Talk:What Kate Did

Correct title of novel?

The end of this article mentions a novel called What Kate Did. Shouldn't this read What Katy Did - as in the Susan Coolidge book? --bUcKaRoO 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference used to read Katy, not Kate, but it shouldn't be there at all (and has been removed previously, only to pop up once again): it is speculative, completely unconfirmed by the producers (who have stated that the title came from all the people who kept asking about "what Kate did", etc. There's absolutely nothing to link this episode to the Coolidge book. I'd remove it again, but am choosing not to edit the fancruft-laden single episode articles, since it's an exercise in futility, given instances like that. The core article is at Episodes of Lost (Season 2). -- PKtm 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. --bUcKaRoO 11:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Centralized move discussion

Per WP:LOST/Episode guidelines, this page should be moved from What Kate Did to What Kate Did (Lost), to make it consistent with the other Lost episodes at Category:Lost episodes. Anyone interested in supporting or opposing this move, or who believes that a different suffix should be used (such as "(Lost episode)"), or who wishes to comment in any way, is encouraged to participate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Lost/Episode guidelines#Name suffix. --Elonka 14:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LOST209.jpg

Image:LOST209.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lost2 09 hand.JPG

Image:Lost2 09 hand.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhatKateDid LOST.JPG

Image:WhatKateDid LOST.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Sam Austen really Kate's stepfather?

I am not certain that calling Sam "Kate's stepfather" is technically correct. Has it been established that Wayne Jansen is Kate's father of legal record, listed on her birth certificate or whatever? If not, I think it's more likely that, as far as public records are concerned, Sam Austen is considered her father. As I understand it, "stepfather" means a man who marries a woman who already has borne children by another man (before the marriage). I don't know what the correct term would be for cases like Sam, where official documents claim that he is the biological father, but this is not actually true due to infidelity by the child's mother. Can anyone out there shed any light on this matter?

Your friend, Augustus Chip (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got a source?

I removed this info: The episode title is likely a reference to the famous children's book What Katy Did. It's really interesting and seems plausible, unfortunately without a reference, it can't be included, but if any info can be found...