Synopsis tenses[]
I haven't been able to find anything in any of our guides that states whether Episode synopsises (synopses? synopsai? I've never actually encountered the plural form of that word...) should be written in past tense or present tense. Is there a consensus on that? -Beardog4314 17:38, 7 November 2006 (PST)
- Past tense would be my vote. Robert K S 18:06, 7 November 2006 (PST)
- Past tense - They've always been past tense in Lostpedia AFAIK. More broadly, I believe plot summaries always are in the past tense. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 02:35, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- I think it would flow better too, but at the moment every single Episode summary is written in present tense. -BearDog 10:20, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- Past tense makes even more sense when you consider that all the events of Lost took place in 2004 or prior. Robert K S 11:42, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- I think it would flow better too, but at the moment every single Episode summary is written in present tense. -BearDog 10:20, 15 December 2006 (PST)
- Added a first draft of tense into the main article. It definitely needs serious tweaking, but I wanted to get the episode synopsis=past tense in there. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 04:05, 17 December 2006 (PST)
- Past tense as whatever we chronical happened in the past, be it in 2004 in the story line, or the fact that it has been broadcast, synopsis and character history should always be in past tense -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 06:07, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- Comment. Not to say this changes my vote, but I noticed recently that Wikipedia has adopted the policy of all descriptions of fictional events being written in present tense to distinguish them from actual historical happenings. Robert K S 09:47, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- Interesting. I don't have an opinion on this topic, but could you pass along a link to this Wikipedia decision? Maybe they've had a useful debate.--Dagg 09:52, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- I can't find the debate, but check out these sections: Guide to writing better articles, Editorial guidelines. (Also they have special templates that you can tag articles describing fiction with if they do not hold to the present-tense-only standard.) Note that the policy trends toward softening of this guideline, with the distinction being made between writing "out-of-universe" (i.e., from the perspective of the real world) and "in-universe". Cf. the current MoS for writing about fiction, which does not tolerate in-universe writing, and the draft for a revision, which tolerates its use sparingly. IMHO this is the rare area where there is little reason for Lostpedia to adopt a Wikipedia standard, since Lostpedia is all about a fictional universe and there is no special reason to distinguish in-universe writing by holding it to the present tense. Robert K S 10:15, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- Thanks, that was an interesting read. It looks like Wikipedia says that Lostpedia uses the in-universe perspective, so I guess the debate is settled. Just kidding :).--Dagg 10:41, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- I didn't see that, thanks for posting. "Lostpedia--in-universe and proud of it!" Robert K S 13:37, 5 January 2007 (PST)
- Past tense: --Marik7772003 18:48, 17 January 2007 (PST)
- Present tense:I feel the synopsis should read like a walkthrough guiding you through the episode it is SO much easier for them to do this in present tense.--THE MONSTER
- Very interesting find from Robert KS. Anyways, good point that Lostpedia is about the fictional universe. Note that our editors never seem to have a problem putting fictional events from The Lost Experience into the past tense-- the only issue is with episodes. Also note that we do have some factual information, e.g. on the cast, crew, producers, companies, publishers-- and that this information includes events, but only in very rare cases can these be confused with fictional events (e.g., when corporation executives from real companies being named in TLE). Therefore I'm still leaning to past tense. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 12:45, 19 January 2007 (PST)
- Past tense Personally, I think it flows better. And something that happened in "Homecoming" (a random example) should be written in past tense instead of present tense. It happenED, it airED, and is now not currently happening. My two cents. David 12:38, 19 January 2007 (PST)
- Past Tense Why? Because it happened in the past. Just my opinion though, I'm fine either way even though I'd prefer past tense. --Mr. Crabby (Talk) 12:53, 19 January 2007 (PST)
Consensus: Synopses on Lostpedia should be written in past tense. The MoS was previously updated with this information.--Dagg 16:12, 22 January 2007 (PST)
- Comment: Consensus may not have been reached. See subsection "Dispute" below, as well as #Metadiscussion: tense immediately below that. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 11:16, 27 January 2007 (PST)
Dispute[]
How the hell are you supposed to give a dramatic account of an episode when its past tense. You're completely limited in flair and it makes the synopsis boring to read. I thought the main point of a synopsis was for it to be read, not that it abides by "it was written yesterday therefore it MUST be past". It reads horribly, as does "We saw Sawyer..." or "We the viewer then saw Jack and Kate arguing" and "The next flashback showed..." - thats not writing. An episode guide should be for those who may not have even seen the episode. Its an account, not a shot by shot description. --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:32, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- If this is still open to discussion at all, I must agree with Nick. --lewisg 07:44, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- I completely disagree with Nick here. There is a difference between the quality of prose and the tense that its written. For example we don't need to say "We the viewer saw Jack and Kate arguing". For a start, this is cross-tense not past tense. The correct past tense is "Jack and Kate argued".
- He's also confusing the idea that it was written yesterday and the episode happened in the past. We are accounting something that happened in the past, therefore it should be in the past tense. I've always avoided our synopses, simply because I found their English to be abhorrently bad. Now, some of the writing in the current synopses is terrible, but that is down to the author, not down to the tense. -- Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:56, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- I am starting to understand part of the reason why Wikipedia chose to use the out-of-universe, perpetual present tense for fictional works. This is a very difficult topic, and Lostpedia is currently littered with inconsistent tenses, and inconsistent in-universe/out-of-universe. For example, the intro to "I Do" (warning, this is a spoiler for that episode):
"I Do" was the sixth episode of Season 3 of Lost and was the last episode before a 13 week hiatus. As Jack considers whether or not to treat Ben, he is motivated by Kate's claims that if he does not comply, Pickett will kill Sawyer.
- That paragraph has was, is, and will; and the first sentence is out-of-universe, and the second seems in-universe. Does it need fixed or is it ok? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 08:35, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- I think thats OK, its the official - this episode occurred.... - but then its what happens in the episode. So, this is when it occurred, and this is what transpired. There isn't that much of a problem there. I think though it would sound weird to say "As Jack struggled, he was motivated by Kate..." - it doesn't sound as ominous, as to say Pickett would kill Sawyer as opposed to will (as in, he might actually do it) --Nickb123 (Talk) 08:40, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- That paragraph has was, is, and will; and the first sentence is out-of-universe, and the second seems in-universe. Does it need fixed or is it ok? -- Dagg talk contribs4 8 08:35, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- Pragmatically speaking, present tense allows for bad writing; when put into the past tense, it's abundantly clear that bad writing needs to be changed. This includes play-by-play dialog or action re-hashes. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 17:02, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- Replying to Nick's opening question in this section: Episode synopses are not dramatic content, and are instead an encyclopedic chronicling of events in a storyline. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 17:17, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- Hi, I'm new here and I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'm wondering if a decision has actually been made regarding tense. I haven't been able to find a definitive answer. Changing present tense to past tense is listed as one of the current projects, and I'd like to help, but it seems like the policy is still being discussed. Outpost road 19:53, 23 March 2007 (PDT)
- If the purpose of the site is largely analytical (even if that's surface level analysis in most cases), then present tense of episode summaries and character bios would be in keeping with standard literature and film analysis. Events that take place within a work should be described using the present tense. If I were talking about Ulysses, for example, I might say that "Stephen Dedalus and Leopold Bloom meet in Night Town," not "Stephen Dedalus and Leopold Bloom met in Night Town." This is because everytime the work is re-read (or in this case, re-viewed), it is happening again. I don't know if this item is still up for debate, but I would strongly encourage the use of present tense both to recognize that this site looks at "Lost" from an academic perspective (and therefore should adhere to the styles of academic discourse) and because 99% of the summaries and bios are already in present tense, which would indicate that it's more natural for most contributors anyway.--Daniel1302 10:45, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
- This was precisely the logic I was using to defend present tense as well, however I reached an impasse when I realized this site is supposed to come across as being subjectively in-universe, not objectively analytical. From that sense, I can understand why past tense should be used. However because of the unique structure of this show where the time-frame is presented in a disjointed fashion, as well as the uncertainty regarding the exact nature of how time is experienced by the characters, I don't think it is a good idea to by default use the past tense. Until the flash-forwards were introduced, things that happened before the crash were past tense while events on the Island were the present. Perhaps when the show is finished and we understand the exact series of events that occur in a linear fashion, present tense would be appropriate.--Halcohol 18:38, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Metadiscussion: tense[]
In this section, I'd like to open discussion on methods of resolving the tense question (rather than arguing a case for either side). In other words, there is certainly a wide range of many and varying opinions (past vs. present tense), but the actual decision making process is not apparent. Possible resolution methods include:
- Majority opinion: of currently participating editors in a straw poll, based on individual opinions on what "feels" better.
- Sysop analysis - Discussion and decision from amongst currently active sysops (based on discussion points by all contributors) which may end up being a straw poll majority decision amongst this subgroup.
- Other considerations - Consensus based on some logically consistent rationale.
- In my opinion, #3 is best, #1 is what some users may be assuming, and #2 is the standard process at wikis including Lostpedia, and seems where we are headed. I'd like to redirect our efforts toward #3 (logically consistent rationale):
- In general, the "proper" way to chronicle completed events in writing is indisputably past tense (See any (non internet) manual of style such as Strunk & White, or any encyclopedia (internet or noninternet)). However, as RobertKS noted in perhaps the most relevant observation in this discussion (see above), Wikipedia uses present tense to differentiate "real" events from "fictional" events... and I think other non-internet encyclopedias also follow that rule. This is the key to our discussion, and not the accumulation of user opinion in a straw poll based on their "feelings"; arguments on "asethetics" are not persuasive. The consequences are pretty clear:
- If Lostpedia differentiates between fictional and nonfictional events then present tense for episodes and character bios is the standard: (e.g. 1. Events in episodes are fictional, 2. some TLE events "really" happened (Rachel Blake at Comic-con), some TLE events are fictional (Rachel recording the Sri Lanka Video), 3) events in biographies of cast, crew, and fandom did happen in reality.) This approach is reasonable under these assumptions.
- If Lostpedia is structured to document events as if they were real, then we should use past tense. This is reasonable since this wiki is dedicated to a fictional universe.
- The one clarifying litmus test is: Episode and character articles should follow the SAME tense, whether past or present. Any proposals that suggest one tense for one episodes, and the other for characters, are inherently flawed (if we are using logical consistency as the criterion for our decision on this issue.)
- In general, the "proper" way to chronicle completed events in writing is indisputably past tense (See any (non internet) manual of style such as Strunk & White, or any encyclopedia (internet or noninternet)). However, as RobertKS noted in perhaps the most relevant observation in this discussion (see above), Wikipedia uses present tense to differentiate "real" events from "fictional" events... and I think other non-internet encyclopedias also follow that rule. This is the key to our discussion, and not the accumulation of user opinion in a straw poll based on their "feelings"; arguments on "asethetics" are not persuasive. The consequences are pretty clear:
- I agree with Santa (wow, I never thought that I could use that phrase and have it make sense) that episode pages and episode pages MUST follow the same tense. Personally, I think that it should all be past tense, but if episode pages are going to be in present tense, then character pages (which CONSTANTLY references events that happened in certain episodes, now we even list the episode) should follow suit. It is just weird how Lostpedia has different tenses for jsut about every single article, sometimes even different tenses in the SAME article. So, although I personally think past tense is better--for reasons I have previously stated almost all over Lostpedia, I believe that if somehow it is decided which tense episode pages will be, then EVERYTHING on Lostpedia should be in that past tense. Just my thoughts, once again.
- Also, Option #3 sounds the best, we need a place to list the pros and cons so we can easily compare the benefits/downfalls of each, without people mixing in extra words (I am guilty of that too, don't worry). David 18:18, 25 January 2007 (PST)
- Lol Santa you say its a flawed argument but its my argument hehe. I would say past tense for characters as its a broad view of their life before and after the crash in a biographical fashion. In contrast, I think the episode articles are showing the progression of the Lost story, and should be written as though they're "happening now", as all the articles should be from the perspective of "this is the episode I am up to at this moment in time". I feel that if we look on it in past tense then important scenes will be made redundant. For instance, all scenes with Sun will lose their spark if in past tense because its like we know she really does speak English if we approach it from a hindsight angle. Similarly, all other character secrets which we now know will probably get dropped in from a past tense view. I think that an episode article should approach from the point of "I have just watched all previous episodes, I am now up to this episode... what happens" and it should flow presently from start --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:32, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- Spoilers are spoilers, regardless of which tense they are written in. There's no reason to reveal information such as "Sun seemed about to speak, but decided to protect the secret that she knew English for a while longer." Writing in past tense is no excuse to babble the entire plotline early, that's just bad storytelling. What it does, is discourage things like: "Charlie shuffles uncomfortably on the log. He stands, walks three feet to his left, turns, considers Locke for a moment, grimaces, looks down at his own shoes, looks at Locke again, then replies 'I think Hurley's down by the beach.'" Writing in past tense enourages the writer to summarize, choosing only the details that were relevant to the story. It's more thinking, because it forces an editor to translate from present tense (how they actually saw the story), to past tense (how to relay the story); but putting more thought into the writing is a good thing. -BearDog 08:39, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- Well thats more about a different issue: a rubbish present tense writer will be a rubbish past tense one, you can try to make them think more but they're either up to our specific standard or not. --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:50, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- OK I'm going to say alright though I personally think present is best. However, for site consistency I'll yield. My only real tense issue now though is that thumbnail pic descriptions should remain in present tense to describe the image, as its a description of what the character is doing in the pic. So e.g. "Charlie looks around in his seat" with a pic rather than "Charlie looked around in his seat". When its a fragment, I think present is better. Also, in the introduction, the brief synopsis I think should also still be present as its giving a teaser for the episode --Nickb123 (Talk) 06:06, 27 January 2007 (PST)
- Well thats more about a different issue: a rubbish present tense writer will be a rubbish past tense one, you can try to make them think more but they're either up to our specific standard or not. --Nickb123 (Talk) 09:50, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- Spoilers are spoilers, regardless of which tense they are written in. There's no reason to reveal information such as "Sun seemed about to speak, but decided to protect the secret that she knew English for a while longer." Writing in past tense is no excuse to babble the entire plotline early, that's just bad storytelling. What it does, is discourage things like: "Charlie shuffles uncomfortably on the log. He stands, walks three feet to his left, turns, considers Locke for a moment, grimaces, looks down at his own shoes, looks at Locke again, then replies 'I think Hurley's down by the beach.'" Writing in past tense enourages the writer to summarize, choosing only the details that were relevant to the story. It's more thinking, because it forces an editor to translate from present tense (how they actually saw the story), to past tense (how to relay the story); but putting more thought into the writing is a good thing. -BearDog 08:39, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- Lol Santa you say its a flawed argument but its my argument hehe. I would say past tense for characters as its a broad view of their life before and after the crash in a biographical fashion. In contrast, I think the episode articles are showing the progression of the Lost story, and should be written as though they're "happening now", as all the articles should be from the perspective of "this is the episode I am up to at this moment in time". I feel that if we look on it in past tense then important scenes will be made redundant. For instance, all scenes with Sun will lose their spark if in past tense because its like we know she really does speak English if we approach it from a hindsight angle. Similarly, all other character secrets which we now know will probably get dropped in from a past tense view. I think that an episode article should approach from the point of "I have just watched all previous episodes, I am now up to this episode... what happens" and it should flow presently from start --Nickb123 (Talk) 04:32, 26 January 2007 (PST)
- Sorry, I think discussion has gotten off track. This "Metadiscussion" area was to be used for discussion on the decision-making process only, and not the relative merits of past vs. present. (To be fair, Nick was mainly commenting on my opinion that past and present need be consistently applied to different article types, but assuming there is still exists a difference of opinions on the tense issue in general, I'd like to steer us back to the what decision making process we are going to use.) -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 11:20, 27 January 2007 (PST)
- As is said above, the real defining characteristic (what should be used to make the decision) is whether or not this site is "in-universe." The fact that it discusses actors, producers, directors, etc. clearly shows that it is not "in-universe." It recognizes that the show is a work of fiction. Therefore, the tense question should be settled. Personally, I'm not entirely sure why formatting, etc. for this site should ever depart from standard English rules of grammar and punctuation (such as in the discussion of formatting episode titles). There are clear guidelines for all of this in English language style manuals. Why deviate from that?--Daniel1302 10:16, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
Tense in specific contexts[]
The discussion above opened the topic of the different use of tense in specific contexts within articles, regardless of the overall decision on past/present for the main body of the articles. I'll note images and opening summaries, but we can add more. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 11:36, 27 January 2007 (PST)
- Image captions - Nick proposed that image captions remain in the present tense, regardless of the decision on the use of present or past tense within article. I agree, as this is the standard, as the photograph represents a moment in an event in progress. This usage is supported by standard practices in the traditional media, for example photograph captions in any major newspaper (these are in present tense, while the articles are in past tense).-- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 11:36, 27 January 2007 (PST)
- Opening summaries - The episode articles open with a short 2-3 sentence summary of the episode, which has tended to be either a direct quote or paraphrasing of the ABCmedianet summary. The ABC content is in present tense, and currently, Lostpedia episode summaries are also in present tense. The question is whether these may remain in the present tense, even if the longer episode synopsis is in the past tense. -- Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯ Talk 11:36, 27 January 2007 (PST)
Mixed paragraphs (in-universe/outside perspective)[]
As per request by admin Robert K S, I'm bringing this up here:
Usually, the bulk of most articles about in-show characters, items and events is written in an "in-universe" style, presenting the events as shown on the screen as if they were "real". However, occasionally an outside perspective is required in order to address certain behind-the-scenes aspects that are included in the same paragraph for explanatory reasons. For example, details about information from official websites, ARGs etc. on the Oceanic Flight 815 page.
Now, I was wondering if there should be a general style to differentiate those "outside perspective" paragraphs from the "in-universe" parts of thise sections. My initial idea was to italicize them, but Robert K S disagreed, insisting that italics are already abused far too often on Lostpedia. He did, however, suggest that we might try to come up with a different way to set "behind-the-scene" addendum notes for specific paragpraphs within articles about show contents apart from the rest of the text. For example, using different background color boxes. Any suggestions?--Nevermore 15:06, 22 March 2008 (PDT)
- This sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't have any suggestion as to how to present the different perspective. Danhm 12:55, 28 March 2008 (PDT)
- Here's a proposal of mine:
|
Behind the scenes (Text with behind-the-scenes information for the paragraph in question will be featured here.) |
|
Howzat?--Nevermore 14:50, 28 March 2008 (PDT)
- And here's the second one:
|
Additional details from non-canon media (Text with additional non-canon media details directly related to the paragraph in question will be featured here.) |
|
Thoughts?--Nevermore 06:00, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- Better icon needed. Thats ugleeeeee Plkrtn talk contribs email 06:11, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- Hey, I spent several hours creating a free-for-use icon. If you can find me something better where we don't have to worry about copyright issues, I'd be fully up for that.--Nevermore 06:17, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- So, does the text go inside the template boxes, or below them? If inside, is it centered? That could be ungainly for large chunks of text (anything over one line). Robert K S (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- Personally, I would prefer something that makes the content of the box look not too out of place as compared to the rest of the section, but distinct enough to be instantly recognizable as different from the rest. But yes, Text preferably inside the boxes. I hate giant "THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE REST. NOW READ ON" boxes, especially when the box ends up being larger than the section it's referring to itself. How about this?
| Behind the scenes The cockpit of Oceanic Flight 815 looks different than a Boeing 777 because the production crew used a Lockheed L-1011 to portray the wreckage. |
|
Or more like this?
|
|
Behind the scenes The were some new scenes from the day of the crash shot for "Exposé", and the Tourniquet Man was portrayed by some different dude. |
|
I'm open to suggestions.--Nevermore 14:30, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- How about a two-tiered box? The upper box contains the heading and the logos, and the lower box contains the text. And let's ditch the italics. :-) Robert K S (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
- Sorry about the italics. They were a leftover from the template I based this one on.
And two boxes would look like this:
|
|
Behind the scenes |
|
| This scene was totally weird because it was shot somewhere cool. You can see some of it on the DVD extras, assuming you didn't just download the episode illegally. |
Soehow the "Behind the scenes" text insists on moving away from the left edge.--Nevermore 16:12, 29 March 2008 (PDT)
Past and Present tense[]
- I was attempting to link to this section of the policy to indicate what I thought was the MoS for tense, the reason behind a recent change I made, only to be surprised to find out it was the opposite of what I understood. Was this part of the policy changed without it being written here? I only ask because I'm noting episodes even after the acceptance date of the policy are written in present tense, hence my assumption. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 20:27, 22 April 2008 (PDT)
- There's a lot of good discussion further up on this talk page about tense. The only part of it that didn't seem to make it into the official policy is the part about the lead's summary copied from the ABC Medianet releases (i.e., the blurb that goes into your TV guide) being in present tense. Deviation from the policy is mostly because the episode articles get written entirely in the present tense to begin with, and no one puts in the effort to fix them. The reason for this, I think, is that tense is typically not the only problem. Prose tends to be written banally with lots of example of imprecise or inaccurate modifier choice, and episode articles are often written with inaccuracies based on authors' re-interpretation or misinterpretation of what they saw or heard on the show. So rewriting for tense, by anyone who enjoys writing, becomes more of a chore than just altering the verbs--everything else must be rewritten too. I have done quite a bit of this rewriting, but it's not fun, so I've ashamedly taken a hands-off policy on episode article and let them evolve as they will. You're encouraged to dive in if you think you can help out. Robert K S (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- I changed an article to present tense, thinking it would follow MoS, only to realise I was wrong based on the actual policy. I read the reasons, and I'm not really arguing for change, despite liking the present tense for DVD and international viewer. Anyway, I just wanted to determine if there'd been an unwritten change in policy, and it was the policy page which hadn't been updated. Thanks for filling me in. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:53, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- I've always been a supporter of past tense. We're describing what happened, not what is happening... I think thats what we settled on and I'm personally very happy with that... being English, and the home of language and all that :) Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:50, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- Oh, right. I was just giving my personal opinion, prefaced by saying I wasn't arguing for change. I just wanted to know where things stood. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 08:40, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- I've always been a supporter of past tense. We're describing what happened, not what is happening... I think thats what we settled on and I'm personally very happy with that... being English, and the home of language and all that :) Plkrtn talk contribs email 07:50, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- I changed an article to present tense, thinking it would follow MoS, only to realise I was wrong based on the actual policy. I read the reasons, and I'm not really arguing for change, despite liking the present tense for DVD and international viewer. Anyway, I just wanted to determine if there'd been an unwritten change in policy, and it was the policy page which hadn't been updated. Thanks for filling me in. -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:53, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
- There's a lot of good discussion further up on this talk page about tense. The only part of it that didn't seem to make it into the official policy is the part about the lead's summary copied from the ABC Medianet releases (i.e., the blurb that goes into your TV guide) being in present tense. Deviation from the policy is mostly because the episode articles get written entirely in the present tense to begin with, and no one puts in the effort to fix them. The reason for this, I think, is that tense is typically not the only problem. Prose tends to be written banally with lots of example of imprecise or inaccurate modifier choice, and episode articles are often written with inaccuracies based on authors' re-interpretation or misinterpretation of what they saw or heard on the show. So rewriting for tense, by anyone who enjoys writing, becomes more of a chore than just altering the verbs--everything else must be rewritten too. I have done quite a bit of this rewriting, but it's not fun, so I've ashamedly taken a hands-off policy on episode article and let them evolve as they will. You're encouraged to dive in if you think you can help out. Robert K S (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (PDT)
:* Question, though. Past tense in the entire article, which would include the opening statements about the subject? IOW, should we be saying "Daniel Faraday, physicist and professor, parachuted onto the Island from a helicopter sent by the freighter" instead of the present tense "Daniel Faraday is a physicist and professor who parachuted onto the Island from a helicopter sent by the freighter"? -- LOSTonthisdarnisland 01:00, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Important: episode tense needs to be resolved[]
As things stand now, the Episode Manual of Style and the general Manual of Style are in contradiction about what tense episode synopses should be in. The EMOS states that we should use *present* tense while the MOS states that we should use *past* tense. Up until recently, all of the episodes have been using present tense. The current episode seems to have been written in past tense, and I notice that some users have been converting some of the older episodes into past tense recently. I think before we go changing every episode article, we should resolve this issue and reconcile the two MOS pages so that they do not contradict each other. --Jackdavinci 13:28, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
- So as to have one discussion about this issue and not two parallel ones, let's have all comments go at the thread here. Robert K S (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Small change I think should be made[]
"The show is made in the US, and the site is updated to US airings." in the Spelling and Grammar section should also have "The website is based in the US, and the majority of users come from the US" or something like that added to it. --Blueeagleislander 18:16, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
- Unnecessary, because it's not the determining factor. If the web site was based in Australia and the majority of its users were in China, it wouldn't change the fact that the show is a U.S. product, which is what the rule stems from. Robert K S (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (PDT)
Style Manual Errors[]
Manual_of_Style#Redirection_.26_list_conventions needs a typo correction from redundent to redundant AND a style correction IAW Manual_of_Style#Symbols - lose the ampersand in favor of and in Conventions & lists.... @ –DocH– my edits 20:51, 25 August 2008 (PDT)
Date format[]
I've posted a question over on the Talk:Timeline page that I think is relevant to this talk page also. Robert K S tell me 08:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Capitalization[]
Posting discussion from a disagreement about style. Jack Dutton 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No need to duplicate the entire discussion. A link is sufficient. I have moved this page to match the LP:MOS. Jabberwock talk contribs email - 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Misspellings Annotation?[]
In the Code-named_finale_scenes article, we reference the submitted finale code-word "Invisibul Dinasaur Hed", which was intentionally misspelled for comedic value. Normally in editing, you'd mark it w/ [sic] [1]. I could not find an entry in the style guide for this. So for readability sake, I just added (misspelling intentional) after it, rather than [sic]. Should we update the style guide accordingly? 
Kevrock talk contribs 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need a guideline for the use of sic--that's sort of a general English usage thing and not specific to Lostpedia or a wiki. (The brackets should be used when it comes within a quotation.) I think your solution in this instance is fine. Robert K S tell me 18:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree "misspelling intentional" works in this case. I think "sic" is usually reserved for transcriptions and quoted material. -- Graft talk contributions 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)