Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 15

Online distribution

The whole 3rd season is currently available streaming online for free, and has been for a while. The article currently seems to suggest online streaming ended in June 2006.

The article appears outdated in regard to UK online distribution rights. When Sky tv took over for the third season they started to offer episodes of Lost via their online service Sky Anytime

Peer review for Paulo (Lost)

Check it out: Wikipedia:Peer review/Paulo (Lost)/archive1. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Is the semi-protection that began on February 10 still necessary or can it be lifted? --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Seasons

Is there any news on how long they plan to continue LOST, it was for a time planned to be up to 8 seasons I believe?

The producers have said that they want 4-5 seasons. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At Comic-Con 2006, it was said that they MIGHT do a 5th season.

• They did indeed state a 5th season may take place at Comic-Con. I think this is worthy of posting in this entry.

Ratings need updating

Not only are the ratings out of date, but in some cases distortions. Zap2it does not break down numbers to age groups. Yet whomever used them in a footnote to claim the show is still No 8 used that site to claim so. The show, in fact, is in danger of finally falling out of the top 20 shows for the 2006-2007 season. RoyBatty42 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

         site your source for that statement please24.99.214.137 03:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation plot similarities

100% OR, but When the Bough Breaks (TNG episode) has some similarities to the plot of "the others" and their reason for bringing Juliette to the island.

I took the T off the end of "Start Trek". Both places. If there was another show called Start Trek: The Next Generation, I apologize to all its fans...

no spoilers in general info area!

I moved this to the Season 3 section:

There are going to be five deaths and one nasty showdown for Season 3's final episodes of Lost.

PLEASE DON'T PUT SPOILERS IN THE MAIN INFORMATION SECTION!!

I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!! OR PUT A SPOILER WARNING!!!!!!!!!

I like how you yourself didn't bother to put a spoiler warning or something on your comment. It's just as bad.

Bluddy fuc*ing brilliant, now I'll be doing bodycount with my left hand while I'm watching the last epi...... PureRumble 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Even mentioning that they "make contact with a rescue team" is too much.

remove the part about the series finale

This is a suggestion, but come on, revealing that there are going to be more deaths sucks. Maybe it's not that big a deal, as we expect people to die on the show. But still, that tidbit of information should be marked as some type of potential spoiler. YanShen 01:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Information about episodes that have yet to air should be removed entirely. I happened to casually glance at the Season 3 section looking for a link to the episode list, and that spoiler shot out at me like a sore thumb. Not cool. 204.115.253.51 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Is scifiwire a reliable source for rumors about future episodes

There has recently been an addition of rumored future plot developments, sourced to scifiwire (which looks like it got it from another rumor site, both of which present it as an unsourced rumor instead of attributing it to a cast or crew member). Is this a reliable source, or a dubious one? I don't consider it reliable and prefer to use "official" sources for future information, but I'd like to hear what other editors think.

On a similar note, even if we do judge this a reliable source, is this rumor really appropriate for the main show article? Input would be appreciated. --Minderbinder 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's verifiability, that counts.. not truth. Sci Fi Wire has editorial oversight which makes it a valid secondary source, Sci Fi Wire's article also states "Sci Fi Wire is frequently cited as a source of breaking news by other Web sites and by publications as varied as the New York Post and TV Guide". Matthew 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And verifiability is based on reliable sources, not just any sources. This particular source is just quoting Ausiello, the rumor columnist for TV guide, who gets his info from even more questionable sources (some of whom sometimes give him intentionally incorrect "foilers") and has a history of often getting things wrong. The rumor column absolutely fits the definition of dubious sources: "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". --Minderbinder 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact a reliable source publishes it, to me, indicates reliability -- "The rumor [sic] column absolutely fits the definition of dubious sources: 'poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight'", could you cite me a poor-rep for fact checking/no oversight? - "Secondary sources draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims" -- WP:NOR. Night! Matthew 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sic? I'd like to hear from other editors on this. AdamDeanHall, why do you insist on wording that is less similar to what the source actually says? --Minderbinder 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cast List

I think the "Starring" section should include all billed cast members throughout all 3 seasons as this is done for every other show on Wikipedia. --HolySock92 01:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As this page is for the series, I think it would better if the cast members who starred in all three seasons were listed. This would also make it shorter. i.e. Jack, Sayid, Jin. --thedemonhog talk contributions 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Nigerian Catholic priest and former criminal Eko"

My understanding was that Eko's brother was the priest and Eko got mistaken for him 09:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode summaries

I've been noticing poor puncuation and spelling, as well as altogether unprofessional writing of the sypnosis' for the most recent episodes (almost every episode of this season, if I'm correct). It's as if I'm reading a fan page rather than an encyclopedia; too many short sentences that aren't needed, repeated use of the same word or description, etc.; really quite irritating. Thus far, I've been doing my best to shape up these rather substandard articles whenever they're posted. What can be done about this? RattleandHum 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

you can keep correcting mistakes, and bitch about it less.

You can also correct your own "puncuation" and spelling. The plural of synopsis is not synopsis'.

Character Images

What is the reasoning behind not allowing character images such as this...?

http://de.lostpedia.com/de_images/thumb/7/7c/Juliet.jpg/200px-Juliet.jpg

Not only do I think the article looks more professional with pictures such as these from reliable sources (ABCmedianet, lost-media etc.), ABC actually uses them on the official Lost homepage, so I see no reason why Wikipedia should not use them.

JPGH123 11:49 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ABC has the right to use the images, wikipedia does not. posting images on the internet does not make them public domain.

New noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Discredited theories

Several of the more common fan theories have been discussed and rejected by the show's creators, the most common being that the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 are dead or in purgatory. This was specifically denied by J.J. Abrams and was also proven to be wrong by the second season's finale.[46]

Uh-oh Pendragon39 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh? 1) Plane crashes can be faked. 2) Cooper was drugged. He only assumed he died. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. There are enough supernatural phenomena going on to suggest they are in purgatory or somewhere else just as fanciful. And lo and behold we have Walt showing up on the island and telling Locke to shrug off that bullet wound. Please! Pendragon39 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion (or discrediting) of the theory that "Lost" is a continuation of "The Prisoner"? 198.6.46.11 20:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• "plane crashes can be faked", indeed, by whom? and why?

im guessing the others.... on a related but seperate note... could someone check out this link, notice the quip at the very end about purgatory, by Sayid.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uILtQTnWNkE&NR=1 also if some has information on this clip, why it was made, when?

lol wut? what's up with that youtube clip?

Casting section

There is a {{unsourced}} template in the section, but all the info comes from the (mentioned) Before They Were Lost docummentary, except for the part where the ABC executives wanted Jack alive. Must we put a link for the DVD ref in each sentence? Wikipedical 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD- Lost Spoilers

An article was created listing spoilers for Season 3. The AfD page can be found here. -- Wikipedical 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode Numbering

For every other tv show in the world, when they air a double-length episode, it counts as 2 episodes in the overal numbering and season numbering. See the List of Episodes for Seinfeld, Friends, CSI, Las Vegas, etc for examples. For some reason, all wikipedia articles on Lost listed the double-length season finales as single episodes. I went ahead and changed this across all Lost wikipedia pages. The producers themselves count the double-length episodes as 2 episodes: See this source, especially the line "The agreement with ABC will bring the total number of episodes to 120." 25+24+23+16+16+16 = 120. If the double length season finales counted as one episode, there's only be 117 episodes (24+23+22+16+16+16), not 120. -BaconLover 15:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but the official reference is ABC. If the official Lost episode guide says that the first season is 24 episodes, the article needs to list 24 episodes. There is no better verifiable source. -- Wikipedical 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's slightly incorrect... press releases would superceed an official website, primarily because "official websites" are often done by people unrelated with production. This ABC press release has it stated as "124/125", none the less the issue doesn't bother me. Matthew 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should Lost be the ONE show on wikipedia where double length episodes are counted as 1 episode? EVERY OTHER SHOW counts double length episodes as 2 episodes. They will live on forever in syndication as 2 episodes. In other countries they air as 2 episodes...etc. Just because ABC was nice enough to let them air 2 episodes back to back as a 2 hour episode on its first airing doesn't mean that Lost should be treated differently than any other show on wikipedia. -BaconLover 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The finales were not two episodes aired back to back. They were aired as single episodes with a single set of credits. They were written and produced with the intention of airing as single episodes, and they will live on in eternity on the DVDs as single episodes. This is also not the only show on wikipedia that does this. I know that The Office (US TV series) has several "super sized" 45 minute episodes as well as several hour long ones, but they are all still counted as single episodes. How they will air in syndication is not important (I understand that some shows in syndication get censored or have large chunks cut out to fit more commercials), it's how they were originally aired and/or are presented on the DVDs that counts. -- DocNox 03:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. If ABC calls it one episode, it's counted as one episode. Same with the DVD's. Please don't make big changes like this without discussing it first and getting consensus. --Minderbinder 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'd desagree, the DVD sets counts double episodes as 2 different episodes, each one has it's own opening credits, ending credtis, title cards and the traditional "LOST" at the end of the episode (the only exception so far being Exodus Part 1, which ends with "To be continued...".

The Season 1 DVD lists: DISC 1 / Episode 1 - Pilot - Part 1 / Episode 2 - Pilot - Part 2 / Episode 3 - Tabula Rasa / Episode 4 - Walkabout / / DISC 2 / Episode 5 - White Rabbit / Episode 6 - House Of The Rising Sun / Episode 7 - The Moth / Episode 8 - Confidence Man / / DISC 3 / Episode 9 - Solitary / Episode 10 - Raised By Another / Episode 11 - All The Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues / Episode 12 - Whatever The Case May Be / / DISC 4 / Episode 13 - Hearts And Minds / Episode 14 - Special / Episode 15 - Homecoming / Episode 16 - Outlaws / / DISC 5 / Episode 17 - In Translation / Episode 18 - Numbers / Episode 19 - Deus Ex Machina / Episode 20 - Do No Harm / / DISC 6 / Episode 21 - The Greater Good / Episode 22 - Born To Run / Episode 23 - Exodus - Part 1 / Episode 24 - Exodus - Part 2 / / DISC 7 / Episode 25 - Exodus - Part 3

I could also copy the second season DVD box, but to make it short: it lists Live Together, Die Alone as episodes 23 and 24.--Morpheos 22:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• If we're looking for someone related with production, Lost executive producer Damon Lindelof stated that there will be... 117 total episodes. -- Wikipedical 00:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Where is the criticism section? Like when Seth McFarlane publicly criticized the show for creating a story without knowing the ending saying that any show like that will "suck"? This page must be good, because it has a star, but it somehow missed out on a clear criticism section. Falling ratings also highlights peoples criticism of the show, obviously. And I am sure there must be an abundance of media and print media personalities and reviewers that have voiced clear criticism of the show, either from the get go or as the series progressed JayKeaton 03:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

apparently not enough to warrant a criticism section. if you feel that there is enough criticism, and you can find sources to back shit up, then go on ahead and create a criticism section yourself. there's at least one other person who feels the same as you.

Opening sentence

The opening sentence includes "Emmy and Golden Globe". The first paragraph of leads are supposed to be basic information about the show, while subsequence paragraphs should be about its impact. Winning awards is something that show has done, but not what the show is. Also, it's biased toward those two awards, when the show has won other awards. Even if someone recognizes Emmy and Golden Globe as "THE" awards for television programs, it doesn't change the bias toward using them over others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The opening sentence should simply state what the subject of the article is. Things like awards should be mentioned later in the article. The same also goes for artists who have "Grammy Award winning" in the first sentence. Spellcast 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Why don't we have a page like the Lost Timeline at TViv.org? (a Television wiki) At the very least I think it should be added to the External Links.—MJBurrage • TALK • 12:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fancruft that belongs on Lostpedia and similar wikis. If you wouldn't find it in an encyclopedia, it probably doesn't belong here. Lumaga 16:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting something of the same level of detail necessarily, either a link, or an overview. I came here looking for a general breakdown of how three years of television fit into 90 days on the island, and had to go else ware to find anything useful. How would such a page be less appropriate than: Chronology of Rome (TV series), History of the BattleTech universe, or the any of the 60+ articles under Category:Fictional timelines and its subcategories. —MJBurrage • TALK • 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a good reason for keeping something. Just because others have created cruft does not mean we should also. I think WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE applies since Wikipedia is not here to be your personal guide to the series. It is an encyclopedic overview of important information about the series nothing more. Gdo01 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that wikipedia isn't meant to serve the purpose of a fansite. So what about linking to lostpedia or another appropriate fansite that does cover the series in more detail? --Minderbinder 21:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh thats a can of worms there. For some reason, before I started editing the Lost pages, there has been some type of embargo against Lostopedia. I don't know the reason why but someone who has been editing the Lost pages for a longer time can probably tell you why links to that Wiki are not allowed. Gdo01 21:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites. Basically, speculation and fan-run website equals no link. Gdo01 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He actually knows about linking to Lostpedia, I believe he even participated in a discussion. None-the-less it still isn't WP:EL compliant. Matthew 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that a link would not be allowed, it's that a few editors made vocal objection to linking. EL allows stable and active wikis, and Lostpedia certainly contains material that goes beyond what wikipedia has but wouldn't all be added here because of level of detail. I'd like to revisit the discussion and see if there's a consensus to add a link. --Minderbinder 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it confined to the above discussion. The last thing we need is for heated discussion to become disorganized and scattered. Gdo01 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lostpedia

What do editors think about adding a link to Lostpedia, either a link to the main page, or any appropriate links to useful subpages there? Personally, I think it is a very useful resource that goes beyond the level of detail wikipedia is at. It also is stable and generally accurate (seems to be at least as accurate as wikipedia's articles on the show generally are). I'll also note that there has been some major revision over there, particularly splitting out editor theory/speculation onto separate pages which I feel has raised the level of accuracy and quality there. I'd like to hear what other editors think, and I'd like to note that while this has been discussed before, consensus can change. If you oppose inclusion, I'd like to hear reasoning beyond "but we already discussed this". --Minderbinder 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My god, didn't you just read what I just wrote. Keep it confined to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites. Gdo01 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Still don't believe it meets any of the points at WP:EL nor do I consider it a reliable source, I might consider Lost Wikia, that at least seems less obtrusive and more verifiable (would need to ehar a good case though!) Matthew 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a lack of impartiality by linking to any site created or ran by Jimmy Wales? It sure seems it to me. --90.192.92.118 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we should have a discussion about this article on the talk page of another deleted article. Especially since that old discussion isn't really relevant since consensus can change. Matthew, why specifically do you consider Lostpedia to be less verifiable and more obtrusive (what does that even mean in this context?) than Lost Wikia? --Minderbinder 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory sub-pages speak for themselves (e.g. [1]). Also, did I mention it has a very unwiki like nature? It actually protects pages unaired episodes and even promotes systemic bias! It's shocking (*shudder*). Matthew 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lostpedia never claims to be Wikipedia, why do people believe that all wiki based sites should follow wikipedia's rules? --90.192.92.118 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that none of those have anything to do with wikipedia policy. I'm not sure what your objection is to the theory subpages, they are off the main article pages the same way that talk pages are, outside the content namespace. And "unwiki like" isn't a criteria for inclusion or exclusion (whether you agree that it is or not, I'm not sure what you mean but it doesn't seem relevant). I also don't get your objection to page protection or your claim that it promotes systemic bias, are these serious complaints? Please don't forget that we have a guideline that lists the criteria by which we decide to include external links. --Minderbinder 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I use Lostpedia all the time for LOST information. It is really comprehensive. I would strongly support adding it. Zomic_13 22:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Lostpedia has been discussed many times on this page (see the archives and above-mentioned subpage). It's already listed on WP:WAF as an example of a 'non-encyclopedic wiki. It's still not suitable for this page. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, it's listed as an example of a site that uses more in-universe perspective - that page doesn't say those sites are "non-encyclopedic" nor does it recommend not linking to them (and "encyclopedic" isn't a criteria for linking or not at EL either). Some sites listed there, such as Memory Alpha, are linked extensively from wikipedia. --Minderbinder 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears. Gdo01 22:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you completely missed the part of my posts where I pointed out that inclusion of a link is completely supported by WP:EL and nothing at WP:WAF says otherwise? My mention of OTHERCRAP is merely an illustration that WAF isn't about what not to link. --Minderbinder 22:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say that? I was just showing that you keep on having to fall back on that. Stick to your guns on real policies rather than what may exist elsewhere. Gdo01 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

My reason is that a link meets the criteria at WP:EL, as explained in more detail in the first post of this thread. So what's your opinion on linking there? And I'd appreciate if you could give a reason based in real policy, I note that so far none of the reasons to exclude have had any basis in wikipedia guidelines. I think you'd call that WP:IDONTLIKEIT? --Minderbinder 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Lostpedia fails Links to avoid number 12: "Links to open wikiss, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". 12,000 editors does not count as substantial. Maybe when you have 100,000+ editors.... - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously, you think twelve thousand editors isn't "substantial"? I'm going to ask for outside opinions at EL about that one. --Minderbinder 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, 15,000 is not substantial. WP has over 4 million, and a quick check of several wikis at WAF have around 127,000 each. 15k may seem like a lot, but it's not enough. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

12,000 is obviously substantial. Let's not be silly, that's an entire city. Wikis are in general bad links, but anything more than 100 editors is substantial. However, just because it obviously doesn't not fail the "substantial" text doesn't mean it should be linked. 2005 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a level of irony in that statement surely? Wikipedia in itself is an unverifiable wiki, written by fans of subjects that are not necessarily experts or connected with the subject. Further more, I think 74,000,000 page views in less than 2 years does show that this site is well known and well used by many. --90.192.92.118 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be surprised if that number is fake. Also, as Wikipedia:General disclaimer states: "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". Matthew 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okaaaay, waiting for the other shoe to drop, what irony? As for the other comment, The national Enquirer is well known and well used, so that obviously is no criteria one way or another for anything. 2005 23:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We should try to look at this objectively. For example, compare the wikipedia synopsis of season 2 with the synopsis with the last episode of season 2. There's a lot more detail (and better written), more pictures, even a complete transcript. I agree that the wikipedia (a general reference) should not try to be a comprehensive reference for a TV show, but it makes sense for the wikipedia to point to a comprehensive reference. I would note, the comparision of the number of contributors for wikipedia and lostpedia is misleading, as the 4 million WP editors are spread over a huge range of topics, whereas the 15,000 LP editors (and admins) are concenrated on one subject. I vote for a Lostpedia link. Clemwang 18:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Live Together, Die Alone page on Wikipedia? It is just as long as the one on Lostpedia (and should be shortened). --thedemonhog talk contributions 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Length is irrelevant, Lostpedia's pages are just full of trivia/questions and theories. Oh, and add "transcripts" to the list of WP:EL failures and copyright violations. Matthew 09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I never knew that we had a policy preventing sites containing trivia, questions or theories being added to external links. Trivia/OR etc are policies for WIKIPEDIA CONTENT, not external content. Isn't having a 3rd party site with all this the ideal solution? Lostpedia is popular, relevant to the topic and contains useful content which the article doesn't contain. -- Chuq (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that "trivia" isn't a reason to exclude an EL. And as I've pointed out already, Lostpedia's article pages contain little if any theories, they are in a completely separate namespace, same as talk pages. --Minderbinder 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "Theories" are on subpages, not "separate namespaces". Furthermore, Lostpedia contains transcripts, which are copyright violations, even with a disclaimer. Please read policy concerning links to copyright violations - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the amount of content taken from Lostpedia and placed into Wikipedia articles at times, I'd be careful of accusing anyone of copyright violation. I don't believe there is any policy against linking to potentially copyright violated content either. Anyway, firstly its up to the copyright holder to police that, not Wikipedia, and there is a link to Lostpedia's Wikipedia article, so I don't understand the argued need for a link directly to the site itself. It doesn't matter what is said, as once again a few power-hungry users will steer articles in their own way, rather than having a discussion where consensus is for something... 217.65.158.120 10:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Paulo (Lost) to become a featured article... hopefully

Remember the useless character who told toilet jokes and then got accidentally buried alive? You know, Pablo or Paolo or something. Well, I have extracted all information on him from the Internet to write a great article on him. Go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paulo (Lost) to talk about the pros and cons of the article. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Seasons 4-6

It says that they will air uninterrupted, does that mean no gaps inbetween the seasons? ^DAVID _CAT 12:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No it means that when they air between February and May, there will be no repeats aired. --90.192.92.118 17:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait where does it say it's been renewed for a fifth to sixth season? Griffenflash 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

google is your friend.

Sky One Podcast Info

Sky One doesn't run 4radio, Channel 4 do, they hosted the podcast when they had the airing rights to Lost, but Sky host it themselves now that they have the rights to air the series. --90.192.92.118 17:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost

The polar bear is from the Darma people.

aaaand? did someone forget to take their meds today?

Where did criticisms go?

There use to be a section detailing various critical disappointment about incoherent plot lines and the fact the show regularly seems to be "made up as it goes along", what happened to this sections?

The article currently reads as though such fairly widespread opinion does not exist. It would seem to be an important section to me, based on how many times such criticism has been mentioned by TV critics and such. In fact the entire article reads like it has been written by the series producers, with large sections about released DVD and merchandise written in a style that borders on advertising and suppressing any critical expression. How on earth did this get Featured Article status??? Canderra

If you have criticism for a reliable source, the add it and cite it. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there have been many criticisms with appropriate sources which are no longer shown on this page. Canderra 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So be bold and add them back yourself. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to a version of the page where the criticism section existed?--Opark 77 13:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through history, but it must have been removed a long time ago, because even over 2000 versions back, I can find no such section. Just so you know, you can browse the history to find past versions (usually what you're looking for is easier, but this is a heavily edited page). So if reliable sources do exist, they'll probably have to be added in anew. --Bonesiii 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remember a criticism section either. Maybe Canderra got confused with the Lost (season 3) page. --thedemonhog talk contributions 23:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all "they're not making it up as they go along" If you look through the seasons you'll see things that they knew were going to happen even as far back as season 3. As for incoherent plot lines... I can't think of anything. Everything is confusing until they explain something which they have been doing a lot recently. But if you can find it cite it and add it! --ISeeDeadPixels 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There should be an article on the island itself, shouldn't there?

I mean, it's central to everything, boasts a number of odd features and is basically worshipped by Locke who says it demand sacrifices and he can talk to it and etc. Basically it definetely needs it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I agree, maybe you should write one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Articles like this are more suited to sites like Lostpedia, probably not Wikipedia so much. A section in Mythology of Lost (haven't checked yet to see if there is one) or a similar article would probably be better. -- Chuq (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the minute the island has a name it should get its own entry. Until then, it belongs in a 'Mythology of Lost' section. ~ Thirdrail

Nikki & Paulo as main characters?

These 2 characaters are listed as main characters, even though they were in it for 6 episodes? I think they should be supporting/ secondary at most. (Jwilso72 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

They had been cast as main characters for season three even though they weren't used as much as the producers wanted. Lumaga 03:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fansite Link needs to be removed

Author J. Wood's Powell's blog should be removed from other media. The blog theorizes on the connections between literary mentions and the show's narrative. Also, J. Wood's book has been hammered by the fan community for numerous errors in the character descriptions and leaps of interpretation that have no basis in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.235.116 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Discredited Theories Needs Updating

Discredited theories needs to be updated. Time Travel and Aliens have not been discredited. The quote cited to backup that assertion is made with regards to what has been shown on that season. To say it is broad enough to discredit those theories is grossly out of context. Here is the original quote that was cited:

"We're still trying to be ... firmly ensconced in the world of science fact," he said in an interview. "I don't think we've shown anything on the show yet ... that has no rational explanation in the real world that we all function within. We certainly hint at psychic phenomena, happenstance and ... things being in a place where they probably shouldn't be. But nothing is flat-out impossible. There are no spaceships. There isn't any time travel."

Particularly, Lindelof is discussing what has been shown on the show up until that point only (season one). Since Lindelof and Cuse have subsequently confirmed that Desmond did time travel in an article by Jeff Jensen, there is even more evidence that Damon's comments are retrospective to the first season only.

Further more, part of this statement, the assertion that everything has a rational explanation in the real world, has been retracted numerous times as a statement made prior to the mapping of the full story.

I agree. I looked at the site that was used as source, and there's not a single mention of spaceships, aliens, or Hugo and his crazy dream. The person who wrote the wikipedia paragraph was making it up, and used an unrelated link as their 'source'. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.156.35 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking, but still...

"Each episode also features a storyline from a character's past (in one case so far, future)."

This line is wrong. The last episode of season 3 doesn't have a storyline from the future. The storyline IS the future. The island sections of this episode are the flashbacks. Notice the episode ends on Jack and Kate in the real world, not the island.

• There's no evidence that says the flashbacks are the island. Plus, if Jack is having the island flashbacks, how did he know what was going on in the Looking Glass or at the beach? He wasn't even present for those events. ShadowUltra 15:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think its nessacary. While it's obvious to us that one ep appears in the future, are you able to source it? And while Wiki is not censored for spoilers...doesn't mean we have to include one in the opening paragraph of the main page. I would suggust

"Most episode also features a storyline from a character's past."

but ofcourse "most" is a word we should also avoid on Wiki, since it could meanwhere between 51-99%. Anyone got any other ways we could mention this without brackets or referencing the future? (Rekija 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't have every episode available right now to check, but I'm pretty sure no episode of the show has ever ended on a flashback. Which would indicate to me that island scenes were the flashbacks in the final episode. And while I agree with the sentiment about Jack not knowing about the events underwater, that's not a rule the Lost people maintain for the flashbacks. You get to see lots of little things in the flashbacks that the memory anchor person didn't actually see or know. For instance when Kate is on the phone with the agent chasing her, you get to see the agent sitting in his office on the other end of the phone. That's not her memory. She's hundreds or thousands of miles away on a different telephone.

You are wrong, there has been at least one episode ending on a flashback: 2x18 "Dave" ended on Libby's flashback at the mental hospital. Benjil 10:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind however, that EVEN IF the actual island events were the flashbacks in the the season 3 finale, it can still be said that all episodes included a storyline about a characters past. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hatetodd (talk • contribs) 00:43, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Season 3 finale spoiled

Thanks wikipedia for spoiling the season 3 finale, by revealing that the flashbacks of the episode are set in the future before I've seen it. This is done right at the beginning of the main article in the second sentence. Use spoiler warnings please!

I agree there's no reason to have a spoiler for the 3rd season final in the second article of the main page. (Rekija 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

First, please sign your post with four tildes ~~~~. Generally, one can not count on Wikipedia for spoiler warnings. We are, after all, an encyclopedia - not a fan site. For future reference DO NOT read these articles if you have not watched all current episodes and you want to avoid all chance of spoiling the episode for yourself. Ursasapien (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "off-island" which says the same thing but gives away less. JohnRussell 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When I'm catching up on something on DVD, I look at one of the old pages from the history instead, so I don't see spoilers. You just need the original air dates. Just a suggestion--209.2.60.44 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

medal of honor musical eastereggs

ive noticed a few easter eggs in the music in atleast two episodes first one i hears was the MOH-submarine-theme when Locke is in the submarine and then in the next episode theres a MOH-suspence-theme in the episode when Sawyer kills Lockes father think its worth mentioning in the music section 85.226.10.117 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Thus, Lost will conclude with its sixth season."--WRONG!!??

The article says that, starting with the 2007-2008 season (season 3), the final 48 episodes of Lost will air in three seasons. That means that there are two seasons after season three. Thus, lost will conclude with its fifth season. I haven't changed it because sites elsewhere are reporting that the series will end after its sixth season, but it has to be realized that this information contradicts with what the article currently says (i.e. we have 8+9 apples, thus we have 18 apples =P.)

There will be 3 more seasons of 16 episodes -Russell29 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2006-2007 season was the THIRD season.

Yes, 2008 = Season 4 , 2009 = Season 5, 2010 = Season 6-Russell29 14:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Main image for summer 2007

There are currently two options for the infobox image for June 2006-September 2007 (likely when a new promotional poster will be relased). We can have Image:Lost title card.jpg or Image:LostS3Promo.jpg. I prefer the promotional poster because it is more visually attractive and we have an animated intertitle in the episode format section, so the intertitle is redundant at the top. Other argue that season three is over and that some other series on Wikipedia use the title card. Let's gain some consensus. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "promotional" image is a promo picture at all, to me it looks like an image ABC use to spice up their website. That's not counting the fact the image contains text promoting another website, or out dated text. Then there's the point it changes every season (deary me :\), where as an intertitle (generally) remains (mostly) constant. I personally don't find the promotional image appealing for that matter (so the "because it is more visually attractive" should be "because I think it's more visually attractive", as in your opinion). The general norm is to use intertitles, it's long been practice... I can't see any reason not to use the intertitle. Matthew 16:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Matthew. I replaced the poster with the intertitle because the poster is outdated, but looking at TV show articles in general, a great number of them use intertitles in general. I would stick with the intertitle so we don't have to keep updating the image. Also, we shouldn't be using fair use images because they are more visually attractive. The anti-fair use editors will just remove it for decoration. -- Wikipedical 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They are both fair use, though. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but you're justifying a fair use image because it's "visually attractive." I'm justifying a fair use image because it identifies the show in a way that is pretty much accepted on Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 20:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The poster also identifies the show. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The title card identifies the show, the poster identifies a season. The poster could be suitable on the season 3 page, but the main lost page should use the main lost title. (Rekija 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Mass episode article deletion

Any interested editors, please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mass deletion of television articles by TTN, as I feel it's only a matter of time before the Lost episode articles end up in the firing line. I know it's a debate that's been held before (single season articles vs. individual episode articles) but those in favour of the episode pages might like to give an opinion. It seems the argument stems from them having nothing more than unsourced plot and trivia, and TTN's way of dealing with it. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive BD#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes. Chris 42 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This has now moved on to Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE. Chris 42 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Nikki Fernandez into Paulo (Lost)

In response to the FA, see Talk:Nikki Fernandez#Merge with Paulo (Lost). --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I merged them and now I have made a request for the article to be Today's featured article at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nikki Fernandez and Paulo. Comment if you have something to say. --thedemonhog talk • edits 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Images in the character articles

I have noticed that the majority of character articles do not have any promotional pictures to go on the side of text. Juliet Burke does, as do Kate Austen and James "Sawyer" Ford, but many others don't. Provided no one will delete the pictures, I would be happy to add pictures into the character articles from the episodes, so the the articles have more visual appeal. Is everyone okay with me adding pictures in, under the terms of fair use?

That's great. I've tried to do that before, but the images just got deleted. Someone also removed every picture on Characters of Lost, saying that they were not sure how they contributed to the article. I pointed out that they identified the characters, but every image had been deleted by then. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

When is the right time to create the Lost (season 4) article? Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say right now. I have an unsourced factual draft at my sandbox, but if you want to actually start one, you need to source everything. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The one in your sandbox looks great but on the plot it says "The third season continues 93 ..." It should be the fourth season continues..... I think it is time for the article. Everyone will add sources when it is created anyway, but if you want to wait it is okay. Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Added criticism section

I personally do not understand how an article can become a featured article if it demonstrates only one point of view and when there is a lack of interest in even trying to find any criticism on a fictional piece of work. I guess maybe it isn't that essential when the article is thoroughly referenced but it seems as if it's against the spirit of wikipedia wherein editors with differing views collaborate together in order to provide reliable information to the masses.

I've spent hours trying to find criticism of the television series and I have managed to find relatively few articles on the topic. This may demonstrate the superior nature of the show or the apparent lack of critical reviews but regardless, I have included the same within the article to ensure a balanced view.

If there are any complaints or criticisms of including a criticism section then please mention them here before unconstructively removing my edits.

That said, it's a good article and hence to all the editors who have worked hard on this page, I would like to say that you've done a job well done (I personally haven't seen the television series so do not accuse me of being shallow and narrow-minded and a scathing critic or whatever). Zuracech lordum 14:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no reason for anyone to remove the new section. I think it's well written, cited, and helps form a more whole view of the show. Nice work. -- Wikipedical 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• It needs a few MoS touches, but yea, looks good to me. Can't see a reason to remove it. Matthew 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the statement about Anthony Spinner (the writer who sued the show for copying his ideas) needs updating. The claim was made in August 2005 but I cannot find any updates on the matter. If anyone knows anything about what happened and can provide a citation, then please do update it. Zuracech lordum 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we just remove that altogether? It seems like some guy is trying to get some money and fame, and that it is not copyright infringement. --thedemonhog talk • edits 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can choose what not to include based upon personal opinions unless it's agreed upon by consensus. Selective editing s also a violation of NPOV. Also, Prison Break was similarly sued and the information for that exists to this day. Zuracech lordum 06:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

It seems to me that this is article isn't at all balanced. There are many critics of the show that point out that the plot moves entirely to slow and doesn't seem to advance very much, with many of the questions that were introduced at the beginning of the show still being unanswered. Popular culture has begun to reflect this frustration, such as penny-arcade: (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/11/01) and this wikipedia entry should reflect that.

That Penny Arcade is satirical. It's making fun of people who make obvious jokes about Lost.

umm this is supposed to be a encyclopedic article. What does 'many' mean? One critic can also be called many. If there are 15 million people people watching a show and out of which 50 have some kind of issue with it, it does not justify it being in an encyclopedia. Heck, I have issues with The Sopranos and I'm sure there are about 10 other critics who have issues with it too. It does not mean it deserves its own place in an encyclopedia. Also parts of your criticism sections are entirely factually inacurate for example:

Alongside Prison Break, Lost has been said to have popularised the existence of a maxi-series - a continual ongoing series that does not seem to have a clear end in sight.

Which directly contradicts all of the claims by the producers to the contrary including the most recent one [2] Unless the site you are sourcing has some inside information into the writing process of the show it is factually in accurate.Obvious 18:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The producers will obviously contradict such assumptions. However, the concept of maxi-series was tagged to the show by a writer for Variety.com and that nevertheless holds true. Sure, they have a specific end planned but when the shows (including Prison Break) started, three years back, they did not seem to be going anywhere. Of course, you can always add an addition to the effect that "the producers, however, have repeatedly claimed to possess a clear, well-planned map for the entire run of the television series" if you can provide all the references. Regardless of whether the producers agree with this or not, that above statement is still believed by other people - critics, reviewers and the like and hence justifiable for inclusion (provided, once again that it is referenced properly). Zuracech lordum 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Only the producers statement about the the way the show is being plotted out can be considered fact. Again, where is the author of the variety article basing his conclusion from? Unless he has inside information on the issue his opinion is as factual as any person who starts a blog and types in random stuff. Since this is an encyclopedia, information on here should be factual or at the very least fact based. As for other people or critics believing it... umm... that is completely irrelevant. There are lots of people and political pundits who will say that George Bush is Hitler or George Bush is the anti-christ, it could be easily referenced. That does not mean that it is appropriate content for his wikipedia page. Also this is not the only problem with the criticism section. While I'm here I would point out another one:

It has been suggested that this is one of the reasons why the network has announced a specific end date for the show allowing the writers to work towards fixing loose ends and thus satiating fan complaints.

That is again completely factually inaccurate since the main reason why ABC decided to give the show an end date was because the contracts of Damon and Carlton (the producers) had to be renegotiated at the end of the season and they had made setting an end date for the show a condition for renewing the contracts and coming back to the show[3]

Also these statements

Moreover, the show's expansive fan base has led to the rapid circulation of rumors and speculation that has, on occasions, spoiled future storylines thus reducing the viewership on critical episodes (for example, the heavily discussed possible death of Shannon reduced the viewership for the episode when it actually occurred).[73]

Also, the altering of the time-slot has, at times, had an adverse effect on the show's ratings. It has often been put up against FOX's successful reality show American Idol[74] and it has not always fared well against such competition

How is that a criticism of the show? Spoilers leak out for almost every shows. That does not speak anything about the show itself, much less a criticism. And altering time slots, being against idol, how is that in anyway relevant to the show? Idol is the number one show in America. No other show has done as well against it as LOST. In fact Lost finale did quite well against Idol finale and even had a negative effect on Idol's ratings.[4] Until the disputed parts of the section can be settled, I'm removing them.Obvious 06:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading the section again, Obvious has made some very good points. The way the section was phrased did not point out the criticism of the show. If one of the references said for example that fans were outraged that the show somehow leaked Shannon's death, that would be one thing, but to say that spoilers existed in general, in that wording, is not criticism. In addition, decreased ratings is not in itself criticism of a show. If you found a reference that said that there was fan outrage over a new aspect of the show, e.g. Nikki and Paulo, that in effect decreased ratings, that is criticism. If you could find different references that revealed actual criticism, it should be inserted. -- Wikipedical 06:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is why a criticism section has been non-existent for over 3 years. Do as you will. I don't have the patience to continue to argue. Zuracech lordum 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

lost in argentina

someone knows in what days, houres and chanels there is "lost" in buenos aires, argentina? please answer me, it is urgent!
thank you very much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.142.232 (talk • contribs) 00:26, June 25, 2007

it's called Bit Torrent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.158.91 (talk • contribs) 19:35, August 9, 2007

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Please sign your comments. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it isn´t. And, after all, how could you know? I´m from Bs As, Argentina too. Franshu (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cast and Characters

I have a problem with this section. Would it not make more sense to have a simple list of the characters and the actor's name, for example...

Current Cast:

• Naveen Andrews as Sayid Jarrah
• Henry Ian Cusick as Desmond Hume

...and so on, so forth. I think having a simple list like that makes the section easier to read. I don't feel that a Cast and Characters section needs a long paragraph. I also think it would make the article look better. It gives more variety to the structure, yet not too much. Does anyone agree?

This was actually discussed a while ago. It was decide that prose is better than a list on Wikipedia. And sign your posts with "~~~~" which will result in your IP address and the time that you left the message. --thedemonhog talk • edits 15:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements at Thematic motifs of Lost

There is currently a disagreement as to what constitutes a thematic motif for Lost as used in the article Thematic motifs of Lost. A user contends that "Canada/Deception" and "Apocalypse" are two such motifs. I contend they are not. Those interested in commenting can do so at Talk:Thematic motifs of Lost#Original Research. I'm no longer interested in editing on Wikipedia, nor do I intend to return just to continue fending off bad edits on Lost articles, so I leave it to you to discuss.--Leflyman^Talk 18:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated episode notability

An editor has requested deletion review on this template after a decision was made to delete the template at TfD. You are invited to participate in the discussion at the DRV if you so wish, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability. The original TfD is located at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 24#Template:Dated episode notability. Ursasapien (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Last 48 episodes broken into 16 episodes per season, notable use of lost numbers?

Just wondering whether anyone else thinks it worthwhile to mention that it appears they're using the lost numbers to break the series into 16 units, from the 48 remaining episodes? Jachin 10:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

48 is not one of the numbers and it is just a coincidence that 16 is. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's exciting every time the numbers occur, but I don't believe every use of them is intentional or necessarily, if so, a reference to the Lost number. Ordering episodes is a serious and expensive matter. - Mark Jensen 11:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield?

Is there any possibility that Cloverfield has anything to do with Lost, as many are suspecting (based on the famous roar)? If so, does that warrant inclusion in the article? The article on Call of Cthulhu mentions Cloverfield even though the only hard evidence for that is www.ethanhaaswasright.com ShadowUltra 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's (probably untrue) speculation, so that information does not belong in this article. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed at beginning of Cloverfield movie, there is a Dharma logo at bottom right. Dharma might have something to do with Tagruato or maybe TIDOwave http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23525&start=150 67.100.127.46 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Talking about Cloverfield made me feel curious.At what year and month did the plane crashed? I think that there is a connection between the date Cloverfield attack New York and the date they crashed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.118.172 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Walt's Picture

I brought this here as I felt it would get more attention than on Walt's page. Is the current picture, of Walt at the end of season 3, a good choice for the info-box? It does not give an accurate representation of Walt's appearance for the vast majority of his time on the show - it represents the most recent appearance of him, which lasts the best part of a few seconds. Algebra man 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the better picture is the earlier one ([5]), which is a season promo. The current one is an episode still. --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I realise that, but my point still stands - he does not look like that for all but ten seconds of his time on the show. It doesn't accurately portray him and I think we should aim to replace it. Algebra man 11:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The one I linked above is fine, isn't it? --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is but I thought you were saying we can't use that one because it's a promo - and that we either use teh episode still or nothing at all. My bad, t seems. Algebra man 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Would you say we're up for another peer review? It's been a year since our last one. Calvin 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Significance → Impact

A while back on June 25, Carlodrum, a user with 18 edits, renamed the "Impact" section to "Significance." I never noticed it until now. What do you think of this? --thedemonhog talk • edits 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as it has been six days now, it appears that no one thinks anything about it so I reverted to the name it had when it became an FA. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thematic motifs of Lost

This former seperate article has been folded back into the main Lost article. I notice that the "Eyes" motif is in this section and remains unreferenced. I believe that this section needs some mention of the apocalyptic motif, but I will work on getting proper reference material. --Ursasapien (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Coredesat has put the article Thematic motifs of Lost and it's history here. I have asked that he move the discussion and its history here. I think the next step is to open a discussion regarding how and if we can bring this article to the point of recreation. I am considering whether it would be good to open a RfC about this article. You're invited to help improve this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in a content dispute with anon User:70.189.74.49 regarding thematic motifs. Essentially, we deeply disagree regarding what is and what is not a "thematic motif." We also disagree about sourcing, as he consistently accuses me of "original research." I am wondering if this entire section should be removed until we can come to some resolution (perhaps through an RfC). What do other editors think? Look here for our previous extensive discussion. Ursasapien (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research

• First, the source (IGN) you have for "black and white" calls it a symbolism, not a theme. They are two different things. It only says that dualism is a possibility, whereas your wording insinuates that it was more concrete than your source says. I'm curious if you can actually have an "thematic motif", seeing as they are kind of distinct elements of writing on their own. A "broad idea" and a "recurring element".
• Your CTV source mentions "The idea of lineage and disaster is already a major theme", yet not dysfunctional families. There's a little more to dysfunctional families than pure lineage. I get where you are getting the family thing, but since they don't actually talk about it in a manner of "themes", calling it such would be OR. The way I read it, it's talking about them as they are plot devices, though they probably are themes for the show. The issue at hand is, unless the source actually says that, you cannot synthesize the answer for the reader. What has happened is that you've provided evidence of a theme as if you were writing a paper, whereas you should have provided evidence that someone else has seen a "theme of..." throught the show.
• None of this--coincidence versus fate, revealed most apparently through the juxtaposition of the characters Locke and Mr. Eko; the conflict between science and faith, embodied by the leadership tug-of-war between Jack and Locke; and references to numerous works of literature, including mentions and discussions of particular novels--is in the source that is linked after it. It comes out of nowhere. I assume the USA Today source is for the book, but it mentions nothing about a theme or motif in regards to the book. You've established that they read novels in the show, but now how that relates to any thematic element...at least one trying to be created on its own here, instead of by a reliable source.
• The bit about the names of the characters, not seeing how that is a theme. They were named after philosophers, that seems more like character development/creation, to me.
• There just does not appear to be anything the sources to support all the assumptions in this section. The section does more talking than it has sources to back it up. What I see is something that goes, "there is a theme of X", and then has sources that show where "X" has popped up a lot. That is OR, because the source doesn't actually say what the text here says, it mentions it in a different light.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point, one I have brought up already. Are all thematic motifs synthesis/original research? Because the show is relatively new, there has not been a lot written in reliable secondary sources analyzing the themes and symbolism of lost. Qwerty has argued previously that this subject should be an exception, and that the primary source (the show itsself) could be used as a reference illustrating themes. By way of example, I submit the South Park episode "Super Best Friends. In the Scientology section, they draw some very obvious references from the episode that attempt to parody Scientology. However, there are no references that specifically state, "X was intended to parody Scientology, Dianetics, etc." Editors that have seen the episode feel that this parody (based on the show's history of mocking various religious beliefs) is quite apparent. Ursasapien (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You can never use the show as a source of the themes. You can use the writers actually saying "this is a theme," but using the show is like saying "This is a theme, notice how it appears in episodes X,Y and Z?" The same goes for the South Park episode. Unless someone actually says it, and it isn't you, then you cannot say it. The point of OR is that the original throught of something cannot come from us, the editors, but must come from a reliably published sourced. Smallville suffers from the same thing. The show has near constant references to Superman, and other shows. But, we cannot go, "In Smallville, one of Clark's choices to name his dog is Krypto. Krypto was the name of Superman's dog in the comics, so that is a reference to the comics." That happened in the show, and it's about as obvious as a slap in the face, but you still have to contend with the possibility that it was not intentional. Since you are in a section talking about specifics, you couldn't be vague and go, "He called it Krypto, and Superman called his Krypto." Simple argument is, "it's a coincidence." It may be best to remove the section until people can properly analyze the entire show. You could probably use the sources in the external links, at least those two about family and the books on the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a rather linear/black & white view of OR. In this post, essentially an essay, Qwerty7412369 argues that Primary research is NOT original research.

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely on primary sources (for example, legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." (From Wikipedia:No original research with emphasis added)

However, your argument about OR is what has made this section such a "sticky wicket." In fact, the sections about family and books are not that clear cut either. Can we say that various pieces of literature, family problems, and philosopher names appear in this show? Yes! Do the sources that we have say "this is a thematic motif"? No. That is why this section is such a problem. BTW, I had nothing to do with the South Park episode article. I just thought it was a good illustration. Ursasapien (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the primary source as it consists of interviews, and the primary source when it consists of an fictional event. Like you pointed out with the books, family, etc, if someone says "There is a theme of black and white," and then provides primary sources, or even secondary sources that simply say "here is an instance of black and white," and "here is another instance of black and white," then we haven't shown a theme of anything, we've just shown a recurring element in the show. Interviews are primary sources, but it's something coming directly for the "horse's mouth," so to speak. But, on the NOR page, it says for primary sources: A Wikipedia article or section of an article can rely on primary sources only if the source is used (1) only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) never to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. -- Since themes and motifs, by nature, are analytical, interpretive, explanatory, etc...we cannot use primary sources for them. The only case I could see a primary source being acceptable would be in the case of a director or writer expressing an intention to create a theme of something. Even then, it shouldn't be the sole position in the section as I've seen people argue that there is always intentional fallacy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing the "Thematic motifs" section

So, what do other editors think? Should we do as Bignole suggests and just delete the section until we can garner enough sourced information? I would like to hear from other editors, but I will probably take action by Tuesday, September 3. Ursasapien (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sources are fine right now. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But they don't actually discuss themes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Your major point is that we should be careful with technicalities, and that's fine. But you must admit that the showrunners (and cited sources) indicate a presence of recurrent elements on the show. Instead of deleting the section, should we just rename it something like "Symbolism" or "Motifs"? -- Wikipedical 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Or work the entire thing into another section. I only saw one source that talked about symbolism (that was the bit about black/white), most of the others didn't mention anything. The only thing you could verifiably conclude is a recurring element in the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Okay, forget symbolism then. "Recurring element in the series" -isn't that what a motif is? I'm willing to simply drop the "thematic" in "Thematic motifs" if that is the problem. -- Wikipedical 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Motifs suggest a symbolic significance (according to the article), and only a bit of the info has verified an analysis that suggests there is any symbolicness to it. People have discussed the recurring elements in a matter that would suggest that is what they are talking about, but they haven't actually said that is what they were meaning...so we shouldn't interpret other people's words for fear that we may do so incorrectly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with "motifs," we should just use "recurring elements." Nonetheless, I think there is agreement that "Thematic motifs" incorrectly identifies the elements, and so instead of deleting the section, we should just change wording. I'm trying to compromise here. -- Wikipedical 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say delete the section. The only similar thing I suggested was remove it, but I meant remove it from the mainspace and put it here, if you want to call it themes. If you want it called "recurring elements," then I'd make it a subsection with the series overview. I'd also suggest ditching the subs in that section in favor of something similar to Smallville (TV series)#Series overview. You can link the seasons in the paragraphs. I say this because, it will become unncessarily long in the table of contents if the show goes for 6 or 7 seasons..or more. I'd leave the "future" subsection, and move "Recurring elements" above "Future" (seeing as it's more relevant to the immediate seasons than to future ones).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ABC and the producers have decided that the show will last six seasons of 117 episodes. --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And if the series drops in the ratings completely off the chart this comming season, you mean to say that ABC will not cut its losses? A show's lifespan is dependant on the advertising space it sells. Either way, even 6 subsections like that are just a little excessive since they are only summarizing the show and are not really in-depth coverage of anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

I've noticed that many pictures used in lost articles don't have fair use rationales, which should be added.(Black Dalek 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

That's right. --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The entire Awards section is missing sources, namely...for every award. There isn't a single award. Since I've seen IMDb get the years wrong on when a show won an award, or come across awards that I cannot find listed anywhere else outside of IMDb, I think these all need sources. Also, on the subject of sources, the first 4 or 5 sources are simply urls. There is supposed to be consistency in source formatting. Most are using citation templates, but several (including random ones throughout the article) are just simple urls. There seem to be some using citation templates that are not completely filled out. Meaning, there are no accessdate filled out, dates are not wikilinked. This is supposed to be an FA article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This and Arrested Development (TV series) are the most poorly sourced featured articles. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what it was like when it achieved FA status. I figured that a lot of the issues have arisen over time, since the series is still on-going and there does not seem to always be a lot of active editors on this page (kind of like Smallville).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the version of the page when it achieved featured status and the references were surprisingly pretty much the same. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this page needs some cleaning, but it definitely isn't as bad as Arrested Development. Other than the Awards section, citations seem to be abundant, but I'm sure there are some areas I've missed. It's major issue is inconsistency in the citation formats. Arrested Development has sections which fail WP:NOR. It probably needs an FAR to address all the issues. I'd do that, but I've already got Andrew Van De Kamp in FAR (with no comments or actions to clean up) at the moment.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a review soon, I will fix the citations as much as I can in the next few days, but I support demotion at its current state. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, FARs are not for delisting. That's a process after FAR, if the article hasn't been cleaned up. Anyway, that's probably a discussion for Arrested Development's talk page. Hopefully, this article will get cleaned up with citations and consistency.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music

"The only pop song that has ever been used without a source is Ann-Margret's "Slowly," in the episode I Do."

Not true... In Shannon's flashback episode, "Stay" by the Dave Matthews Band plays in the background when Shannon is accepted into the New York internship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.66.106.50 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lost crossover with Chuck

anyone know if this rumor is true that there will be a lost crossover in chuck? http://spoilerslost.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.58.149 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

yes, it's true Tabor 17:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

See also my answer at Talk:Lost (season 4)#Lost crossover with chuck. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Long breaks

I think it's note worthy to identify that this television series is notorious for excessively long breaks, and is as far as I know one of the few ongoing popular series to have an entire year hiatus between airing. The impact on it's demographics is something more often talked about, but the mere audacity that they've got a series so popular they can hold off their viewers for a year guilt free and not face any wrath from their fans is amazing and surely noteworthy to some degree? Downside is, where the hell would you slot something like that in?  :( Jachin 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that this show is notorious for long breaks. The first long break was twelve weeks long, which was just so that they did not have to air reruns. I also would not say that they can hold off their viewers for a year without backlash. That is happening right now, and we do not know that they can retain their audience. However, if you can find a reliable source that says what you are saying, then include it in the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They have never gone on an entire year of a hiatus. Tabor 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You could eventually work it around a line from the commentary of season 3. I think it was Carlton Cuse who said that they knew the break from november to february was very painful for the viewers. This doesn't in fact prove the fans were "suffering," but one could work some text related to this matter, around it. - Mark Jensen 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"intertitle"

That's not an intertitle. It could be called a shot from the opening sequence or the main title screen but not an intertitle. I would have just changed it but the stupid page is protected. 75.72.206.28 18:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is semi-protected for a good reason. The page has been vandalized thirty times in the last two weeks. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Show Run in Infobox

We have been over this before. Even though "the produces [sic] themselves and ABC have stated that the show will run for three more seasons to finish the story of LOST," this involves a certain amount of speculation. After all, can anyone guarantee that the show would not be cancelled if it tanked in the ratings? Does any editor have the ability to observe the future and guarantee that the show will air its finale in May 2010 (and who is to say that we can not change that time stream, anyway)? The safest, most encyclopedic thing to do is list the original run of the series as September 22, 2004 – present. Ursasapien (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See WP:CRYSTAL, criteria 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lost is not notable, and no one can be certain that Lost will end in 2010. — *Hippi ippi 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though we 'know' there 'will' be 3 more years, that doesn't guarantee that they'll continue to air in Feb-May for those three years, to end in May 2010. Next year they might show it from Dec-Mar, and the following from Sept-Dec, putting the ending in Dec 2009 instead. The series is still 'present'-ly ongoing, so should be listed as -Present. --Maelwys 10:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For the infobox, let's keep it as "-present." –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to the Writers strike, the show may end in 2011 now, airing 8 episodes this coming season, but still totaling a total of 48 episodes, says Carlton Cuse. Still, that's up to ABC, so we'll have to wait and see.--76.177.166.65 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the Danish Wikipedia we have resolved this issue by writing "Seasons: 3 (Aired), 6 (Planned)" - Mark Jensen 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kristen Bell wasn't offered role

Could a registered user remove the statement that says she was offered a role on Lost? [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.43.214 (talk) 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and link. I removed the mention of Kristen Bell from the page. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that she was being talked to about a role on LOST (to play a character named Charlotte). Even though she apparently was not directly offered a role, she was very much being considered. -Zomic13 03:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, please visit the link that 75.146.43.214 provided, which states that she and the producers talked about her having a part, but she was never offered one. And we cannot say for sure that she was being considered for the recurring role of "Charlotte." The original source of Bell being cast on Lost is Michael Ausiello from TV Guide, who says that a spokesperson for Bell informed him that Bell will not be joining the cast of Lost—nothing more. Ausiello goes on to say that his sources told him that Bell "turned down the gig primarily because she didn't want to relocate to Hawaii," however his sources also told him that Bell was offered a role, which Bell herself denies. Your claim is just speculation that made sense until she was interviewed by BuddyTV. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I did visit the link. I know that she wasn't offered one - she states that. Still, she was being talked to and considered for a role on LOST. Her quote confirms that. -Zomic13 08:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of view in strike mention

"As of November 9 2007,"LOST" suspended shooting with season 4 only half finished, due to a strike by the Writers Guild of America. (Thanks Writers)" that last bit should be removed,,, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.36.225 (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually got to it before the above comment was added. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Romance genre

I agree with thedemonhog that Lost does not fall into the romance genre. Although the romantic relationships are part of the plot, they are never the primary focus. I think the genre "Drama" is a better fit. Ursasapien (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Canada / Lying

OK, a while back I tried putting a paragraph in that Thematic motifs of Lost article about how when someone mentions Canada in the show, it's part of a lie. But since I couldn't find a source for it and since it might not have been a theme or a motif, it was deleted. Now, though, I actually do have a source - I found a published book on Lost where the author commented on those Canada-lies. Also, the section is titled "Recurring Elements" now, so I don't think it matters so much that this isn't quite a theme or a motif. That said, is there any chance these points can stay in the article and not just be deleted and labeled as "inane, silly, speculation cruft"? To have 6 separate Canada-lies all throughout the series seems a little too specific to be unintentional. Burnside65 (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds perfectly fine as a recurring element as long as you can cite a verifiable source. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a stretch, but the sorting building at Birkenau was referred to as Canada. There isn't enough evidence to put on the page, but I feel inclined to mention it here. --128.2.164.209 (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article for January 31

I was hoping we could get a Lost-related article as the featured article for January 31. This article and Through the Looking Glass are the only Lost-related featured articles. This article was already on the main page once. Coindidentally, Through the Looking Glass is also a good fit because it is the most recent episode and would go nicely into the start of the fourth season. I was wondering if anyone would like to help me make sure we can get the article featured for that day. ShadowUltra (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. I have had Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests watchlisted since June and am now one of its most frequest editors. But please add it to your watchlist in case I or ShadowUltra is sleeping when Raul654 archives requests. You can see what the request will look like here. I suggest having it on the main page on February 1 instead because that will actually be when the episode airs due to the time change. Additionally, traffic will probably be higher immediately after the episode airs than before it. The Lost WikiProject also has Nikki and Paulo at FA status and Greatest Hits (Lost) at FAC. Within the next few months, you can expect many more FA's and GA's to be written. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so what should we do? ShadowUltra (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to your watchlist, wait until January and request "Through the Looking Glass" if you see that there are less than five requests. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional link

I found this external link but couldn't decide where to put it in the main Lost article. It's basically a video to help people to catch up on the series. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

theorys

Can someone help me create a wikipedia page that deals with theory's of lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkyne (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources about all the theories? The problem with most theories is that they're just that... theories, with little or no sourcing to back them up (because if there was, they wouldn't be theories anymore). As such, they don't have any place in Wikipedia. Instead I'd suggest you go to Lostpedia where they have specific theory pages you can post your theories on. --Maelwys (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Theories are original research and would be more appropriate for a fansite, not an encyclopedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How about creating a section about all unresolved questions posited, similar to what is done on the Battlestar Galatctica Wiki?Vegfarandi (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Flashfowards

The mention of a flashforward needs to seriously be omitted. It is a major major major spoiler. Also it says "flashforwards" and we have only seen one thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.105.4 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately due to wikipedia policy on spoilers, spoilers are OK. I hate it too, but there is nothing we can do. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Things are not left out so that people don't get spoiled. Its a major part of episodes and has to be included Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 16:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Previously on Lost?

I cannot find the episode in Season 2 where the "Others" actually capture Kate and have her mouthfolded while a fake-bearded Tom negotiates with survivors that they will not harm each other if some imaginary line is not crossed: "This is our Island. You live on this Island because we let you live in it". I can see it was included in "The Long Con" recap but I can't find in which episode it actually happened. Is this an error? Am I delusional? RayLast (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Season 2, episode 11: "The Hunting Party" (Jack-centric). –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Page Season Section Headings

Some character pages have the season sections titled 'Season One, Season Two' etc., but some have 'Season 1, Season 2' and so on. Does this matter? Is one preferable to the other? Jjmbarton (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm, wtf is "Secret" ?

THere's this wierd section on the main article page called secret but it makes no sense and I have no idea what it is. There's no introduction for that section, either. 68.3.214.66 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot synopsis is dreadful.

I've never seen the show and have no idea what on earth its about beyond a plane crash from this description.

You know, I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who've seen every episode of this show have no idea what it's about either. -Thores (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gilligan's Island comparison

is there no way to work in a comparison to the "shipwrecked on a desert island" premise first popularized on television by Gilligan's Island? shouldn't it at least be a "related" link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.232.140 (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to find an independent, reliable source that makes this comparison. — Val42 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://lostpedia.com/wiki/Gilligan's_Island

...lists a bunch of sites 98.163.232.140 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ABC's New Spring 2008 Schedule for Lost

TV Guide is exclusively reporting: According to multiple sources, ABC plans on airing this season's final five Lost episodes on Thursdays at 10 pm/ET beginning in late April, where it will follow all-new episodes of Grey's freakin' Anatomy!

The link reference is here: Exclusive: Lost Finds Post-Grey's Berth

Tubesurfer (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

5 or 4-6 new episodes to season 4?

In the article under "Season 4" you can read "The writers' strike ended on February 12, 2008, therefore 5 episodes will be added to the 8 completed before, bringing the season up to 13 episodes." I have two complaints about that (maybe just a misunderstanding on my side):

1. The source used for that sentence was published on Feb 9 and was merely speculation. But that is not my point here. It's this: The source states that Matthew Fox said that 4 to 6 episodes will be shoot (should the strike end rapidly; which it did); not 5! This article and the source don't really match. This article says 5, the source 4-6. So, I think either this article should say 4-6 or a different source should be used to back that up.
2. The sentence sounds like you could directly calculate the number of new episodes using the end date of the strike. ("It ended on Feb 12, therfore: 5 new episodes"). This seems a bit odd, cause the number of the new episodes relies on several facts (how progressed the material has been before the strike ended, how fast they can ramp up production, and even the choice by the producers etc.). How about "Matthew Fox said on Feb 9, that 4 to 6 episodes might be added to the season if the writers' strike would end rapidly. Since the strike ended on Feb 12, this might come true." (Ok, not finalized that, but maybe you get what I mean ;-))

TDeumert (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the problem with sources in the article for a moment, I will say what is actually happening with season 4. 8 episodes have been produced. The first 7 are airing Thursdays at 9 until March 13. 5 more episodes will be produced for a total of 13 episodes in season 4, which is 3 less than the original 16 planned. Stories are being condensed and flashbacks and flashforwards are being carried over to season 5. Seasons 5 and 6 will have 35 episodes instead of 32. After March 13, season 4 returns for the eighth episode on April 17 and the final 5 episodes are on Thursdays at 10 from April 24 to May 22. I apologize that someone changed the information in the article, but did not change the sources. The sources should be [8], [9], [10] and [11] and I will change the article accordingly. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the following?

"Each episode has its own unique opening." What is meant by this. If it won't be expanded upon and clarified I will delete it.Vegfarandi (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) This is from the "Episode Format" section by the way.Vegfarandi (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Navigation Box Thing

I thought that the navigation box needed a huge sort though, so i made attempts to do it myself, i put it in the sandbox but i wasn't sure whether that was the right place, so i thought i'd put it here to see what you guys think of it.

is this any better? i'm new to this and fluking my way though but i think that's made things a lot less cluttered even though none of the content has been lost. [[86.141.87.22 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)]]

I don't like the idea of listing diseased characters in an infobox that will be on many pages. Personally, I think the current one is fine, I'm OK with just main characters and secondary ones. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a section on viable Undiscredited theories?

Is there a case to be made for the inclusion of stuff like the ideas on lostisagame.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.167.174 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:No original research. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image on Meet Kevin Johnson‎

The page Meet Kevin Johnson‎ is currently locked with an image that is a huge spoiler that I don't feel is appropriate for an episode that has not yet aired, and none of us know what it's about. Be warned that the image is a spoiler, but I'd appreciate input from other editors of LOST articles - it doesn't seem appropriate to have something like that decided by revert warring and getting the page locked on your preferred version. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to this at Talk:Meet Kevin Johnson. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is just a notification. Sorry I didn't make that clear. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Dock

I have found a picture of the dock (where Jack and Kate etc. were kidnapped). It is a free image, and I was wondering if it could be used anywhere. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 06:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone there? This picture could be used for the filming locations section. Do we need it? Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 01:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying. It seems that Uploadless has uploaded the image to Commons. We do not need it (and a zoomed-in version would work better, at the "Live Together, Die Alone" article, because the dock is not mentioned in this article), but it does not seem to hurt. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. As always, just trying to help. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How did this get deleted

Right now, the main article is redlinked everywhere. How was this possibly deleted? Supertigerman (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone malevolently moved the article. It's being restored now. Misterkillboy (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

New episode article

The Shape of Things to Come (Lost) was announced on the official podcast. There was a (short) article briefly, but it has been repeatedly switched to a redirect. That seems inconsistent with how other episodes have been handled, the articles usually seem to be created as soon as they have a source for the title. I'd appreciate input from other editors on the talk page of that article, thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally am against any future episode article that doesn't have a plot, or something other than "this is the title, this is when it airs". Sceptre ^(talk) 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussing whether or not the article should be there, you could just end the discussion by expanding the article. Sceptre (R.I.P. Will) makes a good point when he says that an article is pointless if it is composed of a single sentence (that is present in another article). The article has been restored, with Drew Goddard and Blake Bashoff interviews added and in the next day, information on its timeslot and influence of the strike will be added. Also, this discussion would be more appropriate at the WikiProject talk page. –thedemonhog talk • edits 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Recurring Elements: Eyes

Has anyone else noticed that practically every episode starts with a close-up shot of someone's eyes? Just thought that might be worth mentioning. 74.131.208.18 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

They do? I've not noticed this. -WarthogDemon 23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am going to assume that WarthogDemon is being sarcastic. Anyway, the eye opener is mentioned in the episode structure section. –thedemonhog talk • edits

I wasn't being completely sarcastic just a bit puzzled. It's something I've not really noticed, plus was wondering how that'd be put into the article. -WarthogDemon 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It has opened sixteen episodes and been present in around ten others. See Lostpedia's article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to pay closer attention then. Forgive me for my brain fart. -WarthogDemon 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Brain fart? lol. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 10:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, brain fart. :P That's an expression. -WarthogDemon 03:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Smoke Monster

The monster seems pretty important, still there is no refrance to it in the article. --Lucias21 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is, in the mythology section. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Fog

I wonder if we'll ever be able to document the influence the Bermuda Triangle theories may have had in the conception and/or writing of the series. Particularly from the book The Fog: A Never Before Published Theory of the Bermuda Triangle Phenomenon and the Magnetic Abnormalities theory explained therein. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 03:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Theory

The Island is some sort of dimensional space-time vortex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.239.196 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See: quantum gravity and Minkowski_spacetime --68.99.77.157 (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: In this theory the Island, the equation, the numbers, the monster, DHARMA, Hanso, all would have to do with a grand unified theory of physics and of everything...--65.182.19.189 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, tv-land public would collectivly "shit the bed" if Lost was wrapped up with an answer they could not explain the next day over the water cooler. This is where i feel lost will fall apart, i agree that the above ideas make sense but the public will hate it.

Well this has to do something with cloverfleid with one companies symbol being in it does this have to do anything with the resaerch and monster it is the same screennwriteer and production company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilnijniacow (talk • contribs) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Lost is being redirected to this page because every month about a third of the people who are looking for this page type in Lost and get lost on the disambiguation page. Anyone disagree? 199.125.109.88 (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure we've discussed this before, more than once, and the outcome has always been to not redirect. However, I don't really have an opinion either way. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can even tell you what day of the week the show is on just from looking at the traffic stats for Lost which has an exact correlation with this article. Less than 10% of the people who go to Lost are looking for the next most viewed page, the game Lost: Via Domus. Everyone is looking for Lost (TV series), over 25 times as many as for the game. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Directed By"

Shouldn't this be altered/removed from the infobox. It really doesn't suit a television show. Listing Bender as lead director, or Cuse/Lindelof as show runners would be more appropriate in my opinion. Just a suggestion though..211.30.92.237 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Lost (2004 TV series)

Since the 2001 TV show called Lost came first shouldn't that be "Lost (TV series)". And this show came second so it be "Lost (2004 TV series)" right? But right now its the complete opposite...Coasttocoast (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the more popular and well-known series. It could not be assigned to a single year anyway. I think the naming convention is fine. Ursasapien (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The year is for when the show premiered. I'm just saying shouldn't this article have "(2004 TV series)" since there was already another TV called "Lost"? For example the article for the 2006 film Casino Royale is called "Casino Royale (2006 film)" because there was already another film called Casino Royale in 1967. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention is fine. When people come to Wikipedia looking for LOST, they are looking for the ABC series. Typical Wiki policy is to have the more popular version be the one linked to, and the less known version can be reached via disambiguation. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Eye Closeups?

I've noticed a section in the article that I cannot edit...

'Episodes have a distinct structure: following a recap of events relevant to the upcoming narrative, each show begins with a cold open. Often a close up of a character's eye will follow. At a dramatic juncture, the screen cuts to black and the title graphic, slightly out-of-focus, glides towards the viewer accompanied by an ominous, discordant sound. '

I've just finished watching the entire first season, and I've been specifically watching for this. I have yet to see one. Perhaps soemone who's registered can edit this out?

72.139.122.208 (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is beyond comprehension that you missed them. (Off the top of my head,) Eye closeups begin episodes 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 24 of the first season. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Eye close ups features predominantly. Particularly in the first season. Rehevkor (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Editable?

Why is the page not editable? At least not for anonymous users? (I do have an account, but I happen not be logged in right now and noticed that I can't edit the page.) 212.64.47.49 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there supposed to be an indication of that on the page? Currently there is no indication on the page or the talk page that it is semi-protected, never mind why and for how long...212.64.47.49 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a template now. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 11:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Philosophers

I've noticed that one of the philosophers left out of the roster, but present on the show is Sayid Jarrah, named presumably after Edward Said, spelled differently, but pronounced the same, author of Orientalism. This choice is very interesting considering Sayid's role as the threatening eastern character (along with Jin). Although their names are spelled differntly, considering the context, it's hard for me to believe that this was not a conscious decision on the part of the creators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoebemeat (talk • contribs) 07:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a source that makes the connection, it is original research. Jackieboy87 (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Sayid" is a common Arabic-derived name, and comes from an honorific meaning "lord" or "master". There's no "presumed" connection to Edward Said (who was a comparative lit professor, not a philosopher), any more than to El Cid. Trying to create such a connection is a pro-Palestinian political claim which is kind of amusing, considering the three creators of LOST (Abrams, Lieber and Lindelof) are all Jewish. --68.0.124.78 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you think that Lieber created the show, then read this. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lieber got the first (and second) crack at the script, before it was passed to Abrams and Lindelof. As it notes in the article, "The show, as Lieber saw it, would focus heavily on eight to ten main characters-in particular, two half brothers, avowed rivals, competing for leadership of their fellow castaways, who include a doctor, a con man, a fugitive, a pregnant woman, a drug-addicted man, a military officer, and a spoiled rich girl. (Sound familiar, Lost fans?)" Even after it was taken out of his hands, Lieber's fingerprints remained on the characters in the pilot and LOST's first season. (Which is why he's listed first among the show's creators.) --68.0.124.78 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's not my point; my point is that Lieber did not name Sayid. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe that I made the claim that he did.--68.0.124.78 (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, heh heh. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LOST or Lost

The title card of the show is clearly all in upper case. Why then, is the article called "Lost" and not "LOST".gergis (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of titles are sometimes presented in uppercase for stylistic purposes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to add Benjamin Linus (Creator of Linux) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.18.237 (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds, not Benjamin Linus, began development of the Linux kernel, on which run the family of Unix-like open source operating systems, commonly referred to as "Linux". Nor did Torvalds develop the kernel on his own (it's my understanding that it was a collaborative effort), so technically there is no single "creator" of Linux. And after a diligent search, I've found nothing to suggest that the character Benjamin Linus was in any way named after Linus Torvalds. Maybe he was named after a combination of the big nasty rat from Willard (who eventually turns on the title character), and the Peanuts character who often dispenses wisdom to Charlie Brown. Most probably nonsense of course, but sounds cool to me.  :-)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article cats

I just added all the Simpsons GA's to Category:GA-Class television articles to make them easier to find. This project seems to have enough GAs that a category would be a nice way to sort them. Wadya think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't we already have one or am I misunderstanding? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They're on there, but not in they're own cat, just mixed in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot the colon. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Online distribution

"streaming of Lost episodes direct from ABC's website was only available to viewers in the United States"

The episodes are still only available in the United States, I think this should be clarified as at the moment it seems like you could only view the episodes in the US when they were trialing the streaming episodes. --Leojseivad (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Jackieboy87 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

CTV, the Canadian broadcaster of LOST has full episodes on their website (though it doesn't work for me, must be my computer) --robev (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there I am not a Wikipedia expert and don't know how to add this info. But I miss info of the film 'Les Amities Particulieres' which focus on a relation between a boy and a young man. In Youtube you can see this film also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.138.5 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

cast list in infobox

I thought it had been agreed not to include it, and provide a link to the cast section or cast page instead, due to the size? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

This section has needed improvements for ages, so here's a quick way to expand it. Every season page has a reception section, except for the fourth. If you just take the whole reception section from each article, edit it a bit to make it fit in with this page, you will have a nice long reception section. See, easy! I will do this soon, but if someone has some free time, please feel free to do it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just had a look at the articles, and maybe they aren't that good. At least have a bit of info. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the info, but I just realised that it isn't really relevant. It will have to be removed, but I think it will do for now. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's reception in a critical reception section. That seems relevant to me. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, lol. I was under the impression that fans felt that way, not critics. Serves me right for not bothering to look at the references. Do you think the tag should be removed now? It still needs expansion, but I don't think it warrants a tag... Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD Page

What happened to the dvd page, it was so good to have a list of dvd releases organized onto one page. Where did it go? Shake 3000 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The DVDs were merged into their respective season pages. However, the season 4 DVD information was removed from the season 4 article (and this may be done to other seasons). Most of the info came from here. You can also check Lostpedia if you want more in-depth info. Jackieboy87 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are dvd's even that notable for their own page? A movie, sure but, not something that's a duplicate of a season article.  Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R.  06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

dog

what is the dogs name on lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.1.66 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Vincent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.2 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vincent--Truetech (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LOST

Are you sure that the title of this series is LOST and not Lost? Minor detail I know but all the more accurate. (Piyush90 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

The name of the show is Lost, it is only capitalized as LOST in 3 places in the article; once for the disambig notice and twice where the capitalization is kept from the source. Jackieboy87 (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Lapidus

Jeff Fahey appears as Frank Lapidus more than Martin Keamy in season 4, but yet is left off the recurring character list at the end of the cast and characters section. I believe he should be added, but the article is locked... can someone help? Tonythetigerasn (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New Sky1 Lost page

The Lost page for the UK television network Sky1 is now at http://sky1.sky.com/lost-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debaser8 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it... Jackieboy87 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Easter egg/pointless info

Has it been posted that if you go to http://www.oceanic-air.com and hit control + a and click on the screen, this message "I survived a horrific plane crash and am stranded on an island somewhere Northeast of Australia and Southwest of Hawaii. In the event that I am never found, please forward word of my fate to my parents." appears on the screen in the yellow box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been noted before on other websites, and as you said its pointless info and doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. Jackieboy87 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Stupid, but needs editing out

In the part of the article which says the following, the part in bold shows what I mean...

The series , which debuted on September 22, 2004, became one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of the 2004 television season.

See? There is an unneceserry space. Stupid I know, but I thought I might as well point it out. *sigh* Thanks! 90.192.86.97 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Heroes/Lost Theory

I'm not the biggest Lost fan, so maybe I have no buisness writing here, but I am however a Heroes fan. When reading the discredited theories on this page I noticed there wasn't anything about a fan theory once going around that Heroes and Lost were in the same fictional universe. Of course this theory was denied, but shouldn't it be noted? But then again, really my place is on the Mohinder Suresh page. But I just thought I should put this in the disscusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.159.139 (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Heroes has nothing to do with Lost, so noting this would be pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.27.240 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, Heroes has nothing to do with Lost. However in a Gannon Car Rental brochure appeared in several episodes of Lost as well as the episode The Fix of Heroes. Then when Nathan Petrelli on Heroes made the statement, “…in a lab on some island in the middle of the ocean,” rumors that Heroes and Lost were in the same fictional universe began to spread. Both Damon Lindelof and Tim Kring debunked the rumors, making this a "discredited theory". 68.214.212.186 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Discredited monster theory

It says in the theories that the monster is NOT a cloud of Nanomachines, but from what I've seen in the show, the monster is an obediant black cloud that attacks people. Sounds like a Nanomachine cloud to me.72.235.131.7 (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"It says in the theories that the monster is NOT a cloud of Nanomachines". –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Former civilization on the island?

Question... is there the presence of another civilization on the Island? I ask this because there were a few monuments and buildings that were not of Dharma construction. I think it was in season 2 that a left foot of a giant statue (colossus) foot was seen on the beach... with only four toes. Also, there seemed to be a temple like structure where Locke's father was tied to a colum. Also, when the young Ben was in the class room after his arrival to the island... the teacher was describing a volcanic eruption when a student asked "like what happened here" and the teacher had said yes.

Is there anywhere where this info can be sources/researched more? It seems to be these are hints at a possibly Atlantis origion, with the "Hostiles" as prehaps their decendents?

Prehaps a timeline of the island may be created?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Season five cast

Instead of edit-warring over who is going to be credited in season five, we may as well discuss it. According to the ABC press release [12], Rebecca Mader and Daniel Dae Kim are not credited as main cast members for season five. This does not mean that these actors will not appear in season five. Reports have stated that Jin will be back, but have not reported whether or not he will be a main cast member. Ausiello of Entertainment Weekly says Jin will be back dead or alive, but does not report his cast status.[13] And Kristin of E! says that Jin is "fine," but again does not specify cast status. [14] Furthermore Cuse has been quoted as saying that Jin will be in season 5 "in some form" and again makes no mention of casting status.[15] Also, the information on Charlotte I could find is that she has a "recurring arc with a possible option for series regular next [in the fifth] season,"[16] which comes from DarkUFO, which isn't even reliable. The only reliable source that deals with casting information is the aforementioned press release. Therefore, per WP:V, it is my opinion that neither Rebecca Mader nor DDK should be listed as main cast members in season five because the only source regarding their main cast member status says that they are not credited as such. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this statement. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Critic Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune agrees. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's do what we always do when the sources differ from The Truth^TM: Report in the article which source says what, and leave it up to the reader to make up his mind. We'll know better in two months. (I.e. I agree.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really help for the bolding of current cast members in the infobox, so I'm just going to unbold everyone like it used to be. Anyways, I'm going to change the prose to "ABC has reported that Rebecca Mader and Daniel Dae Kim are not credited as main cast members in season five. However, executive producer Carlton Cuse has stated that Jin, Kim's character, will be on the show "in some form." "

Any objections? --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There's an objection here. The press release simply doesn't mention them. They're not reporting their absence, the press release is not directly related to the cast. Rehevkor ✉ 20:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The press release reports that there are 12 actors and no one else credited as main cast members; the main subject of the press release doesn't matter. It's either a reliable source or it isn't. Since everything else in the press release is accurate then it is reasonable to assert that the cast list is accurate as well. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the proposed prose would be inaccurate, "ABC has reported" suggests they they have categorically stated neither actor will be main cast members, but they're just not on the list. The source does not support the statement. Rehevkor ✉ 20:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How about: "ABC has not listed Rebecca Mader and Daniel Dae Kim as main cast members in season five. However, executive producer Carlton Cuse has stated that Jin, Kim's character, will be on the show "in some form." " --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Rehevkor ✉ 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Charlotte not a main character? :/ She's appearing in all of the promotional material for this season so far, and her storyline was only set up at the end of Season 4... Could this change in the near future before the episodes air?

See the above link to ABC's press release where she isn't listed as a cast member. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.imagebam.com/image/a6dd2b20019733 Doesn't this link suggest otherwise? I'm not arguing, I just think it's pretty strange Charlotte wouldn't be a main cast member! I'm hopeful she will be. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.40 (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It suggests otherwise and this is strange, but she has once again not been listed in the main cast by ABC Medianet. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is still a chance they will include her in the main cast before the season airs, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.190.40 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure. So far the only "evidence" is a lack of a credit. It's not actually been confirmed directly yet. Rehevkor ✉ 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In an interview, Darlton said that season 5 would have 14 main cast members AND that Jin is one of them. Without Charlotte, that makes 13, and considering that she was in the promotional material, I think we can safely say she is a main cast member. I am going to ammend the cast to the season 5 cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J52y (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Link, please. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Jin is definitely a main cast member, and I believe both Kristin and Ausiello has reported this. Not sure about the 14 member part. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Lost currently has 14 series regulars, Lindelof reveals". –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that it didn't say who the 14 regulars are. For all we know, Nestor Carbonell could be credited as a regular this season and next. Same goes for Alan Dale, or any new characters being introduced this season. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Naomi arriving on the island

"The team leader was Naomi Dorrit (Marsha Thomason), the first person to arrive to the island after the crash of Oceanic 815."

I don't like how this is worded. Mr. Friendly went off the island and came back between Micheal leaving the island and Naomi arriving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldpringle (talk • contribs) 03:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You could use that argument for Desmond too. Only thing is, both of them were on the island, left, and came back. That is not an arrival. --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Viewers for Season 5

"It received 20 million viewers." is what it says in the text while the table says about 11 million. I think something is amiss216.194.116.178 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cast and characters.

Well, for the last two hours, the table of cast and characters has been added, removed, re-added, touched up, and removed again. We should figure out a way to have this. I don't think we should have an extensive list, as we have the Characters of Lost page. But a brief mention of the things within the table wouldn't hurt. Just my opinion. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should follow WP:EMBED and leave it as prose only. We specifically have a link to the list of characters page so that people can go there for a list. It's pointless, in my opinion, to have the almost exact same list in multiple articles. Also, we already have a cast list in the info box. How many times does each actor need to be listed on this page? --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No need for the characters to be listed in the info box. It makes it too cluttered. Milchama (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted under the "recurring themes" heading that Jack Sheppard is named after the 18th century British burglar. As the wiki on the historical Jack notes, the poorer classes heroized Sheppard for his several escapes from prison. He was hanged in 1724. Benmillerj (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just a coincidence. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

zack and mirir

how/ when will the lost page be unlocked? i've signed up as a memeber and it wont let me edit.

But i'd like to add that Lost was briefly mention in zack and miri make a porno, in the scene where the eponymous characters are filming. One crew member asked another 'hey man, i missed lost this week', with the response being 'they're on the island, they're off the island, who can keep up with that shit?'. A third crew-member responds, 'i think they're in hell'.

The page has been locked for quite some time and will probably remain locked for a while due to heavy amounts of vandalism when it was unlocked. If you wait until your account is autoconfirmed (4 days, 10 edits) you will be able to edit the page. Also, specific references to the show in other media isn't notable enough for inclusion, unless it is talked about in reliable third party publications. See the guideline on notability. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

video game

Should we add stuff about the game in other media? Firio (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The game is mentioned in the "licensed merchandise" section, with a link leading to the article for the game. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I just glanced through, I guess I skipped it. Firio (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Narnia

[17] Is the show's Narnia influences mentioned anywhere? Alientraveller (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OMGWTFPOLARBEAR

Why does OMGWTFPOLARBEAR redirect to the Lost page? 216.195.149.209 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Where were you hoping to be directed? –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the IP wants the page to be deleted, rather than a redirect. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin indicated in an edit summary of the redirect that it would not qualify for speedy. Therefore I've nominated it at RfD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have seen on this page ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billabo (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Third Policeman

The The Third Policeman article includes a quote from someone named Craig Wright, who it identifies as a producer on Lost. Is this Craig Wright (playwright)? Also I'd appreciate it if someone could find a WP:RS for the quotes by Wright and Lindelof in the #Lost section of that article. Thanks. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct Craig Wright; he wrote two episodes of Lost in the second season and also served as a supervising producer then. According to Lostpedia[18], there was an article in the Chicago Tribune on September 21, 2005 that discusses the book's influence on the show. Lindelof, the executive producer talks about the book in a podcast, the transcript for which is here. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've improved that section as a result of your help. Am I correct in thinking that the particular podcast isn't available on ABC's website any more (I could find only the last year's worth or so)? 87.114.147.43 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Awards

It should be posted within the Awards section of the article that Lost recently recieved a Peabody award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmondia (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is already noted at the List of awards and nominations received by Lost page. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So are a lot of the other awards listed on the main Lost article. The peabody seems important enough to be on there. --Desmondia (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

lazy

This snippet is in the first paragraph: "though other time-related plot devices changes this formula". "changes" should be changed to "change" -- the article is semi-protected and I can't remember my password. Thanks, Wikipedia. I love you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.31.142 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia In Article

I do not believe that siting 1 specific fansite in the acticle contributes anything to it nor would it be fair to other Lost fansites. The link in the article only uses Wikipidia to really promote itself. Why should this one fansite be linked in the article above any others or at all?Jason 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

I don't believe any other Lost fan sites have Wikipedia articles? Article has "relevant connections to the subject" and as long as it remains notable per the article there's no reason not to link it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place shall we? No need to start yet another section on the same subject, especially when you've contributed above. – Toon^(talk) 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Ldstryfe is taking issue with Lostpedia being mentioned (and the Wikipedia article linked to) at all in the article, rather than the external link as is being discussed above. Rehevkor ✉ 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo in "Official Tie-in Websites"

{{editsemiprotected}} There is a typo in the description of Octagon Global Recruiting. It says "recruiting devision" which should be "recruiting division".

Done Thank you very much. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly podcast about television: you're invited

On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written extensively about Lost (and wikis). If editors of this article would like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76. --ragesoss (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. / USA / United States

All 3 terms appear in the article, and it's a bit inconsistent. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Well, it used 4 actually, there was US also. I've switched all the acronyms to "US" per the Manual of Style. Using both "US" and "United States" is OK. - kollision (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia link?

I've noticed some "drama" about the link to Lostpedia. I feel I should point out the guidelines about external links specify that links to wikis "to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". I can't specify about weather or not Lostpedia follows this guideline, especially after the move to wikia, but I thought I should point this out. Rehevkor ✉ 04:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, exactly, but "drama" over this issue is kinda two-and-a-half-years-ago. (Lostpedia meets those criteria as much as any non-Wikipedia wiki does.) Robert K S (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I support the inclusion of Lostpedia - it's pretty massive in terms of a fan Wiki, and is referenced quite heavily by the press - [19] It certainly aids our coverage by having a link to the site. – Toon^(talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about linking to ad-supported sites. It's a huge advantage (as in DOLLARS of REVENUE) for such a site to get a link from Wikipedia, which does not have ads. There was no Lostpedia link (other than via the footnotes) in the article until about 3 weeks ago. What has changed to merit its inclusion? CasperGoodwood (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak to what has or has not changed, but I don't see how the fact that Lostpedia has ads is relevant to the question of whether this article should link to it. Yes, it is to the site's financial advantage to have a Wikipedia link... but that's not a criterion we use when determining which external links to include. WP:EL#ADV suggests that if a consensus of editors agree that a site should be linked, it should be linked. And that's what I see above.

The link should be considered on its own merits, and whether it meets the guideline for external links. WP:ELYES says that links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks)..." should be included. Because Lostpedia is a fan wiki, it contains more detail about the television series than Wikipedia does or should. And since it does appear to have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", I don't see why a link to it shouldn't be included. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so: which other Lost fan sites should be included, then? Also, please sign your post. CasperGoodwood (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with concerns about people using WP for promotion, but whether a site uses ads or not isn't a reason not to include it - it's just a potential motivation for nefarious editors. Each site should be included on a case-by-case basis, as someone suggests them or inserts them. It's pretty likely that someone coming to Wikipedia looking for info about Lost would be served by us linking to Lostpedia, given that the site goes more fancruftish than we do. – Toon^(talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have accidentally typed five tildes instead of four. Most fan sites should not be linked, per WP:EL; however, if there is a fan site which is widely recognized as a useful resource and has been mentioned in media coverage of the series and its fandom, it might merit inclusion. I don't know Lost fandom well enough to judge, but a suitable comparison might be Outpost Gallifrey, which is linked in the FA Doctor Who. A possible guide might be whether the site could pass WP:WEB and have an article of its own. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I find your citation of WP:ELYES unfortunately selective. Specifically, look at the section on "Links to be avoided", items 2, 4, and 11. #11 cites, as one type of link to be avoided: "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." Equally, #2 talks about a site's use of unverifiable research. And, mentioning that there are a grand total of three people above who've commented on this is not exactly tantamount to proving consensus. I think the existing footnote link to Lostpedia, as well as its mention in the body of the text itself, is quite sufficient. The new link should go. CasperGoodwood (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The timing of it's addition means nothing. It is an official tie-in site, as a contest that was held put things up on their site. It's a good, albeit, not necessarily fully reliable, source. And, to me, it's not a "fan site". DrArzt, SpoilerLost, etc., those are fansites. Lostpedia is a legitimate, tie-in source of information. I'm not going to revert you, because it'll all end up looking bad on any records, and it's pointless. I just thought, since I'm one of the first two people to begin this "war", I'd throw my two cents in. That's how I feel. And I'm done with this particular topic (barring an extreme need). --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the link should be included as the creative team behind Lost has found it significant enough to include it in their alternate reality game and that it has enough significant media coverage to be considered notable enough to have it's on WP article at Lostpedia, which has survived four AFDs. To those who say a link shouldn't be included because the site runs on ads: well, so does IMDb and no one ever thinks twice before linking to it from every article on a movie, television show, actor, director, etc. Meanwhile, Lostpedia contains siginificant coverage on both technical and creative aspects of the show and certainly has a substantial history of stability. The site has been up for at least three years and has a large group of members who constantly keep the information up to date. In short, I fail to see why we shouldn't link to it. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's cite a few facts. 1) Lostpedia indeed does describe itself as a fansite (see its legal disclaimer on its front page: "This fansite is NOT in any way, shape, or form affiliated with ABC" etc.); 2) See the very lengthy discussion here regarding fansites and inclusion of the Lostpedia link, as cited above. Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Fansites -- at the very least, that should be taken into account during any discussion of claimed "consensus"; 3) Lostpedia already IS included in the article, both textually (via a link to the WP article on it) and in a footnote which CONTAINS a link to the site itself. There's no need to have yet a third reference to it, since any WP reader of this article who wishes to get to Lostpedia can already do so easily; 4) There are dozens of well-known and decent-quality LOST fansites that have good followings (e.g., http://www.lost-tv.com/, http://lost-media.com/, http://lost.cubit.net/, http://darkufo.blogspot.com/, http://thetailsection.com/ ad infinitum). Why have a category for "Other websites" and include just Lostpedia alone? And then the natural follow-up question: do we really want to include a whole bunch of them? Again, review all the old arguments from two years ago. This ISN'T a slam dunk decision, and I've got to wonder why the renewed push for yet another Lostpedia link here, considering that they've already been recognized on WP with their own article and TWO references here in the main LOST article. CasperGoodwood (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia describes itself as an encyclopedia for Lost, hence the name. Quoting the legal disclaimer is just arguing semantics.

The site, launched by Kevin Croy, was created in order to allow fans of the show to organize the massive amounts of theories, plotlines and cast information that was generated by the show's premise. -- Lostpedia:About

Furthermore, the old talk page about Lostpedia is huge, you shouldn't expect anyone to catch up with those discussions and taking them into account. As I understand it, those are two year old discussions anyway, if someone has a problem with it now he's welcome to bring it up here. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So have we reached an agreement? --HELLØ ŦHERE 03:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, we haven't. Someone DOES "have a problem" with the link (i.e., ME), and I've brought it up here with specific arguments. bitbit doesn't address my points, other than somehow implying that I was the one who brought up whether Lostpedia is a fansite or not. My most major points are, once again: a) Lostpedia is already linked to; why add yet another link? (What, should we have a link to Lostpedia in every paragraph of the article now?); and b) if we include Lostpedia, why not include the dozens of other fansites as well? It's a slippery slope. CasperGoodwood (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that your problem with the link is that it is generating revenue for Wikia, based on your linking to that blog in your edit summary, something now not even mentioned as one of your "major points". Since then, you have decided to argue that it should be removed because it is already linked to in a reference and that the website itself is run by the fan community. First off, the link in the reference is pointless, as it only exists to show that Lostpedia exists, and I will be removing it regardless. Your second point seems to be aimed at who is running the site, instead of the actual content on the site, which, as I have stated before, is composed of highly detailed information on both the technical and creative aspects of the show. This information can't be placed on Wikipedia due to copyright restrictions (extended plot summaries, episode transcripts, etc.) or amount of detail (extended information on extras and other non-notable crew members, as well as interview transcripts). This information is likely to help readers, more so than other fansites, which are unlikely to provide as much in depth coverage on the topic of Lost. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree. I also must point out that you have a problem with it does not mean you will automatically get "your way", you could have a problem with it for 1000 years, but if consensus agrees it should stay, it'll stay. And I know several articles that link the same website more than once. Two is not a huge deal as you're making it out to be, especially making the, hopefully sarcastic, remark of "every paragraph". That was useless. I am not criticizing you, I hope you understand that, I'm just trying to address the point at hand. I believe, with your exception, most others do not have a problem with it. I personally think it should come back. I do agree with your previous statement about it getting its own heading, I don't agree with that, but I do think it should be there. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lostpedia is notable enough as a source to warrant its own article, it has been referenced in the press as a notable site, and is directly relevant to this article. That there are links between the site and the show's creators further strengthens the argument for inclusion of the link, and it's clear that the argument for removal is a minority opinion here; consensus is clear, the link should be present. – Toon^(talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did address your points. Your first point was that Lostpedia describes itself as a fansite, and it doesn't. It's an enyclopedia for Lost, and as such its value to the reader is far beyond that of a mere fansite. Further to my previous arguments on this matter, I'll add that it also topped Wired's list of best non-Wikipedia "pedias". As for your second point, I don't think a link or two to Lostpedia's Wikipedia article, in an article that is 13,274 words long, justifies excluding an external link. It wouldn't pass accessibility otherwise. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the postings here the concensus appears to be that it is indeed a fansite and should be excluded. Looking at those that posted for it are you affiliate with site there? Either way its not a sanctioned site by the station, producers, or writers so thus is should be labelled a fansite.Jason 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

Let me rephrase that -- Some aspects of Lostpedia can be considered a fansite. It has a forum, it has a blog, but those are seperate parts of the website that do not affect the wiki. What we're addressing here is the wiki of Lostpedia, which is an encyclopedia with reliable sources. And I'm proposing it for addition into the article as such. The offical Wikipedia policy for fansites, and external links in general, is Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. And Lostpedia passes all its rules. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ldstryfe: you should read WP:CONSENSUS, and re-evaluate your assertion, along with assume some good faith - there's no reason to presume that anybody here is affiliated with the website - we all assume good faith about your arrival in this discussion, after all. – Toon^(talk) 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Lostpedia "a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, or a particular cultural phenomenon"? A simple yes or no will do. If yes by Wikipedia's definition it is a fansite. If so please specify what how it is created, maintained and updated.Jason 13:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

If you are insinuating that there is some kind of blanket ban on all fansites being included as external links on Wikipedia, you would find that you are wrong. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ldstryfe, I will quote the text at the top of the guideline you are (wrongly) applying here: This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is not policy, and you are suggesting that we follow rules for rules' sake. Let's apply some common sense (as the guideline suggests) and not blindly try to follow a guideline that has been misinterpreted. – Toon^(talk) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear from the above discussion that we do NOT have consensus, even about the (to me incontrovertible fact) nature of Lostpedia as a fansite. I'm removing the (third and extraneous) link for now, once again. As stated, it didn't get put in until a couple of weeks ago, and there has been massive opposition to including it in the past. The burden of proof is on the people who somehow want it included; part of that needs to be explaining just why Lostpedia should be included in this special section of "Other web sites" and not have similar fan sites included as well. CasperGoodwood (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Time of inclusion means nothing. From what I see, you're the only main opposition to its addition. And numerous others have stated its reasons for inclusion. Past "debates" over this topic mean nothing to the discussion at hand. We who feel it should be included do not necessarily have to "prove" why it should. A consensus seems to have been formed. remember, it's consensus, not unanimity. The majority of us have seemed to show you it isn't just a fansite, though it does have certain qualities of such. We have shown reasons, answers, and replies to your comments. You only seem to be fixated on two topics, it's place as a "fansite", and it's date of inclusion, which mean nothing. The rules have been shown time and again on why it can and should be included. Simple as that. I personally will not revert your edit, but if this continues when it seems pretty clear that consensus has been gained, I will be forced to report you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, "HELLO THERE" yourself! Let's keep the discussion civil and rational; there's no need to make threats, particularly so unbased. No, the Lostpedia link promoters have not answered my comments, other than claiming that the "fansite" discussion is "semantics," despite the demonstrated fact that Lostpedia describes itself as a fansite. Your claim may indeed be because of the awkward reality that WP:ELYES, as mentioned above, specifically cautions against fansites being linked to, particularly if they contain "unverifiable research", which Lostpedia certainly does. (Don't get me wrong: I'm a Lostpedia reader myself, and I go there after every LOST episode so I can read what people are theorizing. Doesn't matter; that's not Wikipedia). I have asked, again and again, why Lostpedia should be the only site listed in an "Other web sites" category, and received no satisfactory response other than a bizarre tautological claim that Lostpedia will "help readers more than other fansites". I listed something like six other fansites that are well regarded, and there are certainly more; should we include them all? Who decides the criteria? Or, if you're arguing again for just Lostpedia being listed, that seems, well, a little odd, shall we say, and raises my AGF eyebrows, at least. Again, I will point out that there already IS a Lostpedia mention in the article, and a Lostpedia link in a footnote, AND a Wikipedia article on the site. How many references do you guys really need to have? As for the importance of editing history here, note that there is a comment at the top of the External Links section that indicates the long-standing tradition here on this page, saying specifically: "NOTE: This section is for official sites dealing with the show in general. Please do not add fan sites, fan message boards, or sites containing clues for The Lost Experience and Find 815 ARGs". This comment has been there for years. CasperGoodwood (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The mere fact that you say such things as, "How many references do you guys really need to have?", indicates to me that in your view you are somehow separate from the rest of us editors who are trying to work collaboratively on this article. It suggests to me that you have pitted yourself against us in some kind of battle to remove the link to Lostpedia, for whatever reason, in violation of WP:BATTLE, instead of working collaboratively to find a solution. I find it hard to continue to assume good faith myself, when you have repeatedly removed the link, violating the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, even after an administrator determined there was consensus to keep the link. It seems clear to me that you will not stop your crusade until the link is removed and that you are not willing to compromise. If all else fails, I find this to be a good oppurtunity to invoke WP:IAR because the consensus here, as determined by an administrator, is to keep the link despite its failing WP:EL, in your opinion. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow now your trying to turn a discussion into some kind of "battle"? Calm down. You stated you want compromise. So far the only things suggested was include the link or delete the link. Show me a fair compromise that makes both parties happy? Several people have spoke out against the fansite which is Lostpedia and several has spoken out for it. No consenus has been reached at all about it as this continues on. For those wanting it included in please state #1 what your fansite brings to the article that is factual, relevant and credible. Also please state why a fansite (you can claim that some parts are and some are not but as a whole when combined its demed a fansite) should be included. I would argue that the Lostpedia seems to gain more from having a link on this article than the article does by having the link. Jason 14:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the wikilink to Lostpedia. I have reverted you per WP:BRD, as the wikilink has been there for quite some time and there is no discussion here directly related to the wikilink. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a link to Lostpedia in the external links section, not a link to the article on Lostpedia. As long the article remains it should really be linked somewhere in this one. But that's a discussion for another time and place. Rehevkor ✉ 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter even a little bit what Lostpedia itself does or does not get out of a link being included. Any argument based upon the revenue of Lostpedia is completely irrelevant to whether it should be included here - all that matters is the benefits of having the link here - your concerns with the revenue of Lostpedia do not have anything to do with this discussion. There is no burden of proof, we do not have to prove anything to you, the decision is based upon consensus, which has been reached. Opposition argument simply repeats lines in guidelines which do not apply here and draw obsessively on concern about a website making money. Repeating words over and over in the hope that opposing users will give up does not constitute a lack of consensus. I'm requesting a third opinion to get this over and done with. – Toon^(talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the consensus being reached. It has not. The statement has been made but never been refuted that Lostpedia is a fansite. Whether in the article or in the external links section it is a fansite period. That is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Does it add anything to this article by having it link? No. Does it take anything away from the article being link? No. So why does this specific fansite deserve to be linked to above and beyond any other sites? Its simple it does. Either all fansites for Lost should be link or we link none of them. Its very simple. Toon05 by looking at the discussions going on by multiple people you cannot say that a consenus has been met when none has. Neither side has agreed on anything other than that Lostpedia is a fansite. Thats all. Jason 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Short and sharp: 1) Does it add anything to this article by having it link? Yes clearly - it's an extra resource notable enough for an article and cited by the press. 2) Are fansites allowed to be linked? Yes, so even if you want to ignore the fact that there are links between the show's creators and the website, there's no problem. – Toon^(talk) 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"extra resource" is not specific. What does it add specifically? What other fansites are specifically link and highlighted, as in the article linking to Lostpedia? As far as anything listed in the article I see nothing that presenting this link in a way that is not just publicity for the site. The specific areas that its been listed is to highlight that is a fansite and directly links to it, but does not do the same for any other sites. Then in the external links. Neither directly contribute to the article at hand. Please Toon05 go into detail as to what linking to this site does for this article. Thus far I have only seen where Lostpedia benefits on this. Jason 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

Lostpedia contains extensive details on plot, character and continuity from the series which are not appropriate for a general-interest encyclopedia, but which provide further information to interested readers. It is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive Lost resource on the internet. As such, it is a potentially valuable resource for readers of this article. That should be sufficient justification. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just gonna make one more point. I try not to do this whole "comparison" often but why is that both Star Wars and Star Trek have their respective external -pedia sites yet this one shouldn't? Just a thought. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say wtih that statement Josiah I will be in agreement that Lostpedia should then be in the External Links but I do not believe it should be highlighted as a fan site in the article because its the only fansite being highlighted. I would say either list every fan site there with a link the same as Lostpedia is done or we don't include links to fan sites in the article. Jason 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

No one questions, Josiah, whether Lostpedia contains extensive details about LOST. But so do a lot of other LOST fan sites that are quite encyclopedic in scope. Just to name one (and I'm hardly plugging it): http://www.lost-tv.com has news, episode info, pictures, forums, cast, crew, character info, even transcripts of the shows. OK, another: so does http://www.losttvfans.com/, which is also a wiki. There are lots of other examples, some of which I mentioned in an earlier comment. There was (and remains) a long-standing reason not to start down the slippery slope of including a link to a fansite like Lostpedia. The compromise solution (which I don't myself like, but I can accept as a compromise) some time back was to mention Lostpedia (with a link to its WP article) in the text, but not have a link to it at the end of the article, so that we don't go down that slippery slope. Linking to Lostpedia as a sole case is a very dubious and unsupportable solution in my view. CasperGoodwood (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah very good point. Why should Lostpedia be listed instead of any others? Jason 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldstryfe (talk • contribs)

While I'm neutral on the external link issue, Lostpedia is evidently notable by Wikipedia's standards as per it's own article (or so I presume), and for the the Lost article to be comprehensive it really should link the the Lostpedia article in some way, be it in body/prose or the see also section. Rehevkor ✉ 18:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a completely unagreed-upon major revision by bitbit (insertion of a huge comment block describing supposed "policy", plus collapsing of all the links at the end of the article, plus insertion of the controversial link to Lostpedia), the edit summary for which included an obscenity. Not the way things are done here. CasperGoodwood (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So I'm just presuming that the result was to not include it? --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)