FANDOM


Identities

Should Sawyer be referred to as LaFleur? Stlgirl 06:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes made to the transcript - useless and subjective descriptions

I removed the pointless decriptions of Kate's clothes and the ridiculous and painfully obvious Skate reference at the end of this transcripts. Transcripts are an exact description of the episode. Sawyer's expression at the end of LaFleur could mean a lot of things, and trying to swing it to mean that he is still into Kate is an opinion, not a fact. Transcripts should be facts. And unless someone's clothes are relevant -- i.e. Dharma jumpsuits, it shouldn't be included. No one cares what Kate wears when Sawyer sees her and what Sawyer wears to bed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtmoore (talkcontribs) .

What you removed are objective descriptions of the the images shown on screen and their sequence. They were not written by a "shipper". You're welcome to improve the transcripts, but do not remove information. Robert K S (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The focus of the transcripts shouldn't be the descriptions that don't add anything. I agree with Jtmoore's op. It doesn't matter what Sawyer was wearing as he got out of bed. It doesn't add anything to the transcript other than to distract from the dialogue. --Stlgirl 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't notice, but the whole point of the scene was that he jumped out of bed and got dressed in a hurry. Robert K S (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say the whole point of that scene was that Sawyer left in a hurry without telling Juliet that Jack, Hurley, and Kate were back. --Stlgirl 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Jtmoore, I'm sorry, but I think you are projecting anti-ship onto this discussion. The descriptive information is relevent, interesting, and helpful, especially when one doesn't have the video readily on hand to be able to match the conversation to what was going on on-screen. They are in every transcript. Please leave them be. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 05:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't true. Clothing descriptions are not included in other transcripts. --Stlgirl 14:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
O RLY? Jughead_transcript: "A toddler with overgrowing blonde curly hair is wrapped in a white sweater", "Then two more, all in drab olive Army clothing", "Desmond, dressed in a navy blue ballcap, sunglasses, and a scarf", "A middle-aged woman wearing the uniform of a convenience store--a red vest in a "QUIKMART" patch". Guess Robert is just a toddler, soldier, Desmond, middle-aged woman shipper, eh? (Sorry, Robert, trying to make a point) ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean "in any other", geez. Do any of those lines help me understand the dialogue any more? No. And sure, there are situations where the clothing is relevant. Sawyer wearing boxers isn't one of those. --Stlgirl 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The point is you said other transcripts, and yet the first one I randomnly picked had four instances of clothing descriptions. I could have gone on and on with other transcripts, but I'd made my point. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that these scene descriptions are way too detailed and overwritten. Other people might disagree, so let's put this aside for a minute. What you cannot disagree on is the fact that this transcript style is highly inconsistent with previous transcripts from seasons 1-4 (random pick: Confirmed_Dead_transcript). So even if you think it's not too detailed, consistency in structure and style is a major concern for wikis. --MacCutcheon Talk? 15:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's look at your random pick: "[Locke unzips Charlotte's coat. She is wearing Mile's bulletproof vest underneath, with the bullets caught in it]", "[Vincent emerges with the transponder attached to him]" (technically not clothing, but it describe more than just the conversation pointing out it was Vincent coming out of the jungle). Now, I'm sure not many would mind if you added detail to the earlier transcripts.Smiley emoticons smile The differences are the result of different people taking their time to go through and record the transcripts. As I said, I appreciate the details, and the conversations are true to the episodes word for word. The extra descriptions cause no harm to the conversation, and they are very helpful when discussing bits of transcript, so one doesn't have to drag the DVDs out for every little thing when we want to remember what was happening when someone said something specific. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really the same situation. We need to know that Charlotte was wearing a bulletproof vest. That is integral to the story. Vincent being used to fool tracking is integral to the story. Sawyer wearing boxers? Not so much. I think some people would oppose to the useless descriptions being added to earlier transcripts. --Stlgirl 16:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I made a quick analysis and it shows that CD has 4100/1113 words of dialogue/scene whereas LF has 4121/3680. That is definitely a different style. As for adding rich scene descriptions for approx. 100 episodes, I don't see that happen any time soon. Regarding the content and quality of this particular example you chose I agree with Stlgirl. --MacCutcheon Talk? 17:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed from a previous transcript discussion that you were strictly opposed to information removal. Are you claiming that any removal of information is bad for a wiki and should therefore not happen? --MacCutcheon Talk? 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

break

The title of the thread indicates that the original poster's concerns are that the content in question is "useless" and "subjective"--demonstrably false on both counts. As to "useless", Stlgrl repeats the criticism that mention of unmentionables is irrelevant, without addressing the fact, pointed out above, that the whole scene is about clothing and getting dressed. (I say "about" in the superficial sense--getting dressed is the major action that takes place. It is to be hoped that everyone would agree the scene is actually about Sawyer's threatened commitment to Juliet, and his subconscious-to-conscious elevation thereof.) Describing Sawyer's second state of dress makes less sense without describing his first state of dress. As to "subjective", the scene description at the end is an objective description of the sequence of shots presented. The second shot of Kate is a close-up that shows her face and her freckles, i.e., the absence of makeup, in contrast to how she was shown in all the off-Island scenes. The repetition of the names of the two characters merely and succinctly describes the shot sequence, and that the episode ends with a shot of Sawyer, which is only fitting since it is a Sawyer-centric episode. As to the good admiral's concern over the stylistic discrepancy between older transcripts and the ones that I have worked on, this is a concern for me also: the older transcripts need improvement. Throughout, they lack sufficient descriptive detail essential for the reconstruction of scenes in the mind's eye. (They also, in many cases, lack dialogue, or misprint it, the result of not working starting from the CC stream.) When I work transcripts, I promote accuracy, precision, clarity, and brevity, all of which are complementary. A more general term or modifier is always preferably replaced with a more specific one. If this value set is new to the transcripts, then the newer style should be favored. Robert K S (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I have to agree. It's so helpful to go back to a transcript and get the "scenery" with the conversations. Articles are summaries of straight facts; transcripts, however, should not only provide accurate conversation, but should provide the setting, tone, mood, and descriptors of surrounding people. The nature of Lost is new episodes nearly always build on previously aired episodes. Having this information in the transcript helps bring the scene clearly back to mind as the conversation is read. Also, without context, some conversations are useless. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 19:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You say that the original poster's concerns are false, but that is your opinion - it isn't the opinion of everyone. Of course you think it is false, you are the one who wrote the original content. It isn't the mention of unmentionables that I think is unnecessary. He was asleep in bed, and got dressed when he got out of bed. Is it not natural to think he was wearing appropriate clothes? I don't think people would be confused by him getting out of bed and getting dressed for work. If you are trying to convey that Kate is not wearing makeup, simply say that. She still has freckles when she is wearing makeup too. I've asked before, but have not yet found a previous discussion that determined your style of transcript was to be used henceforth. If there wasn't a discussion, then there certainly needs to be. I can't propose it for discussion unless I know whether or not it has previously been discussed. LOSTonthisdarnisland: the issue is not that the scene isn't described or that context isn't given. It is that the descriptions are superfluous. --Stlgirl 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Is it not natural to think he was wearing appropriate clothes?" What's Juliet wearing? :-P Robert K S (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, first, it doesn't matter, and second, even if it did matter, she's dressed appropriately too I suppose. Still though, it has no relevance whatsoever. How about that previous discussion I was asking about ? --Stlgirl 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This page is for discussion regarding this transcript and how to make it better. Stlgirl, if you are looking to change or discuss the entire transcript policy, this would be the proper place to address it, I think. "It is that the descriptions are superfluous" In your opinion, and if you mean as a whole, moving it to that other page, where the community can respond, would be better than clogging on a single transcript discussion page. In reference to this transcript, I disagree that it is excessive for reasons already stated. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I am entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours. As I've already mentioned, my concern is with this transcript, and I am trying to get the information I need in order to raise the proper discussion elsewhere. I'm well aware how pages on wikis work, thanks. --Stlgirl 03:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion seemed to be moving toward all transcripts, so thank you for clearing up you meant that you had a problem with this one in particular. So aside from Sawyer's boxers, what are your exact issues with this transcript? ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"He removes his eyeglasses as Kate steps out from behind Hurley, wearing a tank top and black pants. Her face--those freckles. Kate. Sawyer."

Ok, so I claimed this was subjective. You said no, it's objective and "observed on screen", and that I am being "anti shipper". Well, you're absolutely right on that count, I am being anti-shipper. Transcripts should be 100% objective, meaning they are not slanted towards what the author wants to see. Some people - I am assuming yourself included - might see that scene as having some sort of romantic connotation between Kate and Sawyer. Others, such as myself, do not. I did not get any hint of romance from that scene. Th descriptions of clothes are completely unneseccary, but they are objective and describing what's on screen... however, the line "Her face--those freckles. Kate. Sawyer." is obnoxious and clearly implying the scene has a romanic bent. If you want to be accuate, phrase it like this:

"He removes his eyeglasses as Kate steps out from behind Hurley, wearing a tank top and black pants. The camera closes up on Kate's face and then on Sawyer's face, staring at the returnees in astonishment."

now the whole clothes thing... you claimed that describing what Sawyer's wearing in bed was important because the whole scene is about getting up and getting dressed. That's arguable, but describing what Jack, Hurley, and Kate are wearing when Sawyer reunites with them is completely irrelevant. The fact that Kate is wearing a tank top and Hurley is wearing a jean jacket has absolutely no bearing on the show whatsoever.Jtmoore 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The clothing in the end scene is objective, and it's important enough to prompt two segments in the next episode where James finds them clothing that is not anachronistic. As a result, I've reverted your changes. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me why your obviously "Skate"-pushing comment about "her face - those freckles. kate. sawyer." is necessary. This is CLEARLY you trying to imply there is some sort of romantic connotation. Sorry but not everyone sees it that way. TRANSCRIPTS ARE OBJECTIVE. If you want to try to defend this as "kate wasn't wearing makeup" and it ends with CUs of their faces, just say that. Say "Kate is not wearing any makeup." since you apparently find this so relevant...--Jtmoore 17:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"A transcript is a retrospective written record of DIALOGUE, and like a script (a prospective record) may include other scene information such as PROPS or ACTIONS. In the case of a transcript of a film or television episode, ideally it is a VERBATIM RECORD." (emphasis added)... note that it does not say a transcript includes the authors opinions or subjective interpretation of characters thoughts and feelings. It also does not say it includes descriptions of everyone's attire, but I suppose that could be vaguely considered a prop. However, your last sentence is inexcusably subjective and clearly based solely on your opinion.

It is as bad as saying something like "the monster bursts out of the trees. It appears to be a cloud of black smoke. It is a large cloud of magnetically charged nanobots." That last sentence is, of course, someone's opinion of what the monster IS, not an actual description. Thus, it would not be included. Trying to imply that Sawyer was gazing lovingly at Kate's freckles is your opinion. Keep it to yourself, don't put it in a transcript. If it's that important, go over to the forums and discuss her freckles and Sawyer's "gaze" in a Sawyer/Kate ship thread.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by jtmoore (talkcontribs) .

  • I don't care about the Kate/Sawyer bit, and I'm not a shipper for any of them; I prefer trying to solve the mysteries over the "who's doin' who" parts. What I said, was the clothing description was important enough to be revisited in two more scenes, so it needs to stay. Describing the jean jacket, etc. is objective. It tells what they are wearing, full stop. If we went on about how it was an ugly jean jacket, then it would be subjective, because some might think it was stylish. The clothing bit needs to stay. ---- LOSTonthisdarnisland 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I raised this discussion up one level as it does span over several transcripts. --MacCutcheon Talk? 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC BY-NC-ND unless otherwise noted.