episode policy. And although it is not an official Wikipedia policy, we do enforce it as such. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're saying it's only excessive because of a guideline? Shouldn't one be able to see how the article looks and reads to glean this? Saying it's excessive, not because of how it looks or reads, but just because of strict adherence to a guideline, even at the expense of clarity and accuracy, seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Just looking at my first edit, it looked excessive. I'm asking how my last one seems excessive, but you're only responding by pointing to a guideline, without addressing whether accuracy and clarity are served by adherence to that guideline. Not every detail needs to be included? Well, don't my two latter edits, in which I pared it down, already indicate that I know this? And as far as what you prescribe for the episode summaries, your description fits precisely the argument that I was making, since the edit you favor leaves out "events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the story elements and thematic motifs." It seems that you are not actually responding to the concerns I described, but forcing me to repeat them. Again, in what way does Juliet offering Sawyer water constitute an important story element, thematic motif or an event important to a central character, rather than say, the reference to the episode "...In Translation" when mentioning Jin's refusal kill Jae Lee, or Sun's insistence that he not take the job? Kate learning that Sawyer's real name is James IS an important development for the series, as is Jae clutching the pearl necklace for the episode. (I'm not even sure why you're bringing up the necklace, since even the edit you favor includes mention of it.) And making isn't making it clear where the flashbacks begin and end important? The issue therefore, is not "every detail being included", which we both already know, but the question of how much is necessary to describe the episode adequately.

You are also not addressing the factual inaccuracies that you and others insist on putting back into the article, except with the Straw Man argument that it "doesn't justify a total rewrite"--something I never stated. The total rewrite and the factual inaccuracies are two different matters. Why is that when you when revert the article to the edit you favor, you get rid of the corrected facts as you do so? Are you following some type of scorched earth policy in which any contribution I make has to wiped out? If you insist on that edit, fine, but why don't you incorporate at least the corrections I pointed out? By not doing this, it seems that you are just attempting to ignore me altogether, which is hardly civil or in keeping with WP's good faith policy of collaboration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 14:32, 19 October 2006.

I don't know whom you're addressing with this lengthy reply, frankly. I haven't done any reverting here, and there isn't an "edit I favor" per se. There's a voluminous discussion backing the results of the mediation, which I won't repeat here, other than to emphasize that the outcome matters, and that it included, among other things, an arduously reached agreement that the guideline would be 500 words. This outcome took months to achieve, was settled just a few weeks ago right as everyone involved was at a point of near exhaustion on the whole discussion, and I must admit I have no patience for a new editor here revisiting the basics yet again. In other words, I ask you to please recognize that there is a 500 word guideline and that all episode article editors need to do what they can to respect that. If you don't, and willfully so, your work will be reverted, and yes, some of the baby might get thrown out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. Figure out what can be eliminated so that the summary comes closer to the guideline; I don't especially want to debate necklaces and water and Sawyer's name per se, because that's not the point. As I pointed out, in Lost, every detail matters, or so it seems, so paring an episode summary down to the essentials is admittedly a difficult task. But we all need to deal with that. Oh, and please do sign your contributions here. Thanks. -- PKtm 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've corrected the statements that were incorrect. I also included a minimum of detail to clarify the important events, and the flashback/present structure. I also removed some material that was not central to the episode, like Juliet giving water to Sawyer. It's over 100 words less than my previous edit. I think this is a fair compromise between the need for a modicum of detail, and the need for brevity, guys. Nightscream 15:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't know who I'm addressing here? Who do you think I'm addressing here? I'm engaged in a discussion with all concerned, and that includes you. As far as you asking that I recognize the 500 word guideline, I ask you that you recognize that the edit you favor already exceeds it by over 119 words, as I mentioned above. Continuing to ignore me because you are too exhausted from prior discussions, or because you think that you do not have to discuss such things with "new editors" will not resolve this. Let's try to keep this civil, okay? I am also unconvinced by your "baby and bathwater" argument that when reverting to a prior edit, you cannot incorporate the corrections to the factually incorrect statements I contributed. Thanks. Nightscream 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nightscream, I feel that you're not listening. As I clearly stated above, there is not an "edit I favor". What I favor is everyone respecting the guideline that was reached through months-long mediation. And let's please not throw around accusations of being uncivil, because at no point have I been uncivil. Anyway, the current summary stands at 756 words. Please pare it down further, or others will. -- PKtm 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. You know full well that what I'm referring to is the version to which you keep reverting it. It is that version that you favor every time you revert the article. Why you're pretending you don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know, but your refrain that I'm "not listening" is not helpful in this dialogue, and may come off as somewhat condescending. As far as "not listening", I would point out that I have responded to each of your comments directly and detail. Jtrost, on the other hand, admonished to "please see talk regarding episode policy", not realizing that I had already been discussing the issue with others here, and refused to respond directly to my statements because you think they're too "lengthy", and pretend that you don't know "whom I'm addressing here." And as for your statement that you favor "everyone respecting the guideline that was reached through months-long mediation", I would point out----one more time because you keep refusing to respond to it----that the edit you favor is NOT 500 words, but 619. This is the third time I have pointed this out, yet you accuse me of "not listening", and then say that you're being civil. Please cease this behavior; it's not helping. Nightscream 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Nightscream. I don't need to take this ill-targeted abuse. Please do your homework before accusing. I have not ONCE reverted the article, contrary to your direct accusation that I have done so. Check the article's edit history here. You may be confusing me with Jtrost, and frankly, you owe me an apology. So again, for the third time, I do not have a particular edit that I favor, so all your points that you claim I keep refusing to respond to are moot. The rest of my points stand, in particular, the last sentence of my previous post. -- PKtm 17:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and edited the article per WP:LOST/Episode guidelines. These guidelines were created by consensus and should be respected, unless someone can prove that there is a consensus to change them. --Elonka 03:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I made it clear who I was addressing in my second-to-last post above. For you to know pretend I was addressing you in particular is a prime example of the type of behavior on your part as a group that I was talking about. Between one editor admonishing me to check out the Talk Page, when it was clear that he hadn't done so himself, making statements or questions that were answered in my previous posts (thus requiring me to repeat my statements), and the scorched earth practice of reverting not just the details I added, but also the factual corrections, using the cyncial "baby and bathwater" excuse, the behavior of those who reverted or otherwise argued against my edits did not come off as well as it could have, and the fact that there were no dissenting voices is why I address you as a group. Who cares which one did the reverting and which one used the "baby/bathwater" metaphor? The point is, you could've attempted to speak and collaborate with me in a civil manner, but instead, you ignored my posts, complained they were "lengthy", complained about a word limit that you yourselves were not adhering to yourselves, and reverted the edits without even addressing inaccuracies with very cynical responses. That you contributed only one piece to the mosaic of this unfortunate discussion is irrelevant.

Thank you, Elonka for editing the article into a version that not only meets your guideline and includes the most important aspects of the episode, but the corrections as well. (Gotta address that to Elonka, or PKtm might think I'm talking to him, after all!)  :-) Nightscream 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Requested move for:

Discuss/vote here --`/aksha 03:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. -- nae'blis 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Glassballerina1.jpg

Image:Glassballerina1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)