Talk:Lost (season 2)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This archive page covers all Polls, Policies, and Verifiability Discussions.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Archive04. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.  — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Sources

Look, TV.com, spoilerfix.com, and lost-media.net are NOT Verifiable or authoritative sources. We should not be citing them, as they have proven to be wrong about future events on several occassions. I am going to remove data that is sourced only from these sources, including guesses as to future flashback information, unverifiable title information, and speculation on future events of the show merely based on promotional screencaps and rumors. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, just about the only definitive site I'd say we can accept for references to upcoming episodes is ABC.com and its affiliate broadcasters' domains. We'll be following the spoiler-brick road if we start including material from sites that try to report rumors and speculation. Perhaps a blanket statement that no info about future episodes should be included from any "non-official" Web sites (even TVGuide.com, which often features rumors in certain sections.) Even if the spoilers are true, we aren't in a position to judge their accuracy. My feeling is because this is intended to be an encyclopedia, we should be presenting factual info based on what has already happened, rather than what might happen, anyhow. — LeFlyman 03:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The only other source I would say we should accept is imdb, just because it is such a commodity standard. Information that cannot be verified in the show or on these specific sources should be removed and reverted. NOTE: a lot of people make speculations or claims based on the "on the next" section at the end of the show. I would like to remind people that this often contains scenes from dreams or hallucinations (Jin speaking Korean?), and is not reliable for determining flashback or any other plot information for future shows. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

(Shouldn't the above say Jin speaking English/American? Unless the whole series has been one big hallucination, and Jin's not actually supposed to be speaking Korean. I would change it myself, but I'm not 100% sure if I'm reading it right... maybe it isn't a mistake.

    • IMDB should not necessarily be accepted, because most of the information is added/modified by non-official individuals/sources, such as site members. Its info is usually accurate for already-released movies, but has been shown to be inaccurate or drawn from questionable sources for future events, such as TV broadcasts. Remember how they listed Samuel L. Jackson as appearing in this season of Lost? (I also know, because IMDB somehow chose to use episode titles I came up with on a web site for The Ben Stiller Show). On a related issue, I've just recreated the contents of the newsletter sent out today by ABC Entertainment to those who signed up on the Oceanic-Air.com web site: Talk:Lost (TV series)/Newsletter. This is the "November Preview" and seems to me to be an "official" and verifiable source for future events. It's likely to be reproduced elsewhere, but I wanted editors to have a copy here, too. Warning for those who want to avoid them: the newsletter does contain hints of spoilers. — LeFlyman 18:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooh, ok. Well in that case just the authoritative ones then. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Should we have a policy that all information about future episodes should be cited? I'm not sure where some people are getting this information, but I'm pretty sure ABC wouldn't release so much information about future episodes over a month before the episodes aired. Jtrost 00:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we should. I swear my first reaction when I came into the article and saw this: "10 "The 23rd Psalm" Eko January 11, 2006", was "Says who? Says where?". If this information was cited, it would be less likely to be removed. Tigger89 03:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If no one has any objection to this, I'd like to go ahead and remove all uncited information and speculation. Jtrost 21:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I've tried removing the future episode flashback info, and people keep doggedly adding it back, despite requests to refer to the talk page. PKtm 22:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As I previously suggested, simply removing the future episode entries entirely would keep the uncited content and silly speculation from taking root. There's no real encyclopedic benefit to having future titles listed, and we'd avoid the upset of those who don't want to be "spoiled." —LeFlyman 01:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I replaced the character flashback row for future episodes with an HTML comment that said not to touch it until that episode aired. I'd support removing future episodes altogether until people learn that this is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Jtrost 03:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
      • According to the policy voted up, the only future flashback info that should be kept is official sources, such as abc.com, or their official website. It seems that a lot of this info comes from the official fan magazine, and a discussion below is being carried out to see if it should be included. --DDG 14:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm now on board with LeFlyman's suggestion about removing future episode flashback info entirely. We're all wasting our time (many reverts over the last few days) reverting posts by various people who keep inserting it: including future episode info at all, as titles/captions, is essentially an invitation for people to do so. And future "facts" aren't a proper domain of Wikipedia anyway, I'd argue. Let's do another poll if necessary, and eliminate the thrashing. -- PKtm 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree. I have reverted this page 3 times today, and I'm sure others have also reverted it today. As an alternative, is there a way we can lock down certain sections so people can only edit existing episodes? Jtrost 00:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • What we could do is make the episode table at the top a template, for example, Episodes of Lost (Season 2)/Template:Episodes. Protect this template and then, on this page, only call the template. That way, only admins will be able to edit the template and, hence, the table at the top of this page. In addition, I propose that we remove future episode titles and their airdates entirely, as well the the flashbacks. How do we know when te 23rd Psalm will air, or if it is the real title at all? By removing future episodes and turning the table into a protected template, we can all save ourselves time from reverting the article multiple times a day. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Done! See Template:Episodes of Lost (Season 2) Table. If we could protect this page, then our problems will be solved! Nobody can add future episodes to the table except admins (whom we must trust will not), but, anyone can still edit the summaries of the prior episodes. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 22:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks! This is going to save everybody a lot of time. Jtrost 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Super... Just one question: is there already an admin among the regular editors of this page who will take on this little task each week (or whatever), or does someone need to make a request each time there's a new episode? PKtm 23:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
            • See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Episodes_of_Lost_(Season_2)_Table. I guess we can't protect it. Apparently, just earlier today, someone else wanted to protect a template for the same reason - it didn't need updating and it was being vandalized constantly. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations For why it was not protected. The same, apparently, holds true for the Lost template. I say that we keep the template in hopes that it deters vandalism, but there is no way to absolutely stop vandalism. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 00:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
            • But if we could, User:Carbonite and User:DropDeadGorgias are admins. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 00:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
              • As is K1Bond007, who used to be more active on the Lost pages than presently, but is still around and involved. To add my 2 cents to the discussion, I'd have to say that, as usual, Leflyman and myself are in agreement. Yes, that means I'm amending my earlier vote, when I felt it would be OK to have verified episode titles, but I'm entitled to change my mind, especially after seeing that the policy has had almost no effect. Baryonyx 06:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
                • I will keep a close eye on it. Protecting pages is a very tricky issue, and really shouldn't be done indefinitely as a point of policy. I think that the mere fact of moving it into a Template will stop some of the newbie fanboys. Security through obscurity anyone? --DDG 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Flashbacks

I don't know where the other topic went so I made a new one. Who remove Kate from "What Kate did". The description goes:

As Kate’s backstory continues, her original crime is revealed. Locke and Eko make an interesting discovery about the film, and Michael has a mysterious encounter with the computer. Another strange animal is found on the island. Locke makes a shocking confession about his paralysis.

Could that be more obvious? --The monkeyhate 20:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That's still speculation. While it certainly sounds like that involves flashbacks, her original crime and backstory could also be revealed through dialogue. Similarly, there is no source that "the other 48 days" involves flashbacks at all and there is no source that ana-lucia has flashbacks in the next one. I am reverting all of this until you can provide sources for this information that meets wikipedias policies. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The backstory continues. For something to continue, it must first have started. She never began telling about it in Season 1. The only way we got to see anything of her backstory is through her flashbacks. -The monkeyhate 19:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That's still an assumption. She could easily describe her backstory in conversation with another character. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm trying to manage this in a way that will respect Wikipedia's policies. A recent revision re-adding the future flashback info only had the comment: "Rv, all of this is known and sources exist - someone else can find them. In addition, it's pretty obvious who is the subject of What Kate did". IF authoritative sources exist, they should be mentioned here on this talk page. I'm trying to have a dialogue here, but many parties are not participating. Can I get a feeling for the consensus here? I'm not going to edit that information out until I get a better feel for what other editors feel like, but keep in mind that we must maintain the policies of wikipedia in respect to Wikipedia:Verifiability and several WP:NOT policies, such as crystal ball, etc. What do other editors think about the inclusion of future flashback info based on extrapolations from "clues" given in the episode synopses? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth: I'm not sure why passions are SO high on this topic, on either side, frankly. That said, it seems to me to make most sense to wait until the episode actually airs to draw conclusions about what's in it. All this energy involved in putting in Kate (as the flashback subject), taking her out, putting her back in: WHY? Yes, granted, it's almost certainly going to turn out that she's the subject of the flashback, but hey, just wait for the episode to actually air, and then it's no longer speculation. Spend that energy rewriting unclear portions of the previous episode descriptions, or contributing to Wikipedia in other ways. -- PKtm 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well said, PKtm. Some people treat the Wiki LOST articles like a fan site and try to be the first to put up spoilers, rather than aim to make it a resource based on verified information. It's my feeling, stated a number of places and put in practice with many reversions, that all speculations on future events should be avoided, as they are Original Research and do not reflect a full understanding of writers/producers intentions. In line with that, I would suggest removing the list of future episodes altogether, so that editors, new and old, focus attention on maintaining/improving the current articles, rather than squabbling over what might or might not be the content of next week's episode. Instead, a commented-out placeholder could be left as a template for editors to create synopses. —LeFlyman 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, after tonight's episode (The Other 48 days), can we now agree that the future flashback information being put on the page is both speculative and unreliable? For the past month or so the page has listed that there were flashbacks for tonight's episode, when in fact there were none. A similar thing happened with the "...And Found" episode, in which our page listed that the flashback for the episode was Jin, when it turned out to be both Jin and Sun. I propose that we make this article conform to the general Wikipedia principles of WP:Verifiability, and remove information not derived from past shows, official websites, and other authoritative sources, such as interviews with producers/creators/writers. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, it will be put up to a poll. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Tigger89 16:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Should we limit information on future episodes to published information from official sources?

  • Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors.
  • Information extrapolated from commercials or previews, or spoiler websites will NOT be included on this page. This includes unverified episode titles, plot elements or flashback information.
  • Please only include your name or signature in the voting area. Keep all comments and discussions in the "Discussion" section, to conform with standard Wikipedia:Polls.
  • This poll will end after 1 week (on 11/24/2005). If a consensus emerges, it will become a policy for this and all other Lost episode pages going forward.

Discussion

  • In the interest of Wikipedia:Verifiability, we cannot continue to include the unreliable information from the other spoiler websites. We have gotten information on flashbacks wrong twice, first about "...And Found" and second about "The Other 48 Days". Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. People can go to the spoiler sites if they want to guess about the happenings of future episodes. --DDG 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. Undeniable--too many folks are treating this as a fan site. -- PKtm 17:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely... how many times have episode names themselves (let alone content) been wrong so far this season? Not to mention that spoilers before an episode ever airs anywhere in the world are the province of fansites, not an encyclopedia. The most we should ever list for an unaired episode are confirmed episode names, airdates, and TV Guide style blurbs, and aired episodes need to keep the details to a minimum (we're not, after all, TWoP). We've been fighting this fight for a while (that is, trying to keep these articles as encyclopedic as possible), and for the most part, it's working on the main page and character pages, but for some reason the message just isn't getting through on this page. --Baryonyx 04:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. This should be used only for confirmed factual information, not as a chat page or an exchange site for spoilers. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 22:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed with above, as I have been constantly trying to weed out the speculation that new editors to these articles seem determined to include. In keeping with the Policy "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", I would go further (and simplify the issue) by suggesting that no content about "future" episodes be included at all (i.e. no titles, broadcast dates, or blurbs for unaired episodes); that content be kept focused on what has already been shown, and adding new synopses only after the episode airs. That way, we redirect efforts from trying to find sources for episode titles, writers/directors, blurbs, actors, etc. towards improving the current article content. We waste a heckuva lot of time dealing with episodes that haven't even been shown. LeFlyman 00:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • These are just photos; there's no context or narrative or background information to let us know how they fit in, so we're just guessing. They're also not on an official site; the fine print at the bottom reads "This web site, its operators and any content on this site relating to "Lost" are not authorized by ABC/Touchstone TV. " The purpose of the poll, and the subject of this discussion, is whether we should or shouldn't rely on sources that aren't official to include on the Wikipedia page any information about future episodes. My view, as expressed above, is that doing so (photos or no photos) amounts to risky speculation, especially considering how the writers/producers of Lost just love to play with our minds. -- PKtm 17:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There are some cases, such as with What Kate Did, that the person who is featured in the flashback is very obvious. The pictures from Lost Media really are all the proof we need to verify that that particular episode will feature Kate. When that is the case what is the harm in displaying that in the article? Just because people have jumped the gun a few times and put incorrect information in the article doesn't mean that we should limit the amount of verifiable information we publish. Jtrost 18:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You seem to be the only one opposed to the information being placed in the table, whereas a number of other people have expressed that information when confirmed on advance episode should be posted. The images, rumours, and common sense support this. This is really getting ridiculous. Leonard Dick has already stated Ana-Lucia is the focus of the next flashback in any event. No harm is done even if it does turn out to be false, which, in this case, its not possible.
How can you say I am the only person opposed to the information being in the table, given the amount of "Yes" votes in the above section? The information should not be added until the show is broadcast or the flashback info can be verified in some way. Just because something is in a screenshot does not mean it is canon- for example, you could use the screenshot from the beginning of "Everybody Hates Hugo" to show that Jin was inside the hatch with a Man in a chicken suit, but you would be wrong. There is no context for these images, so your assertion that they are definitely flashbacks are merely an educated guess. --DDG 01:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you even looked that those pictures. Look at them again and tell me that Collision will not be AL centric and What Kate Did will not be Kate centric... The only time that people are seen outside the island is in the flashbacks. -The monkeyhate 20:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Imagine if you were looking at a picture of the scene where Kate took a shower in the hatch, though. Without knowledge of the scene(that she was in the hatch) one could only tell that she was soaking wet and wrapped in a towel, not something that I would have placed as happening on the island without knowledge of the events surrounding the scene. While it's true that the only place they're seen outside the island is in their(or other's) flashbacks, it's possible for a non-flashback scene to be mistaken as a flashback. Tigger89 21:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I voted yes on the "official sources only" poll, but I'd just like to point out that I don't have a problem with people droping in the short descriptions of upcoming episodes as published in TV Guide, XMLTV, TiVo or similar sources. Also, requiring an official source doesn't really mean much unless people respect (and check) your facts. I think we've all seen/experienced information from official sources removed because someone disagrees with the official source.
  • I'm somewhat unclear as to how we're defining "future episodes." Earlier today I deleted speculation about the flashback in tonight's episode ("Collision"). After the episode began and I had actually seen a flashback, I reinserted the information. It was deleted a few minutes later because it was "speculation." In order to avoid an edit war, I waited until the episode was over and inserted the information again. Once again it was deleted as "speculation about future episodes." I'm baffled. Does an episode still count as "future" once it's been shown in the eastern (EST) time zone? --Clampton 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No, user Clampton, you were entirely right; this was my bad. I literally lost track of the date, and failed to recognize that Nov 23 is no longer a "future episode". I reverted my own changes right after I made them, once I realized it. How embarrassing, frankly. PKtm 03:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'll let you be a little embarrassed, but thanks for the apology. Hope you caught the episode! --Clampton 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Poll should be officially closed. It was posted at 12:47 on November 17th. It is now 00:26 on November 25th. Provided DDG agrees, the proposal passes by a vote of 10 yes to 2 no, an 83.33% supermajority approval. No votes were entered after the expiration time of 1 week, so all votes stand. Baryonyx 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Official Lost Magazine

"Information on this page will be limited to official broadcasts, information taken from the ABC website, official LOST websites, official episode descriptions, and interviews with cast/producers/writers/directors." Does this mean that information from the Official Lost Magazine cannot be included? It does have a lot of spoilers (which goes back to the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball issue") but, since it's official, everything is true. Can it be used as a source for information about future episodes? — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 23:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. However, we have to make sure we're still not speculating based on that information. If the official magazine says something to the effect of "Episode 209 will have flashbacks of Charlie's drug addiction" that is fine. If it's vague, like the tv guide blurbs have been ("Kate's original crime is revealed"), then we can include the info for the episode, but not extrapolate things like Flashbacks, etc. See Clampton's comments above. --DDG 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean that the information posted about the post New-Year episodes is official (as in, from the magazine)? Some of it seems rather speculative to me. Baryonyx 06:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure, that stuff was added without a source being provided. In either case I'm still irritated that people keep re-adding flashback information based on speculation based upon clues given in the episode description. For example, even though it says that Kate's original crime is revealed, it isn't specified that the flashbacks will be hers tonight. Same thing goes for "The Hunting Party". --DDG 15:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The "Official" LOST Magazine is not published by ABC, the production company Bad Robot or its affiliates. It is "official" in that it has the exclusive licence to produce a fan magazine. It's created by Titan Publishing Group of the UK, which holds licences to publish many other fan magazines. It's not an "official" source in any other capacity, other than being another resource that has information about the series which may or may not be accurate, depending on the whims of the writers. —LeFlyman 09:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the status of "official" fan magazines. Is there any precedent for this on Wikipedia or in other news sources? Does the magazine have a disclaimer of some kind? --DDG 14:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Does ABC review the magazine to make sure that all speculation is correct, or is the magazine just as reliable as fan sites? — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if the speculation is correct or not (and much less if ABC has reviewed it). if you want to paraphrase a magazine, just say "according to magazine m, john locke stabbed shannon". its perfectly legitimate wikipedia -- verifiable, npov, nor, etc. and noo it isn't a crystal ball if you phrase it properly -71.112.11.220 03:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That's not true, anon. Look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. It wouldn't look appropriate if we started citing The National Enquirer, no matter how nicely we did the citation. --DDG 14:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
ABC does not exert any editorial control over the publication. It's a fan magazine published independently under licence; its purpose is to sell subscriptions and advertising, and provide an outlet to hard-core fans of the series. The likelihood is that by the time something shows up in the magazine (remember, it's a monthly) the info is outdated, or even inaccurate. —LeFlyman 07:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If it's not published by ABC then it really shouldn't be considered "official". It's just like all of the fansites. Jtrost 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It's more verifiable than a fansite, but it's certainly not a mouthpiece for the network or the producers. It's likely that the magazine will have interviews and previews which are authorized by the producers of LOST. I would suggest treating it as any other published source, but not generate a special category or level of "officialness" for it. —LeFlyman 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)