Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article Development

NOTE: As Lost in Space production is being kept very secret most information about the show has been released by way of scant media information and vetted social media releases by cast and crew. This article is built from knowledge, and assumptions where stated, based on that information and has met approval by people related to the production. I can definitely vouch for the facts presented and speculation points have been noted within the article. I will add citations where I can. RokkoRokkoRokkanno (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious that you put a lot of effort in your edits, but wikipedia isn't the place for that style of article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that means that it has to meet certain criteria. In a nutshell: The information provided has to be as verifiable as possible. In theory you could write an article that at least comes close to what you're trying to do here (what TheMovieGuy said about length, structure and writting style is also valid though). Have a look at Wikipedia:Core content policies and I think you will see why the article can not remain in its current form. - Take your work and start a fansite, I am sure people would be interested in one for the show. :) -Abyss Taucher (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The style of this article is not encyclopaedic and definitely needs re-writing from scratch. The article, as it stands, is more suited to a fan-wiki. There are plenty of places on the Web where fan-wikis can be made but Wikipedia is not one of them. The article now has warning templates placed on it due to its nature. These must not be removed until the issues have been addressed. Dyolf87 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I will continue to rewrite until acceptable standards are reached. RokkoRokkoRokkanno (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Angela Goddard name tribute to Angela Cartwright & Mark Goddard

Quite possibly. Likely even.

However, I'm googling "Angela Goddard" "Angela Cartwright" "Mark Goddard" (note the quote marks to only retrieve results with the three full names), and am getting only 23 results - none of which come from a source good enough for wikipedia. All the results are either blogs and forum posts, or ultimately source back to Wikipedia.

Please feel free to claim the name is a tribute if and only if you can find a good source explicitly confirming Mlambo's character's naming as a tribute, or we'll be trapped in a cycle of addition, OR tagging and deletion. Thx CapnZapp (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Premise

"An extinction event is caused in 2046 when a celestial object, dubbed "The Christmas Star" by the media, crashes into Earth. Mankind launches the Resolute, an interstellar spacecraft carrying selected families to colonize a new world."

Extended content

We had this show on in the background the other night, so I'm not 100% sure of this. The current text sounds like the object hits the Earth, then the ship is launched. Didn't the ship launch first? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC) Wait, my understanding was that the Earth was already failing, and the Christmas meteor was actually an alien ship, and that Resolute was powered by an engine recovered from the alien craft. That's why they attacked the Resolute in the first place and why they kept showing up: they wanted their technology back. Am I wrong? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC) I was thinking that the first alien ship crashed in 1 AD. 2000 years later the star drive was discovered and used on the Resolute. A natural disaster aflicted the earth and they launched the Resolute. In the far away galaxy another alien ship appeared to recover the star drive. But did it not crash into the Resolute? Both were damaged. The alien ship crashed onto the planet. Then another alien ship appears. The Resolute looks undamaged! Then the Jupiter is tractored by the alien ship to the alien home world! Enough plot holes to create a Black Hole! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.110.114 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The question: Is the plot summary in the article correct about this basic plot point?

The answer: Yes. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

If not, it should be corrected. Is the show unclear about this point? If so, we should reflect this. If the plot is correct to imply the evacuation was after the impact, that should probably be clarified. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for asking a question relevant to this talk page. Though I am not sure the worth of asking an open-ended question like "is the article correct?". It probably is, or it will be edited shortly. I fully agree any mistakes should be corrected as soon as possible. Usually though, we don't need to expressly discuss this - it is implied we all agree the article should be improved as much as possible. (You personally harboring doubts about the accuracy of the article is off-topic for this talk page though) But to end on a high note - you asked a question and here is my direct answer: yes, the article is probably correct because this is a fairly high-traffic article. In other words, if it was incorrect, it has probably already been corrected by now. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) If people who watched the show are confused by a plot point that is on the Wikipedia, the Talk page is precisely where it should be asked. And SummerPhD didn't ask an open ended question to start. They asked a specific question that drew more confusion and no answers - so the question was broadened. No, the Talk page isn't a place for general discussion, but there's nothing unusual about clarifying a plot that may be wrong on the Wiki, via the Talk page. To that end... No, this place is not the appropriate spot to clear out people's personal confusions. I suppose nobody answered because the only appropriate answer ("no, you're just confused") would probably not have gone down well. As for other posters trusting random comments more than the article itself and getting confused by that, that's not something we need to take responsibility for. Especially since I attempted to hide the section using cot-cob tags to prevent going further down that particular rabbit hole. I will now try again to steer away the discussion from these various wild theories that have no basis in the show. Please don't spend time on discussing these - there are other better venues if you want to discuss the show more than the article. CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC) No, the ship did not take off first. According to Maureen's comments while on the alien ship with Smith, our technological ability to travel outside the solar system was jump-started inexplicably right after the "Christmas Star" hit - hence her supposition that what really crashed was an alien ship and it's engine was taken to use in the Resolute. Based on Maureen's hair growth between the day of the "Christmas Star" crash, and when her boss first gives her indication that they have the capability to travel at 276,000 miles per hour, I'd say the Resolute didn't get off the ground until at least 6-12 months after the crash. The Earth "failing" is the result of the crash of the "Christmas star" sending up a debris cloud, as evidenced by the fact that the air outside their home is entirely normal the day it crashes (when John is hiding outside) and 2 years later Maureen and Penny require masks to do their Christmas shopping (the news report on the TV at the shop says it's the 2nd anniversary of the crash). That the debris cloud will not clear in the Robinson's lifetimes is stated by Maureen when they are weighing the pros and cons of the their applying to be 24th colonists. I have no idea what show 89.241.110.114 was watching, because none of the comments that person made are actual details of the series. There is nothing about an alien ship having crashed in 1 A.D nor that the alien ship crashed into the Resolute. It breached the hull, probably in the same way the second alien robot later tears its way into the Jupiter 2 during the S1 finale. Yes, the Resolute is damaged but they also have been repairing it the entire time the survivors are on the planet - which looks to be weeks at least. And we never get a close look at the Resolute to see if she looks "undamaged." It is only seen from a long distance when it's coming back for the Jupiter 2. There is no tractor beam. The engine from the robot's crashed ship integrates itself into the Jupiter 2's systems and uses some form of faster-than-light travel to take them to another solar system. Presumably the 2nd alien ship - whose robot is destroyed by their robot - is left behind in orbit around the planet (another engine to retrieve later). And we don't know if that is the alien's home system it takes them to - all the robot tells Will is that the double-binary system represents "danger." Finally, the real-time events of the show are set in 2048, with absolutely no reference to the year 2000 anywhere in the show. Which brings us to one place where the current plot synopsis actually is wrong. If the Robinsons (and the rest of the 24th colonists) are on route to Alpha Centauri in 2048, then the "Christmas Star" didn't land in 2046. If it had crashed on December 25, 2046 (that it was Christmas Day is confirmed in the news report at the beginning of episode 9) and two years later they are shopping for Christmas presents, that would make it late December of 2048. If they were going to be on the Resolute before December 31, 2048, John's weight allotment would've been decided by then and Penny would not have been buying him a watch a week before the launch. At the latest, the crash had to take place on December 25, 2045, and the Resolute couldn't have started colony missions until later in the year 2046 (possibly not until 2047, based on the Maureen-hair measure). And after having done all this math I think the simplest solution is to remove 2046 from the equation entirely, and reword the synopsis to only reference the year the real-time events are taking place, 2048. Since that is the only actual year that has been given by Netflix and is referenced in multiple sources. Hence I have made that change. CleverTitania (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I hesitate to answer this, other than to say there is way too much original research mixed into this reply. I'll tag this extended content to encourage us all to keep it out of the article. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Summaries edited

I made several updates to the episode summaries, which made the last two episodes quite a bit longer. I know the page is already tagged for having potentially overly detailed summaries. It doesn't, by a long shot. These are 50 minute long episodes which are packed enough in the middle, but the first and last two are even more dense. I left out huge sets of information and condensed a lot to get 9 & 10 down to two paragraphs. But the versions that were there before had incorrect orders of events and significant grammatical issues, not to mention incorrectly stated information - like claiming Maureen tried to stall takeoff during the beginning of episode 10 when she definitely did not. It also used generic terms in place of established terms on the show, like calling the chariots rovers and the garage a cargo bay. They needed to be rewritten.

Obviously the ultimate goal is to have more extensive episode summaries on their own pages, linked off of season/series pages, with only brief 1-2 line summaries on those. But until there's enough content to justify that kind of hierarchy I genuinely think having an episode summary that's no more than a paragraph per half hour is about as short as you can reasonably expect. Anything shorter ends up being blurbs that convey little-to-no useful reference information.

But what is the content level that does justify the additional pagination?CleverTitania (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using generic terms. "Rover" is quite possibly more easily understood by a random visitor to this page than "chariot" to mean the kind of vehicle used by the show. If this is our consensus, then "rover" should be kept.

As for summary length, many Wikipedians have the view that anything you can't say without exceeding policy isn't worth saying. You need to be prepared to hold off on summaries longer than 200 words unless standalone episode articles can be justified. Several shows have spawned a separate page on episode summaries; unfortunately this still counts as episode lists (and thus 200 words). To create a standalone episode article (and the 400 word allowance) you need to establish notability, which honestly will be an uphill battle. Compared to shows like Friends, Seinfeld and The Simpsons (examples with many such articles), this show is currently entirely obscure, I'm afraid. It is quite possible your long summaries will have to be consigned to page history until and if Lost In Space recieves many many seasons and much more press coverage. Sorry.

Your efforts to correct inaccuracies are appreciated! :-)

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've put my money where my mouth is and trimmed all ten episodes. Early ones from approx 350 words down to less than 250; later ones from approx 600 words also down to less than 250. If there's anything in particular y'all feel I shouldn't have left out, feel free to further work on dem summaries. Hopefully this allows the article to escape the tag (which I removed). Otherwise, feel free to further prune them. CapnZapp (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

trillions of miles from Earth

"trillions of miles from Earth" might sound much, but really is "extremely close to Earth". A single light-year is five trillion miles. Alpha Centauri is more than four times further away.

Obviously it should be trillions of light-years from Earth, if we're supposed to be somewhere else in the cosmos entirely (far outside the Milky Way galaxy). Thanks for fixing this. CapnZapp (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The observable universe is 91 billion light years across. An astrophysicist/aerospace engineer shouldn't say they are "trillions of light years" off course. And if they really want to continue to Alpha Centauri, they have a larger problem than getting back to the Resolute. They have to master wormhole transport technology or something similar to get back to their own galaxy first. BruceBarnett (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Judy's 'parentage'

I'm really not happy with the wording of the Judy's relationship to John at present. I get wanting to clarify that John is not her biological father, but we don't know if calling him her stepfather is accurate. While their relationship has friction it is never once implied that it's because either of them treats it as a "step" relationship, and it's entirely possible that John adopted her at some point and/or raised her from infancy.

I pulled her exact quote about him from the episode and thinking I want to rewrite John and Judy's character entries it in the following fashion. But since some of these points have generated contention I wanted to run it by the other editors.

• Toby Stephens as John Robinson, a former U.S. Navy SEAL, and husband to Maureen. He is the father of Maureen's three children, though in the first season Judy states that John is not her biological father. "Transmission". Lost in Space (2018). Series 1. Episode 5. 13 April 2018. Event occurs at 00:18:46. Netflix. He came into the picture after I was born. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

• Taylor Russell as Judy Robinson, the 18-year-old eldest child of Maureen Robinson and John Robinson. She is a mission doctor, having received accelerated medical training. In series 1 Judy confirms that John is not her biological father, saying to Don, "He came into the picture after I was born." "Transmission". Lost in Space (2018). Series 1. Episode 5. 13 April 2018. Event occurs at 00:18:46. Netflix. He came into the picture after I was born. {{cite episode}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

I figured incorporating her actual quote is the most rational way to handle the subject until (or unless) more specific information about her biological father and her legal relationship to John is later clarified on the show. Thoughts? Also please let me know if I didn't do the episode citation right, it's my first time using that template for a fiction-based series. CleverTitania (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can weigh it's importance to the plot, which is Zero so far. Hence that info has no notability at the moment, and since the character profiles should be kept small it should rather not be included.--Refuteku (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously this would be a debatable point, but I would say the fact that anyone looking at their family would question Judy's biological relationship to one or both of her parents - which is also something both Don and Judy mention in that conversation in "Transmission" - makes it a notable fact for inclusion, regardless of whether or not it's played a significant role in the show's plot thus far.

After all, people new to the show will come to the Wiki first, to find out if there has been any explanation for the fact that Judy appears to be of African descent when both her parents and siblings look strictly European in origin. Part of what makes something encyclopedic information is if it's information that people will specifically and commonly seek out on a topic (as long as said information has a source, which this does). And right or wrong, we still very much live in a society where that distinction of appearance would be questioned. CleverTitania (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Claiming a clearly black man is father to a clearly white child when the mother is also clearly black (or vice versa) without an explanation only causes confusion, so we should certainly avoid that.
2. Our own definition says "A stepfather or stepdad is a non-biological father figure who is married to one's parent." Based on this, it is uncontroversial to claim John is Judy's stepfather.

Does that cover it? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone is not called a step-parent if they adopted the child, even if they're married to one of the biological parents. They are then either referred to as the adopted-parent or just the parent. In fact, if that's the limit to the definition on the Wiki stepfather page I'd say it's wrong and needs to be corrected. Here are the facts we actually have: Judy's last name is Robinson, John has legal parental rights over her (according to the paperwork Maureen sent him to get full custody so she could take them to Alpha Centauri), but John is not her biological father and she was conceived at some point before John and Maureen got together. All of that implies heavily that he adopted her at some point, but even that isn't sourced information; it's inferred. That's why I rewrote it as I did, leaving off any mention of step or adoptive parenting entirely, and stating the distinction in Judy's parentage as concisely as I could. CleverTitania (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as you don't end up calling him her father with no qualification or further explanation, I'm good. (However: It's better to somewhat inaccurately call him her stepfather if that's the only way to avoid the obvious confusion of claiming a black child is fathered by a white man to a white mother.) ´CapnZapp (talk)´CapnZapp (talk)

I would heavily disagree with that parenthetical and would caution you that such a statement could be viewed highly offensive by some people. Firstly, it is entirely possible for two people of one race to give birth to a child that appears to be of another race, due to the balance of dominant and recessive traits. It may be incredibly rare, but yes two white parents have had a black child, just as two black parents have had a white child. And as our society becomes more genetically diverse there's evidence that such apparent racial distinctions are becoming more common (as much as race even exists genetically of course). Secondly, those who view parentage as a much larger issue than biology would argue that calling an adoptive parent a step-parent is on par with dead-naming a transgender person or other forms of deliberately ignoring someone's self-identity. A step parent is a designation for someone who has no legal relationship with the legal child of their spouse. It is not a term that should be used for a custodial parent, regardless of their biological relationship.

I'm also of the opinion that there is no such thing as an "acceptable inaccuracy" in an encyclopedia source. Brevity should never be treated as more important than accuracy. CleverTitania (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, so let's drop that term then. No need to react as if I used a "highly offensive" term. I clearly stated Wikipedia's own definition, so there's no need to take offense, since you know exactly what definition I had in mind. My main concern is to avoid the obvious confusion by calling him her father. That this can biologically happen does not change the fact that it usually doesn't and indeed didn't happen here. There is absolutely no reason to confuse the reader. It is highly jarring for the reader to suddenly be forced out of the article: "wait, what?". The point is that we can and should be able to express this in a non-confusing way. That should not in any way be construed as me forcing you into using terms you aren't comfortable with. Have a nice day CapnZapp (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Please only reply to the things I said, not things you are imagining I said. I never once said I was offended. I pointed out that you have now repeatedly suggested that it would be more controversial to call John her father (which he clearly is both legally and emotionally) than her stepfather - which is a position that many people would and do find highly offensive. I additionally pointed out that there are a lot of people who take offense at having having the importance of such familial definitions treated as secondary to brevity. I don't think there's anything hyperbolic in either point.

The reality is that there's nothing confusing or jarring about calling him her father if the smallest caveat is added, to qualify that she had a different biological parent. If you think it is, I'm afraid that's your perception and not factual. There are millions of people in this world who refer to non-biological parents as their mother or father, and they certainly don't call their legal parents 'step', biological or not. And the law and common parlance follows that same model. That was my point in changing it in the first place - using parenting definitions that are biological over legal is entirely inconsistent with the current parent/child terminology. Pretty much no one does that, thus I can't fathom why you're arguing for it.

So can you explain why you've now removed all references to her parentage so that her relationship to John is now entirely undefined in the character bios? But you left in the reference I created where she establishes that he's not her biological parent, at the end of a sentence that doesn't even mention Judy? Just calling Judy biracial obviously does not remotely answer the question which you agreed above needed to be addressed - of why her racial background does not appear to match that of the rest of her family. I can't tell if that was intentional or an oversight, since your edit notes say that it was repeating information, but you removed both instances of that information. CleverTitania (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll get straight to the point: Is there any other way to phrase it acceptable to you than claiming John is Judy's father? CapnZapp (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I didn't see this reply previously, and just came across it right now (while adding a section on an entirely different topic) I wanted to point out that this issue was later addressed by someone changing the phrasing to calling John her "adoptive father." Which, to me, more than adequately addresses the inaccuracy in how it was written previously. CleverTitania (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm not alone in assuming your absence as consensus, so: no worries. As for my own stance, let me repeat myself: "As long as you don't end up calling him her father with no qualification or further explanation, I'm good." CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

References

"Dr." Maureen Robinson?

Someone tried to change the character description to list Maureen as a doctor - though they actually put Dr. in front of Molly Parker's name, not the character's, so I reverted the edit.

But I did look further into the title. I have found more than a few references to Maureen being called a Dr., but most are not reliable sources, and several seem to be articles that came out during pre-production and casting announcements, which might've been presumptions based on June Lockhart's character being called "Dr." Robinson - since she was a biochemist - rather than the designation of Maureen in the remake. Has anyone noticed if there are reliable sources calling Maureen a doctor in this incarnation of the character? It seems likely she has a doctorate, but I don't recall anyone calling her Dr. Robinson on the show. And as long as the bio mentions that she is an aerospace engineer, I'm not sure adding the extra title makes any difference to giving a clear view of who the character is, and what her role is on the crew/mission. CleverTitania (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

FTR - I did a lot of digging online, and even checked through the show's transcripts. I didn't find any reliable sources calling Maureen a doctor or PhD, beyond initial casting and other early pre-production announcements. And so far, in the show, Maureen hasn't once been referred to or addressed as Dr. Robinson. Though it must be noted that she's also never been addressed or referred to as Mrs. Robinson or Ms. Robinson either. Due to the nature of show thus far, even in flashbacks, most of the people she interacts with just call her Maureen or Mom. Judy is a medical doctor and is only addressed as Dr. Robinson a couple of times. And thinking about it, in engineering - especially aerospace engineering - there isn't the same expectation of seeking a PhD as there is in other disciplines, so it's not that far fetched that someone as knowledgeable and accomplished as Maureen wouldn't have a PhD. Unless something changes in the future, I think it's safe to say that the 2018 version of Maureen Robinson does not have a Dr. in front of her name. CleverTitania (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

CleverTitania, She is called a doctor in the series. It's during one of the episodes towards the middle (late-middle?) of the season (I do not recall which one as I was not paying attention to the episode numbers when watching). — al-Shimoni (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Imeriki al-Shimoni Then you'll need to find a reliable source that says that, which we can link to, because I went over the transcripts from all the episodes multiple times, and didn't find a single instance of her being called Dr, nor any reliable source claiming she is one. And I've already watched the entire season through twice and never recalled her being even addressed as anything but Maureen - hence why I checked the transcripts to make sure I wasn't forgetting an occurrence.

And I'm trying to force myself not to watch it again until closer to Series 2 being launched. :) CleverTitania (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Do not change her title based on a single mention. We use the way she's presented in official material (credits) unless there's a very good reason not to (such as when the official material attempts to hide a spoiler). Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode summary lengths

On 4 September I observed that, despite having been tagged since May 2018 with a single {{plot}} tag at the top of the episode section, 7 episodes had not been reduced in size, demonstrating that the single tag had been completely ineffective, as such tags generally are in TV articles. For this reason I tagged the episodes individualy and, sure enough, within 2 days 4 episodes had been edited. However, CapnZapp has taken exception to this.[1] There are now only 3 episodes that are overlength and use of individual episode tags is entirely appropriate and consistent with the way that the template is used. If CapnZapp disagrees, I challenge him to fix the episode summaries himself. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand both points as it could get a spam-my felling, but on the other hand, one tag is meaningless. I have no idea atm which plot out of the 10 is problematic. It would have been good if the banner had an option of an additional text to plural. Maybe leave only the section banner and at the top of the section leave a hidden note under the one currently in place? --Gonnym (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the tag is meant for a section; hence, the single {{Plot}} tag is correct. (Gonnym's idea of also leaving a hidden comment is a good one.) Surely you also see the hypocrisy in telling CapnZagg to fix the episode summaries when you could also do so, and that would also fix the problem. I think it's a slightly worrying approach to have when you see an unresolved tag and think "the solution is not me fixing the problem, but more tags". Frustrating other editors into fixing the changes you want is an unpleasant tactic that I have been on the receiving end of before. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The tag actually provides no specific direction on use but the examples show that it can be added to an entire article as well as a single paragraph. The episode summaries are analogous to the paragraph option. Note that the temp;ate instructions actually say "This template can refer to a section (or another article part), instead of the default article:" Clearly it is not aimed at just sections. And no, it's not hypocritical. When I saw that the tag had not achieved anything in 4 months I tagged the episodes and 4 were done in two days, so my work was pretty much done.

@Gonnym: - I used to think hidden notes were a good idea but far too many times I've seen them ignored, deleted and the article edited completely contrary to what the note said. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How about something like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonnym (talk • contribs) 10:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

One would hope that would work but my lengthy experience has found that it won't. Yes, it identifies the episodes but, whereas tagging the actual episode allows an editor to just delete the template when they've edited the summary, this requires that they also edit the template, which is generally "too hard". It's more likely they'd just delete the entire template. Until now, individually tagging each episode hasn't been problematic. It just requires a bit more work for the editor adding the tags. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that individual tags are the correct use for such a case, as it becomes unclear which summary needs fixing when only one tag is used, as Gonnym stated. Furthermore, the tag can used as either {{Plot}} or {{Plot|section}}, meaning that the primary use for it is as an individual tag, as tagging a specific section becomes a special case with a special parameter. In response to Bilorv, a single editor may not be able to fix the issue; I, for one, have never seen this series, so while I may be able to tag the summaries as being too long, I cannot easily solve the issue, as I have not seen the episodes in question and thus cannot determine what is relevant and what is not. -- Alex^TW 02:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if you have seen the series, it can be impractical to go back and view episodes so that you can rewrite summaries. Maintenance templates identify that there is a problem that needs fixing and we've actually had RfCs that resulted in some templates being used in a more specific way. For example, {{cleanup}} now requires a reason for cleanup to be included because it was found that simply dumping it at the top of an article or section, as is the case with this article now, was insufficient. There is no requirement that people adding templates fix the problem that the template addresses, just that the reason for adding the template be clear and this is not what dumping the template at the top of the section achieves. It may as well not be there. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When it's a problem of 13 words (as it is for ep9), it really can be copyedited by someone who's never seen the episode; we just want syntactic changes to use fewer words. For instance, "The group trapped in the cave manage to narrowly escape." can be replaced with "The group trapped in the cave narrowly escape." without losing an iota of detail. I'll leave as an exercise how to improve upon the latter. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When it's a problem of only 13 words it is most likely no problem at all, and I personally would recommend that you just remove the template. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode 9 isn't one of the 3 remaining episodes that are too long, nor was it tagged a being too long. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

My mistake, but my point about being able to easily trim a lot of words without really changing the content of the summary still stands. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

In most cases it is true but I have seen plenty of instances where well meaning editors unfamiliar with the subject have completely changed the meaning of what is written, sometimes by the addition or subtraction of just one word. However, this is true for many articles, not just TV episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Normal procedure is for a tag to refer to the talk page when the tag itself isn't sufficient - here you can explain any nuances and details about said tag. In short: how come we're discussing as if talk pages doesn't exist for this specific purpose? Don't spam tags to "force" readers into becoming editors. Don't use the article to send messages to editors, that is why there's this second tab called "talk". Use cleanup templates in moderation. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard that before. It is not written in the tag itself nor in its template page. --Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

All cleanup templates assume this. That is, specifying a reason or providing details in the template itself seldom works out well, since space is limited. Instead "see talk" or providing an actual link directly to a talk page section is good practice. Even if this isn't explicitly mentioned, the talk page is where we discuss the article, so... Feel free to learn more at WP:TC - you'll notice that "long plot" is one of the templates introduced there. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That said, you might have a point in that the long plot template specifically might need to be more clear. That's a question for Template talk:Long plot, though. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Normal procedure is for a tag to refer to the talk page when the tag itself isn't sufficient - The tag is sufficient if the episodes themselves are tagged. Then there is no need for anyone to go anywhere except to the episode entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Use tags in moderation. (Do not overtag. Do not add multiple instances of the same tag.) Nothing suggests you understand the purpose of cleanup templates. It is not to be a nuisance to readers. It is not to badger editors into making edits. The way you started this section reveals that this is your current aim, and you need to stop it. However: this talk page is not the appropriate forum for this discussion. If you really must contest this further, I suggest you take it up on WT:Template messages/Cleanup or perhaps the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Since I have nothing more to say on this matter that's relevant to Lost in Space, I won't. That does not mean my future silence in this discussion thread is to be interpreted as consensus - I will still revert any attempts at tag spamming with a pointer to my existing comments here. Unless, of course, you can achieve consensus on a higher policy level (suggestions for appropriate talk pages given above). Of course, then you risk being educated on the proper usage of these templates by others. Bye now, CapnZapp (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing suggests you understand the purpose of cleanup templates. - This is a personal attack, and is not appropriate. Most of the 193,000 edits that I have made to Wikipedia over the past nearly 13 years have been maintenance of articles. I understand the purpose of cleanup templates quite well thankyou very much.

It is not to badger editors into making edits - The template isn't being used for that purpose. It is used to clearly and instantly identify to editors which specific episodes require editing, otherwise they have to search to find out what episodes need fixing.

The way you started this section reveals that this is your current aim, and you need to stop it. - People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. At Template talk:Long plot you started a discussion only after you removed the templates and then had to backpedal, claiming that this article had nothing to do with your decision. You even referred to a "spat" which only you apparently believe existed. You wrote If a plot summary is even one word over the limit (often 200) some zealous editor immediately slaps this sucker onto the article which is not the case. As I explained to you, the script used to check plot summary lengths gives some leeway. Nobody would add the tag if the summary was only "one word over the limit". You appear to be on a crusade here and you need to stop it.

If you really must contest this further - I'm not the one contesting what is normal procedure.

I will still revert any attempts at tag spamming with a pointer to my existing comments here. - What you consider tag spamming is considered normal practice and if you revert attempts to tag articles being tagged you may find yourself receiving warnings from other editors and may even find yourself unable to edit. Please don't be disruptive. "I don't like it" is not a valid excuse. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that we can tag individual sentences, sections, or articles for lacking proper sourcing, it seems reasonable to be able to tag articles or sections of articles in a similar manner when they have overly-long plot summaries. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Doniago above. The tag is not useful if it isn't attached to a particular "chunk" that needs attention. We need to be able to clearly indicate which part of the list of episodes is overly long. Often it's just 1 or 2 entries in a list of 10, 15, 22, etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Do note that Wikipedia offers inline tags for individual sentences and parts of sentences. Inline tags were developed precisely because of the way regular tags can disrupt the reading experience (our articles aren't there for editors, they're there for readers. There's a whole page where editors can discuss articles, and you're reading it). Individual tags on each and every episode summary is definitely disruptive for the reader (in other words, it makes the article look like crap). Also, it is indistinguishable from shaming, even when that is not intended - meaning, we can't allow it, or we open the door for bullying. CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I do fully agree with the following bit (of Doniago's): "it seems reasonable to be able to tag articles or sections of articles" (my emphasis). CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Finally, since this issue is clearly about long plot (a cleanup template) in general rather than Lost in Space in particular, I suggest this discussion is taken to a more appropriate forum, gaining the input of more editors, before any consensus summary is attempted. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Tags for individual sentences are generally not appropriate as it's the entire plot summary that is the issue. All of the content within the summary might be entirely correct, it's the overall length that is the problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)