Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:55, 16 September 2006

LOST image

Do we have a copy of the LOST title image (white text with black BG) on Misplaced Pages? It would be a good addition to the Project page. I know we used to have copy, but it might have been removed for copyright reasons...? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I could take one now, the problem is we cant use it on the project page as fair use is only allowed in main namespace. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Could we "make" our own version (i.e. type some slanted text in Photoshop), or would that be a copyvio still? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode lists vs. episode articles

I noticed that a lot of information in the singular episode articles is somewhat duplicated in the full-length season episode guides. I think perhaps these articles should be merged into List of Lost episodes, or we should go about merging the episode articles into these. At best, at least reduce the pages to short, paragraph-long synopses for each episode instead of as-is. --Tocapa 05:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you check the discussion at Talk:List of Lost episodes, you'll see that this was rather hotly debated a few months ago, and the general consensus, by a ratio of about 2:1, was that keeping episodes in individual articles was the way to go. However, there has been some disagreement on the definition of "consensus", which eventually resulted in a formal mediation (which has been dragging on for months, since the mediator went AWOL). If you'd like to follow along though, check Wikipedia_talk:Requests for mediation/Lost episodes. In the meantime, we get to maintain both the Season articles and the episode articles, until either an agreement is reached, or one side or the other just passes out from exhaustion.  ;) --Elonka 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I probably should've explained differently. What I meant was, the Episodes of Lost (season 1) and Episodes of Lost (season 2) articles both have long summaries of each episode, even though such information is already thoroughly covered by the individual articles. Why then, I ask, do the specific season articles continue to exist despite them basically condensing (and not especially well) the episode articles themselves? --Tocapa 06:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the season articles were there first, and then earlier this year, the episode articles began appearing. And a few editors, most notably PKtm and JTrost, refuse to let go of the season articles. They are adamant that they don't have time to monitor individual episode articles, that no one else can monitor the Lost synopses as well as them, and as such, to maintain quality, they maintain that all the episode articles should be deleted, in favor of short synopses in the season articles. Many other editors disagree, but months of discussion, polls, and attempts at consensus-building have been unable to persuade the "season article" camp to change their minds. It's going to require either an admin or mediator to come in and make a formal decision. That, or an angry mob with pitchforks.  ;) If you'd like to participate in the discussion, check Talk:List of Lost episodes#Major Cleanup of Individual Lost Episodes. --Elonka 06:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, Elonka, I'm disappointed by your characterization and reduction of this long and complex debate. My statements elsewhere stand for themselves, so I won't repeat them here, but the above is unfair and frankly a little offensive in its one-sided description. -- PKtm 05:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Currently all of the Lost episode articles have "(Lost)" appended to their title (see Category:Lost episodes), except for Fire + Water, which couldn't be moved because of an edit conflict. Accordingly, I have submitted a formal move proposal at WP:RM to move it to Fire + Water (Lost). I'd appreciate if anyone interested could pop into the discussion at Talk:Fire + Water to indicate whether they support or oppose the move. --Elonka 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to make offical guidelines/rules on various aspects of article design, including episode titles. Then we can bring all the articles into line with that rule. There already exists an appearant stand in this case, so it make sense to me to change Fire + Water to the current convention. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of this kind of stuff is already addressed in other TV and fiction related guidelines on Misplaced Pages (that is, they already follow the same idea that we've been doing). I'd suggest just making an example page that uses Lost specific examples and then links to the full explanation of the guidelines per example. That way people only have to look at one page instead of several just to see what they should do in the context of Lost.

Speaking of List-specific guidelines, we should probably mention {{Lost policy}} on the project page as well. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

COTM

the community needs to choose a collabartion of the month via a concensus, would anyone like to "nominate" an article we should all collabarate on for the remainder of this month  ? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I say List of songs featured on Lost because it is muddled and practically all listed. SergeantBolt (t,c) 06:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode article structure

Do you think it would good to formulate a way to go about the articles? Right now they pretty much summarize the episodes from start to finish pretty well, but it can be quite clumsy when it comes to the way the article is written. There are a lot of "at the beach" or "in this flashback" kind of lines, and I was just thinking, do you all think it would be something to try to seperate the two in each article: Have one section be for the island story and one for the flashback story? It appears that (as of right now) the Exodus article does that to some extent, and it makes both sections flow a bit better (at least in my opinion). So I was thinking, should this be something to consider in future work on the articles? Radagast83 07:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting ahead of ourselves

I understand that everyone is all happy and eager to get stuff done via a WikiProject.. but it doesn't actually seem that the Project's real value is even known to it's current participants. Lets slow down here and think of why this is a good idea, because, don't get me wrong, it is a good idea.

A WikiProject is a way to help organize collaborative efforts to related articles. One of the best things a project like this can do is make it's participants aware of the tools that already exist. We don't have to re-invent the wheel here. Lets make ourselves aware of some of the existing fictional and TV-related guidelines so people know what's appropriate or not. A WikiProject is not an independent ruling party, or it's own government that can make up it's own rules for "their" articles. As a WikiProject we should hold ourselves to a higher standard to learn about and follow existing guidelines, policy, and consensus in related matters.

We haven't even added {{Lost policy}} to the project page yet, and people are already talking about a COTW and making newsletter graphics. Don't over-extend yourselves, get the basics covered first, or you'll just run out of steam. If we really want this project to be effective (and last longer than the average TV-related WikiProject) then we should think about why we're here as a project and how best to use our efforts. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused