Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lost/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Collaboration

Is anybody interested in doing a Collaboration of the Month type thing? -- Wikipedical 23:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to submit your proposal at the top of the page, would be nice to get a collaboration going. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotional images / character images

Basically I am of the belief all these millions of ABC Medianet "promotional" images are not {{promotional}} - this stems from some of the reasoning at Image:3x07.jpg.

We have tons of these images popping up as character images (people are actually uploading a new one, practically - every - time one is released) - I my self find these images to actually be of little value in character articles and not fair use as: a) They are all "poses" for the camera b) They basically break the 4th wall, essentially over writing the fiction. c) They are not actually from the show and are not even appropriate. - I find it logical for us to replace these images with true captures from the fiction (I my self think 16:9 would be the best ratio as well) which actually show the character (Ned Scott did this once for Kate, what happened to the image?) - and also there is no indication they are truly promotional.

With regards to episodes: We should not add images till they air, especially with no indication they are promotional, and also consider the fact promotional imagery has been known to be false from time to time (i.e. not in the aired episode..) - and they should be 16:9 not 4:3. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree about the character images not using the promo and posed pictures, the screen shot in question is cited as coming from ABC's website, which would make it promotional even if it has not aired yet. "Promotional" is just one of many ways to help justify fair use, anyways, and isn't really a requirement (although it does make for a stronger argument). -- Ned Scott 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is what defines promotional, and how do we know it will make the final aired cut, I hope you can see my points, but for all we know it could be a deleted scene. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's possible, but highly unlikely given the track record of these images. I've yet to see a promo image for a Lost episode be from a scene that later got cut. It's a fairly safe bet. As far as defining promotional, ABC put it on their website to promote the episode... -- Ned Scott 02:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Screenshots are not any better than promotional images. They are both under fair use. Promotional stills are more visually attractive because, yes, the actors are often posing for the camera (not in Image:3x07.jpg though - that is an action shot). They are taken for the show, thus they do represent the characters. Pictures (at least one) are of great value in character pages, just like the text. They are promotional because they have been released to promote the show. What else would you call them? Occasionally, ABC MediaNet releases promotional photographs that depict deleted scenes, however they are released after the episode airs. --thedemonhog 06:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not every image of a character is equal in how it represents that character. -- Ned Scott 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to using screenshots after an episode has aired, but beforehand there's no reason not to use promotional photos. They are clearly promotional since they come from abcmedianet.com, the sole purpose of which is distributing promotional material like press releases and photos. 16x9 is an aesthetic choice since the show airs in both formats, if only one is available we should use it. I agree that we shouldn't use photos that are obvious "poses", but many of the promotional photos (including 3x07) seem to be actual scenes from the show. As for a scene not appearing in the final cut, that's certainly possible but similar instances of being "wrong" are possible with any article about a future event. It also happens with the text descriptions and cast lists from abc about an episode - we use the info from a reliable source, and if changes are made, we update the article. If we insisted on excluding anything that might be wrong, we'd have to leave out the cast lists, synopses, air dates, even titles on future episodes as well since they could all change (and some have). This whole thing seems more like a preocupation with screencaps than anything based in WP policy. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to such a thing. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

May I just mention that there is nothing wrong with breaking the 4th wall. If you look at the character pages on wikipedia from other TV shows - they have character images that are clearly not from the aired episodes, but are posed promotional photos. And there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, the issue re "this image better represent as character" is subjective, while posed promotional photo shoot content represents the character in the most objective way - the way producers have agreed upon. Correct me, if I am wrong. user:anamatv

Also, let me point out there terms of using their image:

"Photography available on ABCMediaNet.com and TouchstoneTVPress.com is for editorial use only, in a publication which is issued on a regular basis and which contains editorial material on a variety of subjects rather than on a single program or person.
Pursuant to your acceptance of the terms and conditions stated below, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc./Touchstone TV agrees to permit you to use on a non-commercial and non-exclusive basis, the downloaded photographs.
All photographs are the copyrighted property of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Touchstone TV, its affiliated companies or licensors and are distributed to the press solely for the promotion of ABC programming and the Disney ABC Television Group in the news or entertainment media owned or legally licensed by your company within the United States. No international distribution is permitted without permission.
You will affix to any photograph, the copyright notice, and credit the photographer wherever possible: (Copyright 2006 American Broadcasting Companies, Inc./ photographer¹s name) or (Copyright 2006 Touchstone TV /photographer¹s name)
The photographs cannot be sold or distributed to a third party, provided however that syndicates receiving these materials may distribute them to their subscribers solely for distribution in the news or entertainment media. The licensee does not have the right to grant to others, including affiliated or related web sites, the right to use the photographs.
American Broadcasting Companies, Inc./Touchstone TV reserves all right, title and interest to the photographs and no rights other than those limited rights specifically described herein are granted to you. The photographs remain the property of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc./Touchstone TV.
Any other use of the photographs is a violation of the copyright laws.
If you or your organization receive any requests for ABC or Touchstone photography or related materials, please forward them to us.
By downloading images from ABCMediaNet.com and TouchstoneTVPress.com, you agree to comply with the parameters stated above. If you have any questions or concerns regarding any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact us at medianet@abc.com."

I've bolded the most relevant pieces but that to me says they are not fair use either way as we could get our own user submitted images without those explicit conditions. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And wikipedia seems to meet all those, particularly the bolded ones. Thanks for clearing up that these are promotional photos. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
ABC's Terms of Use are completely irrelevant when claiming Fair Use. If you have a good claim it wouldn't matter if their terms of use were "you can't use these images for any purpose, anywhere". ed g2s • talk 16:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Character images

Over at Image:Libby.jpg, Ned Scott and I are having a revert war over which image of Libby to use.[1] & [2] Both are promos taken of the character. I prefer using the season promotional picture (1) because it is more visually attractive and consistent with the other Lost character article pictures. Ned prefers the "Everybody Hates Hugo" episode promo (2) because it better represents the character. --thedemonhog 00:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ned is right, you are wrong, your preference means nothing. This does not represent the character well at all, Ned's is not great, but it will do, for the time being until such a time someone replaces it with an episode capture. So say we all! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If we use the second image, then we should replace all infobox Lost images with episode promotional photos that better represent the characters. --thedemonhog 00:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No. We shouldn't replace them with any "promotional" images that you can't prove are promotional, and they are generally felgercarb either way. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether they are promotional is not the point of this discussion. --thedemonhog 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I intended the Everybody Hates Hugo image to be in the body of the article. Compare Juliet (Lost). --thedemonhog 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 15:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 20 for a review of the decision regarding Category:Actors by series. Tim! 08:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As an added note: I've created List of Lost cast members as the new place for the entire cast. As of now: it's a start, since I didn't have time to type all of it out. Feel free to add the rest of Category:Lost cast members to the list (plus cast members that might not be in the category). RobJ1981 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month suggestion

I suggest the season articles because there was recently an attempt to (temporarily) delete them. I added "broadcast history," "background" and "ratings and reception" to the season 3 article. --thedemonhog 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD- Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, Jonas Mittelos

An article was created for Mittelos Bioscience, Richard Alpert, Elija Allen, and Jonas Mittelos. The AfD pages can be found at:

Thanks. -- Wikipedical 18:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


Promo pictures again

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Katelost.jpg. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See discussion on Talk:Lost (TV series)#Character images. -- Ned Scott 21:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Flashback characters

An editor has been reverting over flashback characters without discussion, so I've started a thread at Talk:Characters of Lost#Flashback characters. I know it has been discussed before, but I'd like to make sure we still have consensus. Opinions would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we standardize the reasoning behind featured/flashback/centriic/etc?

There seems to be some dispute and inconsistency about how these terms are used. The episode list says "Featured Character(s)", the episodes themselves say "...is featured in the episode's flashbacks" and character pages say "Centric episodes".

It seems like it would be beneficial to agree on a standard definition of what these mean (hopefully the same for all three). Does it refer to the person having, and appearing in the flashbacks? Does it include characters who appear in the flashback but are secondary (as with some cases of walt/michael, boone/shannon, sun/jin)? Does it take into account the screentime/centrism of the island scenes? What about flashbacks to earlier on the island, on the flight, or episodes with flashbacks for many characters?

I'd propose this: the featured/flashback character 1) appears in the flashback and/or has the flashback 2) is only one character unless two share it equally (obviously a judgement call by editors, but that's what happens) 3) the character generally is prominent in the island scenes and often the one who has a realization or turning point in that episode 4) for episodes with flashbacks for many characters, just list "various" or something similar.

Would it make sense to put some sort of definition of this in the project guidelines? Or clarify wording on the various pages? This seems like a common cause of arguments, it would be nice to agree on something (even if it's something fairly arbitrary), even if it's just so we can put it to rest and avoid further arguing and reverting over it. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of episodes copy vios

A bunch of the summaries in List of Lost episodes are copied from other web sites. - Peregrine Fisher 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ep"

Template:Ep has been nominated for deletion, somebody forked it from "Lostpedia", useless template which is unneeded transclusion imo, not to mention every time it's modified Wikipedia has to re-cache all transclusions. Matthew 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad shape

The character articles are beginning to fall into a really bad shape now, for every new episode something along the lines of "In xyz [..]" is being inserted, basically a paragraph for every episode, I'm going to have a go at cleaning up and adding secondary sources to an article soon. Matthew 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will assist you, and what do you mean by "secondary sources?" So far, I have been reverting many edits whenever something new happens to Nikki and Paulo, because their articles are the shortest and easiest to keep track of. --thedemonhog 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember how popular this show is right now. As painful as it is to see, it might be a better use of time to "let the dust settle" and then clean up articles. Not to say that we should do anything, but just remember that many of the little things can be easily cleaned up by waiting a little bit. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD notice for clipshow, Lost: The Journey

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost: The Journey (fourth nomination). -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I should note that after I rewrote the article, a previous AfD had a "keep" consensus-- so I'm not sure what the contention might be as to how it is no longer fulfills the notability requirements, as it hasn't changed since then--LeflymanTalk 07:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • You sure are attached to that shitty article, aren't you. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ned, please take a civility check on your tone. You may not like the article, but such comments are highly inappropriate.--LeflymanTalk 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Ned here, poor article. It's an insult to episode pages and it only stands to disrepute them. Matthew 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That is rather an odd claim, when none of the "episode pages" have any of the quality of references, nor consider the actual impact or significance of the broadcast. One might as likely say that all other episode pages are an insult to the policy that Wikipedia is Not the place for plot summaries. --LeflymanTalk 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I know of plenty of decent episode articles. Matthew 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I restored the article because I visited the talk page and noticed that the most recent consensus was to keep it. Personally though, I think that the description on List of Lost episodes is sufficient so I voted in favour of the deletion. Also, Ned should watch his language. --thedemonhog talk contributions 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I plan on being polite, but I also plan on being a tad bit honest with my responses. I've gotten a bit tired at how phony we all start to sound in these discussions. What I said was likely over the line, but it's not a big deal. We often find ourselves making a bigger deal out of correcting each other than the initial incivility, which can often be far more disruptive. Being civil does not require making us all into robots. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know what you mean. --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ned, you've been warned about your various petty incivilities numerous times. As you want honesty: I find your reasons for listing it for AfD entirely questionable. Considering I spent a good deal of time developing it into an encyclopaedic article, providing verifiable sources and substantiating its significance, I must wonder if your intention is to run off editors by wasting their time and making obnoxiously snide remarks about their efforts. If so, then you're doing a fine job. --LeflymanTalk 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking back on it, what I've said to you is out of line. I just get a bit tired of people shouting WP:CIVIL at the drop of a hat, but they're right for this situation. It is not my intent to drive anyone away from editing. I've supported deletions on things I've worked my ass off on before, sometimes that's just how it works out. It's nothing personal. However, I'm surprised that you think my motivation for deletion is questionable. I did not know of your involvement at all when I nominated the article. I know that doesn't excuse my later comments, but please understand they were only out of frustration. The AfD itself is very straight forward. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections

As we all know trivia sections are a bad thing. I'm suggesting that maybe WP:LOST does as WP:WHO did - splitting information into "continuity", "production", "outside references" and occasionally "music". Seems to work quite well pretty much every Torchwood and Doctor Who episode article. Just a suggestion at the main page, because my Expose edits weren't well understood.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Paulo (Lost)

Check it out: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo (Lost)/archive1. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Lost

Since there seems to be a debate over whether minor characters belong on the page or not, perhaps we should split the page. Make a new page called "List of characters from Lost" with a list and brief descriptions (a la List of characters from The Simpsons) and have one with extended descriptions called "List of recurring characters from Lost" (a la List of recurring characters from The Simpsons). As it stands, it is not a list of characters because it cuts out several notable one-timers and includes several minor flashback characters (ie. Jack's friend from White Rabbit). Some, such as the Pilot and the kids, did appear in multiple episodes. Otherwise, we should move the page to "Recurring characters of Lost". Thoughts? -- Scorpion 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Lost podcasts

A new article on Lost related podcasts has sprung up here. Is this notable?--Opark 77 17:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll say no. It's basically a page about a specific type of fansites (not notable and crufty). --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

I noticed a bit of speculation in numerous pages. For example, some were writing that the real 'Sawyer' was Locke's dad and passing it off as fact. Or when Juliet told Jack that his ex was happy, someone added "However, its not known that she was telling the truth, and she could be just lying." Um, says who? We don't need personal theories or "however, this may be true" or whatnot. Just the facts as they were presented in the show. Obviously this seems to be a problem with a lot of articles, and I'll try to help the best I can, but we all need to weed these out.--CyberGhostface 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we need to remind people that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.. not a fan-site. Another problem is "trivia" (often where these "facts" are placed). Matthew 11:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD- Lost Spoilers

An article was created listing spoilers for Season 3. The AfD page can be found here. -- Wikipedical 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Ben Pic

Benlost.PNG

Picture 1

Just wondering which one do you guys think is better for the main picture at the Ben Linus character.--CyberGhostface 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Provided that both pictures meet image-use policy, I prefer "Picture 2". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Both are shots from specific episodes and not from the character promos so both qualify for fair use. For the record, Picture 1 is more recent but only by one episode.--CyberGhostface 20:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the lighting in number two. In number one, Ben looks confused; in number two he looks much more sinister. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think #2 is better as well. I'll create a little voting table to make it more organized.--CyberGhostface 20:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm personally unable to fathom this "Oh!!!!!! MEw ansts to updatez da pix 1st and make it all pwetty!!11!!1". There's no need to update the picture every week, none at all... Ben's general appearance is constant. Secondly changing it constantly only causes image aggravation (because seemingly none of you can be bothered to add fair use rationales...), nor upload over existing images (which is generally respectful -- unless there's good reason to use a new file name...) Finally (if this was a vote) I'd choose #1, due to it being more clearer and the colours, etc., being more smoother. Matthew 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
*sighs* Not necessarily. Its not a case of "Oh!!!!!! MEw ansts to updatez da pix 1st and make it all pwetty!!11!!1" as you put it. Originally, we had the ABC Official Promo Shot but that was removed because it went against fair use principle and an image from an episode of Ben was uploaded instead. A user disliked it and brought it up on the talk page and a new picture from The Brig was chosen. Later thedemonhog gave it a new pic which I thought wasn't as good, so I brought it up here for discussion. Its certainly not a case updating the article once a new one arrives.
As for the polls are evil bit...come on. I don't think the article is referring to on voting on which picture to use in article in case of a potential disagreement.--CyberGhostface 22:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, this isn't a big deal, but I just prefer #1 just because it is brighter (not because it is newer; the only character with a drastic change in appearance is Tom), however it does kind of look like he was Photoshopped in. I'll second Matthew's opinion about uploading over a file. Everytime I upload a screenshot or character image, it is always over an old one. This way, less images are deleted and I get less of those "Warning: Orphaned fair use image that you uploaded" notices on my talk page. --thedemonhog talk contributions 21:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Votes

Picture 1

Picture 2

Featured article candidacy for Paulo (Lost)

No new information about his character will come. See it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost). Please vote and discuss. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it passed. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I have requested that the page become Today's featured article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nikki Fernandez and Paulo. Comment if you feel like it. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The car from Tricia Tanaka is Dead

In the episode guide for Tricia Tanaka is Dead, User:Cuchullain seems intent on giving an entire history of the car that Hurley drives, spoiling that Ben kills his father in it and that Hurley uses it to stop the Others in the season finale.

While I understand "Wikipedia contains spoilers" policy, I don't feel it is relevant to discuss future events in the episode. If we do this, we might as well state in the guide for Confidence Man that Sawyer later finds and kills the man who seduced his mother and so forth.

Its not an article about the car. The car isn't the main focus of the article. We don't need to know all the other appearences it makes. I tried to shorten it to write that "The car's history is explored in Man behind the Curtain and makes another appearence in Through the Looking Glass but Cuchullain reverted my edits.

Anyway, the discussion for this can be found here.--CyberGhostface 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)