Talk:What They Died For

Edit War preceding transmission.

After making a few edits, which were reverted, I decided to read about edit wars and take a more constructive approach to this. Having asked over on the the Editor Assistance page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Edit_War:_Lost:_What_They_Died_For) the reply I received seemed to confirm my reasoning that, apart from anything else, a plot preceding transmission is unverifiable. In principle any source could be made up while anyone with access to the plot is legally bound not to give it away. We are not legally bound if the plot is leaked to us by a reviewer or worked on the show, but we would have no way of verifying the information they have given us.

I'm therefore requesting that the plot section is removed until the show has finished transmission - though it may be added to as transmission is occuring. The crucial point is not that it is spoilers, but that it is untransmitted material and thus unverifiable. (Among other things, in theory it could be the case that it never gets transmitted!) 91.111.47.43 (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The episode has already been shown to 1800 paying customers. Details about that presentation of the episode has already been added to the page. So a plot summary is both appropriate and verifiable. 99.192.76.122 (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you added it just now it would appear... 91.111.47.43 (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Llywrch makes the following comment on the edit page: "WP:CRYSTAL BALL; no way to verify what 1800 people allegedly saw" So I don't think this is done and dusted. (Also, though it might not be so relevant, I came to this article looking for things like production background information, existing press discusion. I was astonished to find a plot summary.)

If it was a simple matter of spoilers, then the Wikipedia policy is clear. You don't go to the Casablanca page and complain when there's a plot summary. When people expressed concern about spoilers here on the edit page, they meant something different. 91.111.47.43 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 91.111.47.43

In my opinion, 91.111.47.43 's edits such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are clear vandalism. If the user disagrees with something in the article, they should have used this talk page to raise their concerns, but they repeatedly added their opinion to the article page. Then they started blanking the section 6, 7, then blanking the page itself 8, 9. Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article in good faith. When it became clear this was a controversial subject I went to the Editors page for assistance and then set up this discussion. I am the first to try and resolve this dispute in the proper way, which is more than anyone else has attempted.

At the time I made my edits there was no reference to a preview screening, therefore there was no evidence of verifiability, and I have given my rationale for my edits, therefore the repeated reversals of my edits could, in some cases, equally count as vandalism. Please read the page on Edit Wars. I should not have engaged in repeated changes before starting a discussion on this page and attempting to engage with users - but at least I did this, which is more than can be said for anyone else. 91.111.47.43 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is what the editor kept reverting. Your posts were not encyclopedic. I'm glad you're now bringing this to the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean my comments in article in my first couple of edits, I agree. Then I blanked the plot summary (which a lot of people seem to have done), giving reasons and these edits were also reversed.

My additions argued that everything in that section was vandalism, as they were a reversal of previous blanks. There should have been nothing in that section at all, not my comments or anything else. Now that I've started this discussion and it is constructive, I don't see the point of a section on my alleged vandalism, which excludes everyone else's. 91.111.47.43 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the current plot summary is vandalism? If so, can you provide proof? Airplaneman ✈ 17:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that reverting edits which had blanked it (it turns out perhaps correctly, as above) might be. In any case it was an edit war. In any case as the editor on the help page thought my edits were in good faith. Where I soapboxed it was above a section which I did not think should be there anyway which I left in at that time, and it was out of frustration at the situation I could see had developed and the feeling it wasn't quite right. 91.111.47.43 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The current summary isn't vandalism by the way, the controversy is over the full summary that was there before. 91.111.47.43 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good - let's keep the current summary. This issue looks like it's resolved Y Airplaneman ✈ 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

ABC held a screening of What They Died for last night at the Live Lost event. The plot already there on internet, it's a major hypocrite to refuse put the summary of this episode. Wikipedia has no relation with ABC, therefore Wikipedia has no concern with ABC rating or money related with LOST series. Even though the plot has not been verified, we can still make section for unverified plot. The finale episode is one of the most anticipated episode. If there is a leak, even unverified, it's a worth to put in Wikipedia. if you try to Google "Plot Series Finale LOST", most of the result will be "watch online" or other commercial web site. Wikipedia only fulfill it's function, related with commercialism of a TV series, by clarifying the stories of LOST to people who do not want to watch the show. What is the point of internet if you can not get updated information in mater of second or hour after those information is available? what is the point of internet if you have to watch TV in order obtain new information?

My demand is only this: PUBLISH ANY PLOT OF ANY EPISODE OF ANY SERIES. Because commercialism of a TV series need counterbalance in open information era that we have now. Don't be such an hypocrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 29mmch (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/2010/05/major-spoilers-episode-616-what-they.html#axzz0oIt3EOC5 29mmch (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

But this discussion had no relation to whether it affects ABC's commercial interests or not. If information is out there, true or false, people are free to look it up on the internet. If what your saying goes, you'd have to post any rumour on Wikipedia about anything... I thought it was good that it clarified policy about untransmitted TV and radio. Some people had seen it at a public screening, and an editor made a call about how that affected it's verifiability, which seems fair enough. (And it will be available here after it's been broadcast I expect.) 91.111.47.43 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on What They Died For. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705033112/http://bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2010/nat05172010.pdf to http://bbm.ca/_documents/top_30_tv_programs_english/2010/nat05172010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)