Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Lost task force/Episode guidelines

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 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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)
 * The reason this gets so under my skin is that it's a situation where a WikiProject and/or small group of people believe that they can ignore a larger consensus because they created a forked guideline page. As I stated before, I was originally in support of such naming conventions UNTILL Nohat and Wknight94 objected. Trying to pin this on me alone doesn't work.
 * Again, I see no part of the mediation discussion that even talked about naming conventions. Even if the mediation did discuss naming conventions it still wouldn't matter, since: One, it wasn't a part of the dispute that caused mediation. Two, most other editors were not aware that details beyond the scope of the mediation were being discussed and did not have an opportunity to be included in discussion even if they did know. Three, the mediation comity is not on the same level as something such as ArbCom, and any guidelines that came out of it carry no more significant weight than any other discussion on Wikipedia.
 * Elonka asked for a requested move, it was shot down in a discussion: Talk:Fire + Water
 * This is an issue that other groups of articles have also addressed: Talk:List of Torchwood episodes
 * Other articles that are apart of an article series are also expected to follow similar naming conventions as described on WP:NC.
 * -- Ned Scott 20:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't pay too much attention to the Lost pages but the naming convention for episodes is stated as:Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama). I hope this helps. Jay32183 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

To get some more input on this situation I've requested comments at WP:RFC, some Lost article talk pages, WT:LOST, WT:TV. I've also asked that Nohat and Wknight94, as well as two editors from the Torchwood discussion, come and comment on our discussion as well. -- Ned Scott 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep.. Now why dont you message those that dont support it as well ? I'll AGF you have not go around to it yet.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As requested, I have notified User:SigmaEpsilon and User:Anþony of this discussion, as they are the only other ones who supported the move on Talk:Fire + Water (that aren't involved already in this discussion) and Matthew was the only "oppose" in the Torchwood discussion (who is also already involved). -- Ned Scott 21:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there some sort of vote going on somewhere? If not, I'll just say that I have not seen any discussion which would override the guidelines as they stood when I commented at Talk:Fire + Water, i.e. that we should not be disambiguating article titles where no disambiguation is needed. If you want to bring up the Star Trek episode naming convention, the energy would be better spent trying to do away with that exception so that those episode articles also follow the convention that is clearly stated. Listing one exception to a convention with no explanation as to why it is an exception just leads to confusion such as what is going on here. If someone would like to try to change the Star Trek episode naming convention before I do, feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My take on things, as with all TV series, is as follows: The articles and/or episode titles above do not exist and were just used for example purposes only. I hope I've explained my views clearly enough. Thanks, — FireFox  ( talk ) 21:26, 29 October 2006
 * If an episode title is unique, the article name should be Episode title, for example 42
 * Otherwise, the article name should be Episode title (series), for example 42 (Lost)
 * If the episode title shares a name with a subject of the series, then the article name of the episode should be Episode title (series episode), for example 42 (Lost episode)
 * Yes, that is typical disambiguation per WP:DAB. Disambiguate only when you need to - otherwise confusion ensues.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ned Scott brought me in because I'm supposed to be in the pro-suffix camp. However, I've since changed my mind and I'm now anti-suffix. My main reason in supporting the (Lost) suffix was to avoid moving the article later, but I realize that's not such a great reason and it's inconsistent with policy. I'll just add a "me too" to what FireFox said. -Anþony 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, WP:TV-NC and WP:DAB are not policy, they are guidelines. They are not meant to be violently enforced over good faith opposition, they are meant to give guidance in cases where people aren't sure what to do.  Further, I would point out to everyone that WP:TV-NC does endorse a "special case" exception for certain shows (such as in the Star Trek universe), but that starting in September, Ned kept going in (without consensus) and deleting it from the page . In most cases, I agree with the guidelines; however in certain circumstances (such as with these Lost articles), it makes sense to me to use a consistent naming system, even if that system is not strictly in adherence with WP:DAB.  For the Lost articles, the overwhelming majority of article are going to have a suffix of "(Lost)", no matter which way this discussion goes.  It's only a minority subset of articles that we're discussing.  Since by the nature of the show, all of the episodes routinely interlink with each other, we should use a consistent titling scheme, otherwise it becomes confusing as to which episodes should have the suffix, and which should not.  Further, it looks "cleaner" to have everything consistent.  And as an additional benefit, I would point out that these articles are a massive target for spam and vandalism, and having the "(Lost)" name next to each episode title makes them much easier to spot in watchlists, for those Lost editors that are on anti-vandal patrol.  I understand the reasoning of those individuals who want to strictly follow WP:DAB, but is it really a detriment to Wikipedia to have these episode articles follow a consistent system?  There are many positive reasons to do so, and no negative ones that I can see other than, "That's not how we usually do it." --Elonka 22:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone saying those are "policy". But, overriding guidelines should be done either with very good reason or with a lot of support - you seem to have neither.  As far as how many would need disambiguation, it's hard to tell because you (and at least one other editor) keep moving them to the unnecessarily disambiguated title.  Regardless, even if many of them need to be disambiguated, that's still not nearly a convincing reason to disambiguate the rest unnecessarily.  The "cleanliness" argument that you've presented before carries even less weight with me.  First, how could adding an extra word with parentheses - and a URL with a %28 and %29 - possibly be considered cleaner?  A spam and vandalism reason for adding "(Lost)"?!  That makes no sense at all.  Are you saying that you'd only fix vandalism and spam if it were a Lost episode article?!  I hope not.  The reasons for disambiguating are unconvincing at best and baffling at worst.  The reasons not to are because a lot of people came to the consensus to do so at some point in the past.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To Elonka: a consensus is not always found via a dedicated discussion. I removed the Star Trek example because I believed it to be the true consensus of our naming conventions. Many of the new responses on this talk page seem to back that assumption up. I've been trying to find out how the Star Trek example got in the guideline in the first place, and here's the first edit I've seen it in. The talk page at that time did not have any mentioning of Star Trek, nor did the poll that was taken a few days before. I found two places in the talk archive where Star Trek is mentioned:


 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive2 - about a non-episode Star Trek article where it was preferred to use a non-disambig title when it was not needed.


 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive1 - which does talk about episode articles and the use of disambig titles, but ironically was being used as an example of articles that don't disambig when not needed.


 * Had there been at least something that lead to this addition I would have likely discussed first before removing, but there was not. There is no major support for this, and it's very misleading. The inclusion of the Star Trek example is what mislead me to my own assumption that this was acceptable. If we have an exception in a guideline then the exception needs some explanation, some context. The Star Trek example has none, and its removal was appropriate. -- Ned Scott 00:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To get a sense of how many episodes already have the suffix, please just look at the checklist further down on this page. --Elonka 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How accurate is that list? I noticed that the list claims, for example, that "All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues" is at All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues (Lost), but that's actually a redirect to All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues.  Looking at that page's history, there seems to have been a moving war, but it looks it was at the page without the disambiguation until fairly recently.  If discussion is ongoing, it doesn't make much sense to point to the status quo as meaning anything. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just went through them all. 21 episodes do not require disambig titles. There are 53 episode aired to date. 11 articles currently do not disambig titles, 10 more need a requested move. However, it's already been stated that "consistency" or style issues are not an acceptable excuse. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correctly titled:
 * All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues
 * ...In Translation
 * The Greater Good
 * Man of Science, Man of Faith
 * The Other 48 Days
 * What Kate Did
 * The 23rd Psalm
 * Fire + Water
 * The Long Con
 * One of Them
 * Three Minutes
 * The Hunting Party moved


 * Needs page move:
 * Raised by Another
 * Whatever the Case May Be
 * Everybody Hates Hugo
 * ...And Found
 * The Hunting Party moved
 * Maternity Leave
 * Live Together, Die Alone
 * The Glass Ballerina
 * Further Instructions
 * Not in Portland

(Edit conflict) It looks like there's not much support for using disambiguated titles. Unless someone thinks this discussion is driving to a definite conclusion, I'm going to bring Ned Scott's list above to WP:RM. Suddenly that majority doesn't seem quite so "overwhelming", does it? All 10 of these destinations are either redirects to the Lost articles or very deletable dab pages. (Funny how more than one of the redirect had minor edits after the moves so that non-admins couldn't move them back...) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been less than 24 hours since Ned has been attacking this page. I recommend giving this discussion a few more days to give other people a chance to weigh in. A straw poll would probably also be a good idea. --Elonka 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can set that up - or we can have the move request discussion take place here and have it determine the guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Attacking? I'm pushing for correct consensus, to avoid guideline forking, and to improve these articles. It's hardly fair to call my efforts "attacking". -- Ned Scott 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, my list didn't include Maternity Leave but did include Do No Harm (Lost) → Do No Harm. I'm not sure Maternity Leave shouldn't redirect to Parental leave.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ned, please stop mucking with the "Mediation adherence" table below. It is the result of an agonizing multi-month mediation process which you were not a part of, and you've got no business changing the entries there. If you want to make a separate table, fine. In the meantime, I would appreciate if you would revert all your changes, before things get even more tangled. --Elonka 03:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There ya have it, I knew the mediation would cause ownership issues. Again, you seem to believe the mediation has more weight than it actually has. Again, article naming was not apart of the mediation discussion. I have every right to edit this table as a fellow editor. Just because you were in a debate for a long time doesn't mean you get to force something that wasn't even apart of that debate. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the mediation agreement that sits atop Talk:List of Lost episodes. -- Ned Scott 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this same discussion is going on - with a vote of some kind - at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Not sure why but it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and I think it's best if any further comments on this matter to go to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), so that we can keep everything in one place. --Elonka 23:34, 30 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * I think Elonka's idea just about covers it. If we have someone watch every single episode and make sure it adheres to the guidelines, I think that will take care of it. --Kahlfin 02:07, 5 November 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)

Came here from the RfA
I gather that this has been bubbling up for a while, and there has been some mediation involved. I can't find exactly where the mediation is, and since I haven't been party to it I don't want to contradict any consensus that's been achieved. However, Wikipedia guidelines on the matter of disambiguation seem fairly clear to me: don't disambiguate unless you need to, and when you do, use the simplest disambiguation that makes the context clear. Naming conventions (television) says, "Where an article is created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses if there are other articles by the same name, e.g. Bart the Genius, but The Sting (Futurama)." This seems eminently sensible to me. Following this model, the Lost episodes should be at Tabula Rasa (Lost), but All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues. There's no need for every article on the same topic to have a disambiguation after it; disambiguation exists to distinguish articles that would otherwise have the same name. Since there's no other article that would be created at All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues, there's no need to tag (Lost) at the end of the article's name.

Remember, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Preemptive disambiguation bad! Foolish consistency bad! Let's name articles sensibly, following general Wikipedia policy. The Star Trek episode exception to the naming convention was and still is a terrible idea. We should look for ways to get rid of it, not spread its muddy naming convention semantics elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nohat 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside, until about six weeks ago Disambiguation included this advice:


 * Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.


 * This passage, or one like it, had been on WP:D ever since New Year's Eve 2003. It seems that it was removed without discussion, so I've restored it pending discussion here.  I think that this reflects general Wikipedia usage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, this same discussion is going on - with a vote of some kind - at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Not sure why but it is. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow...
I go out of town for a weekend and a lot happens... Well, first of all, and  have had few if any edits to Lost-related article, except to chime in on this debate. Second, I understand the spirit of WP:DAB. Wikipedia should keep tings "simple". However, In making infbox-templates and other similar things easier, and in terms of the more important aspect of keeping things consistent across the Lost articles, I still support using a suffix. Yes "&28Lost&29" takes up space, but Wikipedia is not paper, and 6 bytes across even 100 articles is not a big deal. It looks terrible (IMHO) to have a list-of-epiodes page with ABC (Lost), DEF (Lost), XYZ. The non-suffix articles break the pattern and create inconsistency, which looks terrible. In the interest of keeping the professional appearance of Wikipedia intact, I believe it is highly important to keep things consistent. - SigmaEpsilon → &Sigma; &Epsilon; 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go further and say I've had zero edits to Lost-related articles outside of this debate. Maybe that gives me an advantage in that I'm being objective from an overall Wikipedia POV.  Still no one has given a good reason why indiscriminately adding (Lost) to the end of all of these articles is a benefit to anyone, esp. readers.  Wikipedia is not paper but it's also not wallpaper - meaning it's really not important to have patterns in the article naming.  It looks ugly where?  In the category I assume?  That's the only place anyone would notice some sort of pattern matching issue.  I'm more into editing baseball-related articles - should I add (baseball player) to the end of every single baseball player bio article in the system?  How is that helping?  If we inserted the proper number of underscores at the beginning of every episode article so the title lenghts were the same, maybe the category listing would all show the (Lost)'s lined up too - so what?  (I know it wouldn't because of font width issues but you get my point).  Why would (Lost) be needed in templates?  The only people I see it possibly making things easier for are editors - and ease of editing should never override simplicity of using.  I'm also a computer programmer and I'd have an awfully tough time convincing my boss that making an even slightly less usable product is okay if it makes my job easier.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a few Lost-related edits, though not nearly as many as I have Doctor Who-related edits. I agree with Wknight's perspective here: there's no reason why things should be "consistent" in this manner.  That's merely an aesthetic judgment, and one that is not supported by Wikipedia policy.  I disagree with the notion that putting "(Lost)" at the end of every Lost-related article makes anything look more professional.  The most important thing is that a random person should be able to find an article with the least amount of hassle.  Let's not make a fetish of consistency.


 * Furthermore, any list of episodes should be piped so as not to include the (Lost) suffix anyway — someone on a page titled "List of Lost episodes" knows that the links will be to episodes. So the "terrible" appearance of a list with ABC (Lost), DEF (Lost), XYZ is a false example: any list should look like ABC, DEF, XYZ anyway.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, this same discussion is going on - with a vote of some kind - at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Not sure why but it is.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * that was me, multiple shows are now having this debate so I tried to put it in a central location --  Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status: 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(Lost) versus (Lost episode)
Just trying to help. Right now there's nothing saying which of the two it should be, and someone moved them all from the former to the latter. But maybe there wasn't consensus that it should be (Lost) either, it wouldn't surprise me. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All episodes should have the suffix applied, we need to seek consensus as to which suffix should be applied as well. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we moving over here now? Why do all episodes need to have the suffix applied?  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think enough people have told you why at the RfC :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And the consensus disagreed. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's no consensus on which suffix to use, I guess that can be argued out somewhere as well, and if the article names revert back and forth, that's what happens. As for "All episodes should have the suffix applied", I admire your optimism.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me to put the suffixes on all the episodes, since the majority of them already have suffixes anyway. Since they all already use "(Lost)", I see no compelling reason to change it to "(Lost episode)". --Elonka 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with Elonka. Just use "Lost" unless for some strange reason there is a need for further disambiguation (such as an episode being named after a character, etc). -- Ned Scott 03:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they used to use (Lost). But someone went and changed them all yesterday.  As for unnecessary disambiguation, I don't think it makes sense to start arguing it in yet another place and fragment the discussion even more.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's clear that there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) on this issue, since we're currently going through mediation prelim. So can we please just all give this a rest, and concentrate on the mediation, rather than launching into new wars in multiple locations around Wikipedia? --Elonka 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think potential mediation is a grounds for declaring "no consensus". Whatever the situation is, in the meantime, articles have to be named one way or another, and it would be nice to avoid mass renamings.  Is there objection to following WP:TV-NAME and going with (Lost) for the time being?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then _cease_ renaming them, Okay? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So is that an objection to going with (Lost)? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any objection, nor do I think it's apart of our mediation. It's true that the RfC included this issue, but no one really... cares. It's really just about the disambig when necessary thing, not the disambig title itself. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It is a supreme objection to you unilaterally moving pages from  to  . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not making those moves, he's just moving xyz (Lost episode) back to xyz (Lost). -- Ned Scott 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look @ his move log, thanks. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of his recent page moves have only been (Lost episode) to (Lost). Look @ the dates on the move log. -- Ned Scott 21:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Those moves were simply reverts of a unilateral move of those pages: []. I looked at the page histories before making the revert, and it didn't seem controversial to me, especially since some of the pages had already been moved back.  Do you generally have an objection to reversions of major edits done without consenus?  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the unilateral moves on the 17th and 24th, like you said Ned, look at teh dates . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The two moves on the 17th were in response to the deletion of the redirect pages to make room for those moves. [] []. And those moves weren't unilateral by any stretch of the imagination, they had consensus at WP:TV-NAME.  In addition, as I'm sure you're aware, there was a request for move at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) which involved similar pages and passed easily - if I hadn't moved those two, they would have been included in that request and I doubt the result would have been any different.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you full well know there is no consensus at TV-NC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, if consensus says it's consensus, it's consensus. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus, the page at WP:TV-NAME is clearly labeled as being in dispute, there's an upcoming mediation, there is clear disagreement on this page, and there are edit wars and move wars all over the place. That's about as non-consensus as you can get.  :) So please, can we just stop and talk about things, instead of pushing forward with controversial actions? --Elonka 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the "dispute" tag grounds for not following that guideline? Or is it an indication of lack of consensus?  And where is a move war taking place?  I've seen plenty of moving, but it has been largely uneventful and unopposed.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that I, and others, have strongly indicated our opposition to the moves, so it is incorrect to say that it has been unopposed. Have you perhaps noted the dozens of messages per day at the guidelines page, the complaints on talk pages, the upcoming mediation, the edit wars?  Most people would regard those as "opposition and controversy." --Elonka 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you characterize the move here as "controversial"? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that it seemed rude/hostile/hasty to some when other editors in a heavy debate started making changes that were related to the dispute while things seemed to be inching toward mediation - whether it was in compliance with a guideline or not. Not that it was per se against any rule, but it did seem rude and it agitated some folks. Emotions and frustrations are running high on all sides.  Refusal to acknowledge the offended feelings ("it was unopposed", "there is no dispute") in this case doesn't help to clear the air. Riverbend 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Elonka and Matthew: Whether or not to predisambiguate is another issue entirely. It makes no sense to re-hash that issue here, when it has an appropriate forum for discussion elsewhere. It is another question, entirely appropriate for this talk page, to determine which dab tag to use, when we choose to use one. Frankly, it seems like both of you are for (Lost) over (Lost episode), so I don't know why this argument is continuing. –  Anþony  talk  00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, please raise your hand if you care one way or another whether the DAB tag sez (Lost) or (Lost episode). Riverbend 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care, but I guess I would choose whatever the dab trend seems to be with other pages.Riverbend 00:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism on a few of the episode pages
Could someone please read Talk:? (Lost), and Talk:Lockdown (Lost). Both articles clearly have large portions of text plagiarized from Lostpedia. Could someone please fix the problem, or I will just remove the text from the articles. Thank -Mr.Leaf67 17:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any text copied from another site is likely a copyright vio and should be removed immediately. --Minderbinder 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have big problems with how the summaries are wrtten
It seems that the articles are being written in ways that dont follow the timing of the episode. There ahve been occassions where I haven't been able to catch the whole episode, due to work etc, and taped what I missed, chekcing wikipedia at work, and recapping what I've seen, but sometimes to get to it I have to sift through spoilers. This isn't a fair way of writing it. It may be clumsy constantly chopping between beach and flashback etc, but to seperate them into blocks that don't correspond the the timeline of the episode is, in my opinion, stupid.

WP:EPISODE
Ned Scott, I apologize; my edit summary was erased by popups, I'll summarize what I had to say. These were the guidelines agreed upon by the mediation. What in WP:EPISODE allows you specifically to remove the sentence about individual episodes? -- Wikipedical 04:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a guideline for WikiProject Lost, and it is not a fixed statement of the mediation that took place in the past. Whatever you agreed to in mediation does not trump Wikipedia-wide consensus. Did you forget about the arbcom case that started out from this exact page? -- Ned Scott 05:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)