Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PKtm (talk | contribs) at 18:46, 29 October 2006 (→Name suffix: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name suffix

Regarding whether to append the words (Lost) or {Lost episode) to each article title, I can see using either one, but I thought I'd start some discussion here in case anyone wants to offer an opinion. The way that the Star Trek episodes seem to handle it, is definitely with the "episode" style, as is seen at Category:Star Trek episodes. --Elonka 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A naming suffix should definitley be appended to episode pages when a majority are suffixed, failing that they should be suffixed for consitancys sake, and also the suffix to me clarifys its fictional, (Lost) or (Lost episode) seems to work well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing the potential beginning of a back-and-forth revert war here, but am hopefully wrong about that. We need consistency for the Lost episodes, and using (Lost) as the suffix for all of them seems to me to be both the consensus and what will work best. PKtm 17:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page. Please discuss the issue here, or, possibly more appropriately, at the talk page of WP:TV-NC. I've left WP:TV-NC unprotected for now, but please avoid simply moving the edit warring to that page. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 23:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TKD. Since this matter is only related to Lost episodes, it's probably the best page for it here. I'll post a pointer at WP:TV-NC. Oh, and for what it's worth, I support the "(Lost)" suffix, though "(Lost episode)" could work too. --Elonka 23:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I brought up WP:TV-NC is that I saw related edits there; it might be appropriate to discuss the broader issue of project-specific exceptions in general at WT:TV-NC. — TKD::Talk 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, no part of the mediation talked about the naming conventions to use. The person who added that part was Elonka, and Elonka alone (although I believe Matthew and possibly some others prefer this as well). None the lass, it was not a conclusion of the mediation and there is no consensus to place (Lost) in an article title when the non-disambig title isn't taken. Talk:Fire + Water specifically points out a lack of consensus on the issue. Since that discussion I've considered Nohat's and Wknight94's points more so and I strongly agree with what they said. They even pointed out that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television episodes's guidelines specifically use Lost episodes as an example for when to not use a disambig title. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, please do try to keep the personal attacks at bay, as it is difficult to WP:AGF when there is name-calling in process. In any case, I think it's clear that though there may not have been consensus when the issue had a limited discussion at Talk:Fire + Water, that there is clearly a consensus now. I think it's also clear that those in the mediation who were agreeing with the guidelines, were agreeing with all the guidelines, not just the specific ones that were the cause for the mediation. Further, it's clear from the table below, that articles are in the process of being moved to the consensus guidelines, and no one else has objected, until you started edit-warring. As for the example at the TV WikiProject, I would point out that that was the result of one user's edit , and that that user has since been banned, so I wouldn't regard that as a "consensus" of the TV WikiProject, either. Getting back to the original subject though, and repeating earlier statements, I think it makes sense to have a consistent look-and-feel to all the Lost articles. This makes them look better, makes them easier to link, makes the category listing look cleaner, and has benefits all around. I can't see as it's going to cause any negative impact, or cause any confusion to the readers of Misplaced Pages, to have the titles use a consistent system. --Elonka 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all... I am intrigued that this discussion has popped up here because it was actually a source of some confusion earlier today over at Jericho (TV series). The question there was whether to use "(Jericho)" or "(Jericho episode)" as the suffix.

The closest thing I've found to a previous agreed-upon guideline was this, at Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation:

"If there is a choice between disambiguating with a generic class or with a context, choose whichever is simpler. Use the same disambiguating phrase for other topics within the same context.

For example, '(mythology)' rather than '(mythological figure)'."

...this seems to me to support the shorter form, but then others may feel that television episode pages warrent a variation from this standard. What do you all think? Perhaps your island wisdom can assist us confused post-apocolyptic Kansans. ;) --TobyRush 06:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to show a consensus other than your own personal preference. Talk:Fire + Water is a debate a little less than a month old where moving those articles to include "(Lost)" was shot down, and somehow in that time you suggest something has changed to make the statements and concerns by Nohat and Wknight94 no longer valid? I was someone who was arguing in favor of what you proposed and their statements are what convinced me otherwise, and nothing has changed about that other than now you are trying to sneak the changes in.

None of the proposals during the mediation even mentioned the naming convention. Even if they did, mediation is not the same as ArbCom and is not a binding decision, but rather, is an agreement involving only the parties involved to resolve a dispute. The dispute was about season articles vs individual articles, and does not carry much more authority than that at all. It is nothing more than a step in dispute resolution, and attempting to use that as some absurd excuse for something that wasn't even discussed in the first place is just insane.

I've been involved with T-man on more than one occasion, and even though I'm a bit glad he's banned now I fail to see that as rational to dismiss anything he touched. This is one situation where he simply is stated what already was said in WP:TV-NAME. -- Ned Scott 08:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not my "personal preference", this is consensus, as is confirmed by the mediation discussion, by the checklist on this page, by the Episode guidelines, and reconfirmed by all of the comments from multiple users in this discussion. We're in the middle of a complicated conversion process as we've been going through every single Lost article to ensure that it abides by the episode guidelines as per mediation, and to have you jumping in and moving things around without discussion is getting things all tangled up. Please stop. --Elonka 11:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka on this, Ned. This seems like a disruption, frankly, just when we'd started to gather some momentum on getting episode articles cleaned up and made consistent with the agreed-on guidelines. You are the only one to be making noise about this, as Elonka points out above, which I frankly find even more puzzling given your very strong statements supporting the (Lost) suffix earlier. Everyone is allowed to change their minds, I suppose, but at this point, the ship has pretty much sailed. Not an auspicious time or justification to engage in a revert war. Let's please move forward. Thanks, PKtm 18:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone paying attention to these guidelines?

See A Tale of Two Cities (Lost). I see no (or very few) edits/reverts that are in the spirit of keeping to these guidelines. The plot section is currently exceeding 2,100 words, including trivia. Almost every tenet is violated from these guidelines, in fact. Trivia is in there that is pure original research. Dialog is included at many junctures. Virtually every scene of the show is described in detail.

Obviously, I could set about fixing any or all of this, but I'm puzzled as to why others don't seem to be jumping in. Did the mediation matter? Are others not committed to these guidelines? Elonka? Wikipedical? ArgentiumOutlaw? Thanks, PKtm 06:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That particular article is about an episode that just aired a few days ago, and is currently going through a feeding frenzy of editing. My own feeling is that it should be given some time to get past the "chaos" period, and then yes, by all means it should be condensed down. Or if someone else wants to do it in the meantime, I'll support it. I would also point out that I spent many many hours condensing episode articles and personally converting/rewriting the season articles (and handing out awards when the Lost article went featured). So I have to admit to some puzzlement as to why you're accusing me of "not jumping in." Please feel free to examine my contribution history to see just how much effort I have put in to help implement the mediation guidelines, before accusing me of ignoring them. --Elonka 06:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the philosophy of "let it settle". Fancruft feeds on fancruft. We need to "train" the contributors about what is acceptable and what is not. If a completely unacceptable addition is allowed to perpetuate, and then spawn similar additions of irrelevant material, our job is made all the harder down the road. As for the other episode articles, very few of them are even close to the 500 word guideline. You may have edited/condensed (for example) an episode like Two for the Road (Lost), but its plot summary is still at 1,100 words. And recent poor edits/additions have been made to older episodes (e.g., this one to Pilot (Lost), that no one has edited or reverted. Having episode articles at all, in their massive numbers as the series progresses, is only going to work if we're all dogged about enforcing the guidelines. I can do it in any one instance, of course, but as I've argued consistently along the way, the influx (particularly in a world with episode articles) outstrips the capability of any one or two editors to keep up. PKtm 16:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If you see a Misplaced Pages article that needs editing, then by all means, edit it. But I do not think that it is appropriate for you to be attacking other editors as to whether or not they are working hard enough. Please review WP:NPA. This is a volunteer project, and people participate as they can. The guidelines that we agreed upon are worthy goals. I agreed with them, and I support them, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to spend my time 24x7 enforcing them. What I *will* do though, is support other editors, including you, who are working towards those goals. If a dispute comes up, and there is disagreement about how a particular episode article should be maintained, I will be fully behind the guidelines. Also, if there's an article that I think is perfectly fine at 1000 words, but someone else condenses it even further to 500 words, well, that's what I agreed to. But if I stare at that article for 15 minutes and can't for the life of me think how to further condense it without reducing its quality without falling into WP:POINT, then I'm going to move on to some other project, and let some other editor figure out how to do the cut. In terms of the "Two Cities" article, I agree with you, it's poorly-written (or was last time I looked at it), and needs fixing. If no one else gets to it in a few days, I'll do it myself. Or, you can do it yourself, per {{sofixit}}. --Elonka 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, I regret that my comments seem to have come across as a personal attack, because it certainly was not my intent. At no point have I thought or meant to imply that you are not one of the hardest-working Lost editors around. However, I won't soft-soap the very real issues that I have about what's happening with Misplaced Pages Lost episode articles. My questions, which still stand, have to do with the extent of the active commitment to the agreed-upon guidelines, especially after the long and contentious process of mediation. I stand by my comments as to what is observable about the current epsiode articles and the general lack of reverts happening when inappropriate material is posted. And as for {{sofixit}}, a retort I fully anticipated, you've missed my point. Sure, I can fix any one or two instances, but I simply can't be one of a tiny minority (as in one or two) people pushing the rock uphill against the horde of enthusiastic Lost posters, many of whom won't care about or agree with the guidelines. The load has to be spread among us all, consistent with what I argued during the mediation. I also now note that Jtrost was finally the one who, a day or two ago, pared down the A Tale of Two Cities (Lost) article to conform to the guidelines. I remember someone, during the long discussion of episode versus season articles, plaintively asking just who would commit to putting all the episode articles on their watch list and police them. I'm hoping that that poster's concern (i.e., that'd he'd turn out to be one of only a very few people to commit to that) is not proving to be true. That's a sincere expression of my worry, supported by the currently observable facts. I'm sorry if you interpret it to somehow be a personal attack on you, because it's not. -- PKtm 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think rather than obtaining personal commitments from specific editors, who may or may not have free time to participate on Misplaced Pages in the near future, it's more important that we ensure that systems and guidelines are in place for the articles, which will last over the longterm. So, how about we make a checklist? We can make a table on a subpage here on the WikiProject, which lists every single episode. We can then notate each one as to whether or not it has been reviewed for adherence to the mediation guidelines. We could also have a "signup" system, where certain people could volunteer to watch different articles, so we ensure that every article has eyes on it. The table can then be further edited to ensure that there's always a currently active editor that's keeping an eye on something. --Elonka 21:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, constructive idea! Thanks, Elonka. Anyone else with ideas/input on this? PKtm 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's probably pretty quiet here, because not too many people have this page on their watchlist. But let's take advantage of the lull, to come up with a plan that we both agree on, and then we can present it to the others in a more public venue, how's that? I've spent the last few days working on a chart that we can use as a kind of "work checklist". It has all the episodes, plus the length of the plot summary in each one, and a "notes" section where we can jot down which episodes need the most work. I also left a spot where we could each initial next to an episode when you and I both agree that it's "done", meaning that we've both checked it and agree that it's in compliance with the mediation guidelines (at least for a few nanoseconds, heh). Does that make sense? --Elonka 06:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You ROCK, as the kids say. Great job. Totally on board, and this chart/approach also makes me feel much more sanguine about episode articles in general. Thanks, PKtm 16:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Okay, when you get a chance, please ~~~~ "initial" the episodes that you've checked and are willing to signoff on. Are you comfortable with tables? If the syntax is too messy, let me know and I'll put some big "INITIAL HERE" comments in the appropriate places.  ;) --Elonka 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Episode list

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3