Jump to content

Talk:Lost (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Josiah Rowe (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 30 January 2006 (→Where should Lost and LOST redirect?: move request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Because of their length, certain previous discussions on this page have been archived. The dates are a rough estimate of the period. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

 This is a talk page for discussion of the article about Lost. It is not for discussion about the programme itself, unless that discussion involves improving the article. In particular, it is not for discussion about whether or not Lost is a "good" or "bad" programme; or finding out what "this and that" is.

Please see "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and "Wikiquette" for information about the proper use of talk pages.  Before asking a question here concerning what can and cannot be posted in this article, please refer to the following Wikipedia rules:

Redirect and page moves at Lost and Lost (disambiguation)

Hey, everybody. This is only tangentially related to the Lost (TV series) page, but I wanted to get a wider opinion on something. Recently, an anon user at 129.241.94.253 and 129.241.94.254 has been moving the disambiguation content formerly at Lost to Lost (disambiguation), and turning Lost into a redirect to Lost (TV series). I actually think this makes some sense, but back in September the same thing was proposed (as part of a larger discussion of page moves), and failed to reach the 60% threshold for consensus. I don't know if the same consensus rules apply to the recent moves, which affect Lost (TV series) only indirectly, but I figured that it ought to be discussed. The anon has now moved the page three times; discussion is at Talk:Lost. I'd appreciate any input. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (TV Series) is by clear the most significant and well known article, as the others named Lost are a hamlet in scotland, a reality tv series, a drink, three redlinks and a nickname for Mustard Gas. Sceptre (Talk) 19:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before. The hamlet, the tv show, and the wiktionary link on the side are all common reasons a person might look up Lost in the wikipedia. Leave it as it is. --DDG 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hamlet, I doubt. The other two, I concede. And your user page should have [[cybersex|Cyber]] in it, DDG Sceptre (Talk) 20:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The anon (currently at 129.241.28.247, although I'm fairly certain it's the same person) recently moved these pages for a fourth time without discussion. I moved them back, as there didn't seem to be a consensus supporting the move — but it's a nuisance to have to keep changing this back, especially when I think a decent argument could be made supporting it. Is this worth mentioning on WP:RM again? Is it too soon after the September move? Anyone have any suggestions for how to get an anon to use talk pages? This slow-speed edit war is getting tedious. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adding the test messages. If they continue to be unresponsive or violate the WP:3RR notify myself or another admin; and we'll block the IP according to policy. --DDG 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the moves are all coming from different IPs, although it's pretty clearly the same user: each IP also has a number of edits at Kundalini, which is odd enough that it can't be a coincidence. I don't think the user is likely to violate 3RR, since each move has been a week or so apart. I guess I'll just keep putting notes on the respective talk pages and hope that they're received somehow. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has turned Lost into a redirect four times since January 9, and has not responded to multiple messages left at their user talk page and at Talk:Lost. Today a new account with one edit (User:Sharkstand) did the same. Is it better to crack down on the user, or hold a new WP:RM? I'm at a loss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Themes

Moved to Talk:Lost (TV_series)/Story_elements

Excised this Original Research:

Determination
Mostly through the story of Locke, determination is an ever present concept. The concept of never giving up and always pressing on with no hope, and often times being able to achieve anything. Many times Locke uses the phrase "Don't tell me what I can't do!" as a result he is often times the competant survivor on the island. It is even present with Jack as a doctor, as he refuses to give up on his patients being successful, such as with Charlie, and unsuccessful at times, such as with Boone. Even after Sun repeatedly tells him that he cannot save Boone, he yells "Don't tell me what I can't do!"

Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to try out new theories. See: "What is Excluded?"—LeFlyman 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another fresh example of theme Original Research has slipped in:

Starting over

In Tabula Rasa, Jack told Kate, "It doesn't matter... who we were - what we did before this, before the crash... three days ago we all died. We should all be able to start over." Many of the characters are in one way or another finding a second chance at life on the island.

  • Kate was a wanted criminal on the run before the plane crash. On the island she lives a life free of crime, and has used her skills for the good of other survivors.
  • Locke was a helpless paraplegic before the plane crash, but miraculously regained the use of his legs when the plane crashed. On the island he is often the protector of the other survivors.
  • Before the plane crash, Jack could not accept failure or death. On the island, he has become become more accepting of the death of his father, as well as his own failure to save Boone.
  • Before the plane crash, Charlie was a drug-addict who could not support anyone but himself. On the island, he has stopped using drugs and has done everything he can to take care of Claire and her baby.
  • Claire was ready to give her baby up for adoption when the plane arrived in LA, but on the island she has accepted her baby and taken care of it herself.

Again, while this is an interesting set of similarities, it delves into opinion-based qualifications. There appear to be an almost limitless supply of ways one can indentify/group thematic elements on the show— but unless we aim for some level of Verifiability this article will be over-run with all the excesses that have currently been archived at Talk:Lost (TV_series)/Story_elements. However, if there's a consensus for it, as this section seems to be so interesting for editors to expand, perhaps it may be broken out as a separate article (i.e. Story Elements of Lost or Themes of Lost)— where those who wish to categorise/verify such content can be free to do so without weighing down the main article. —LeFlyman 18:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm getting ready to fly back home after my holiday vacation, so I probably won't be able to post any thoughts I have very much over the next day or two, but I will note that splitting the Story Elements out should be avoided at all costs. It would be like moving the problem elsewhere, add another page we'd have to police, and probably eventually get merge and redirected back here. I expect there's already significant Wiki-stress for the longer term editors here... I haven't seen several of them in awhile, for example, and we should probably try and find a solution that avoids making things worse. I have come to believe that the best way to proceed would be to try and develop this article in the direction of a featured article. I think this because we've recently been given a template of a much beloved current/recent show being a Featured Article: Arrested Development (Featured on 12/5/2005). That page is pretty sizeable and has a section on themes and whatnot. When I saw it as an FA, I was actually kind of jealous... I know that we have the editor loyalty and the interest in this article to do the very same thing, but we're so mired by the speculative nature of most contributions, we're actually talking about removing themes altogether or various other extreme solutions. Perhaps we should try something like proposing Lost as a collaboration of the week to start with. I don't know.... I certainly never expect the Lost article to look exactly like the AD one, but perhaps if we could get some type of goal for this page going, we'd have people focusing more on improving the page and less on using it as a repository for their own theories and speculations.
On another note, 207.172.73.17... join us! Registration is quite easy and you won't have to be identified by your IP anymore. Baryonyx 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with some of the suggestions put forth by 207.172.73.17—and yes, as Baryonyx said, please register! In looking over the Arrested Development article, I must say (not to be competitive) that I think the LOST articles do a better job at being "encyclopedic". While speculation and non-neutrality are difficult to avoid in fan-oriented entries, I think we're already "there" as far as meeting the criteria for Featured Article status. I'd like to see us deal with the issues of verifiability of "Themes" first, but after some tweaks, the Lost articles should be ready to be nominated for FA. —LeFlyman 21:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally registered! So I understand the difficulty with grouping thematic elements on the show in a verifiable way, but to me there is no difference between "Parents and Children" and "Starting Over": Both are lists of similarities that can be drawn between the different characters of Lost, and neither one tries to interpret these similarities or their importance. Just as it is a verifiable fact that many characters have conflicts with their parents and children on the show, it is also verifiable that many characters go through change as a result of being on the island. The same goes for the other deleted section, "Dichotomy of Faiths." The fact that different characters on the show have conflicting viewpoints is not up for debate: It's fact. Perhaps the issue is that there's no way to know whether the producers meant for "Starting Over" and "Dichotomy of Faiths" to be overall themes on the show or if they just happened to use these plot devices multiple times. But then the same is true of "Parents and Children": Maybe the producers had no intention of making that a theme, they just happened to make most of the characters be in conflict with their parents or children. (Did that make any sense?)--Silentword 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Note: the links in this section are meant only to be either network sites or official "Lost" sites, and as such must be able to be sourced to producers, ABC, Touchstone, or Disney. All websites posted here will be examined via Whois and for production copyright. Any site without official status will be removed."

Why? If theories can't be posted on this site because they belong on fan sites, why can unofficial sites not be linked? Is this to avoid some kind of linking competition?--69.34.211.163 07:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any comments about this? I don't think external links should be arbitrarily excluded. --70.109.52.231 04:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source i.e. when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.
  • Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.
Since this page is about the TV series Lost, the official sites (which are not personal anyway) are primary sources about the subject. The personal sites are also about Lost, but as the statement above indicates, because this page is not about the content or authors of, say, Mr.Clucks.com, these sites should not be posted here as primary source material. If anything, they'd be secondary sources. However, statement two indicates that personal websites (which are by definition not officially sanctioned) should never be used as secondary sources. So, by Wikipedia guidelines, these personal sites have no business ever being on the page. While this is not a specific policy, it is also used in conjunction with the policies of No Original Research and Verifiability, which in my opinion renders any discussion on having these sites ever posted unnecessary. Since we'd be linking to these pages on an encyclopedic article, they need to have standards of accuracy and fact, standards the official sites can meet but which these fanon sites cannot. Baryonyx 18:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about sites that aren't blogs. I see IMDB is linked. Why is that ok, but sites like thelostwiki.com keep being removed. IMDB, asside from being notoriously untrustworthy (some call it Incorrect Movie Database), is not a primary source. Can one encyclopedic article (this one), not link to another encyclopedic site, particularly one that provides an outlet for discussions not permisible on this page? --67.76.88.88 05:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your sole basis of evidence against IMDB hinges on the use of a weasel word. IMDB gets things wrong sure (such as the Lost listing of Samuel L. Jackson as Bernard last summer). So does Wikipedia. IMDB may get things wrong at times, but it's considered a standard enough resource that it's included in the standard TV infobox. Much like Wikipedia, IMDB is only as good as the information entered by its contributors. Also like Wikipedia, IMDB has methods (different ones, to be sure) by which the errors get weeded out. It seeks to be an authoritative site recording the history of a production, and there's far more accurate information on the entirety of IMDB than there is inaccurate. Further, IMDB is not a fansite, but an information site. It can't be a primary source, no, even if some info is made available directly from a studio, because of the number of non-industry editors. However, it is one of the leading secondary sources available on the Internet for film and television, and at no point are secondary sources banned from Wikipedia. Using fansites as secondary sources is what's banned. Since the Lost Wiki, by your own admission, is one that is an outlet for the discussions not held here (like for theories and spoilers), it falls into the category of fansite, not encyclopedia. If it was encyclopedic, policies like those listed at the top of the page would be as rigorously defended and applied as we try to do here. Adding the Lost Wiki would not be an instance of linking two encyclopedias together. It would be an instance of favoring one particular unofficial fansite over all the others we've also consistently removed from the page. So, you can take your case for removing IMDB links to a larger audience on Wikipedia if you like, but that won't affect whether the Lost Wiki will or will not remain in our External Links section. It's a fansite, and certainly not official, and thus has no standing as a source for the page here. Baryonyx 06:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weasel Word? You're kidding right. Maybe you should Google a statement before you say that no one ever said it: [1]

He's not claiming that "no one ever said it" before. That's not what a weasel word is. Besides, the fact that a bunch of dubious Google results contain the phrase "Incorrect Movie Database" doesn't strengthen your arguments. Danflave 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what weasel words are. The fact is, IMDB is notoriously inaccurate (much like Wikipedia!), and people DO call it the "Incorrect Movie Database." And, what's more, that is all entirely besides the point. But, whatever. I've never edited this entry, but merely noticed sites that were once listed no longer there and asked why. It's really not a big deal. I mean, it's just a TV show, afterall. On the point of pagerank, external links could always be tagged rel="nofollow" and that would solve that problem (at least until someone else edited the entry).


Fresh Original Research for Character names

The fancruft game of finding new and exciting Original Research has once again crept into the Story Elements section:

Christian Shephard's name strongly connotes the concept of forgiveness and redemption.
Gary Troup is an anagram of Purgatory.

Neither of these can be considered verifiable content. The first is pure speculation, and the second reflects an anagram of a name that has no appearance in the SHOW itself, but is of a fictional author of a book published by ABC's sister publishing label Hyperion Press. The character himself will not be in Lost, because he supposedly died in the plane crash. Thus, I'm removing both. And to whomever keeps re-inserting them: please stop.—LeFlyman 18:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying Rousseau is named after the philospher is just as verifiable as saying Christian Shepard is connoted with forgiveness and redeption. As well, as I recall, aren't the lostaways going to stumble upon Gary Troup's manuscript in some undiscovered wreckage? I no longer have the source. User:Synflame
  • It isn't as Verifiable-- the creators have stated that the naming of Locke and Rousseau was connected to the philosophers. However, nowhere is there any official source which reflects the "meaning" of Jack Shephard's name, nor Shannon's connection to Ernest Rutherford. Any such interpretation is Original Research because it either is the view of the editor who included it here, or based on some fan site. Wikipedia is not to be used as a primary source, which means such interpretations have no place here. This holds true for anagrams-- unless they are referenced by the creators, they are just speculative. In contrast, "Ethan Rom" has been referenced on the offical Oceanic-Air site as "Other Man." "Gary Troup," however, is not a character in the series; but a fictitious author of an ancillary publication. If he is at some point referenced on the show, then something may be mentioned about him; but so far, it's pure Crystall Ballingto include him here.--LeFlyman 00:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well if "Ethan Rom" being an anagram of "Other Man" is official, why was it removed from the list of names? Because his name is not a story element? In my view it is, and I think it should be put back.--207.172.73.17 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Colombian version

On December 13, I added some info about a new Colombian series loosely based in Lost:

On December 14, 2005, Colombian network Caracol TV premieres Vuelo 1503, the local remake for Lost (the original series can be viewed there on AXN). In this version, the crashing plane was flying from Bogotá to Miami. - Source

An anonymous user removed the info I wrote. It was fine, because it's not an "official" remake [2]. In fact, because the -unusual in Colombian TV- premiere of a national series in December, the competitor network premiered the original series. [3] If it's not an "official" remake but a "Lost"-loosely based series, how should it be mentioned in the main article? Julián Ortega - drop me a message 15:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It shouldn't be. This is an article about the TV series Lost, not an article about all shows that contain references to it or plot lines of a similar vein. If it is loosely based on Lost, or even a homage to Lost, it's not Lost and is hence trivial information to include on this page. If anything, it should be listed on the Movie Connections page at IMDB, but certainly not here. The only thing that should be mentioned is the airing of the actual series on whichever channel is actually airing Lost, and that should be placed on the Airdates of Lost page. Baryonyx 20:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Story Elements

I disagree with the way that the story elements are divided. The Philosophical and Metaphysical Elements is subdivided into three categories that have little to do with each other. The names and the Dharma logos may both be philosophical symbolism, but the dichotomy of faiths is an element of the plot, not symbolism. And not all the names are even of philosophers- Rutherford was a scientist, and Ethan Rom's name (it's not currently on the list but should be) is not representative of any famous person but is symbolic because it's an anagram. And if Names and the Dharma Logos are in this category because they're symbolic, shouldn't "Black and White" and "Numbers" also fit under this category since they probably represent something greater? I would suggest either taking away the Philosophical and Metaphysical Elements category and making each of the sub-categories into a category, or dividing the whole Story Elements section into two categories: Recurring Plot Elements (has the subcategories of Parents, Redemption, and Dichotomy of Faiths) and Symbolism and Motifs (has the subcategories of Black and White, Numbers, Dharma Initiative Logos, Character Names).--207.172.73.17 22:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make these changes. Change it back to the way it was if you have good reason, though I'd like to hear why.--207.172.73.17 22:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the trend to provide more verifiable content, I've commented out the "Themes" called "Redemption" and "Dichotomy of Faiths" -- if editors can come up with external reliable sources which can be used as a basis for these sections, then they can be re-written to incorporate that information. At the present, the way they read is purely Original Research which we should strive to avoid. I suspect that both of these sections can be sourced, just as sources for the literary references were found discussed in interviews/articles. —LeFlyman 19:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, please do not re-add the sections until an actual, concrete source can be cited for the material; that doesn't mean "I read or heard it discussed" somewhere. It means "in an interview, on X day, in X magazine, J.J. Abrams said..." or "in podcast X, at X site, Lost writer said..." For more in-depth guide to citing sources, see: Wikipedia:Cite_sources —LeFlyman 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a source for the "Parents and Children" section. How's that any different from "Redemption" or "Dichotomy of Faiths"?--207.172.73.17 19:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Literary allusions and references

I'm not sure why the following text was removed:

Epochal literary works are frequently displayed within Lost to add character or thematic subtext to the show.

--207.172.73.17 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post regarding the excised section, but you beat me to the punch. I removed the new "Literary allusions and references" section, as it is Original Research to draw a connection between a literary work and "character or thematic subtext to the show", without basing that connection on a verifiable source-- such as in an interview in which one of the show's creators/writers says, "X book was included in the episode as a reference to..."

Please only add/create content which can be sourced. —LeFlyman 18:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just keep the list of literary allusions and references without attempting to draw any connection between them and what happens on the show? --207.172.73.17 19:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the podcasts, Damon spoke specifically about watership down and the third policeman, saying that Mr. Dick's literary backgrounded resulted in him placing specific books in the show for I think quote subtext. I believe he also explained why the Third Policeman worked with regards to the context of the hatch, and watership down with regards to White Rabbit explicitly. User:Synflame

Rather than trying to interpret allusions, just make the factual observation that the reference was made in the show. There is no dispute that Sawyer was reading Watership Down or that Locke made a reference to Gigamesh--and it is highly unlikely either was random or coincidence.24.18.59.229 16:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The literary references are a motif in the show, regardless of what their meaning is. We don't try to interpret any of the other motifs in the show (numbers, black and white, eyes), so we don't need to interpret this one.--207.172.73.17 16:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Note: the links in this section are meant only to be either network sites or official "Lost" sites, and as such must be able to be sourced to producers, ABC, Touchstone, or Disney. All websites posted here will be examined via Whois and for production copyright. Any site without official status will be removed.

The TV IV link was just removed, calling it a "fansite". However, pretty much all criteria used above to explain why IMDB is viable can also apply to that site. TV IV is a community-run information site, not a personal fansite. Also, the link was posted under "External links", not under "References", or "Notes", so it is not being used as a source for anything. It is merely a useful link that is related to the article. This is how the external links section is used throughout Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources should really only apply to the references section, and Wikipedia:External links should apply for the external links. I personally feel that the TV IV page for Lost falls under this criteria from WP:EL -- "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews."

So, I would propose that this disclaimer be removed from the article, since it does not reflect Wikipedia policy at all. The TV IV wiki is a relevant link, as is the Lost wiki. If anything, I think that having all the different network sites in the article is pretty redundant. Jacoplane 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can't have it both ways. You're either an encyclopedic website that seeks to be factual and informative while minimizing speculation or you're a fansite. Either way, it's not suitable for inclusion. For example, if your site is a community run information site, then it should not be included under the In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose guideline. Your Wiki won't provide information we don't already have or will have in the future if its just a community info site. However, if it trades in information that we won't be adding, such as speculation, theories, spoilers, because of Wikipedia guidelines on such material, then we should not be posting your sites for the reasons discussed above. It is not the case of making a link between encyclopedias, but between an encyclopedia and one particular fansite.
Further, the two Wikis you mention aren't even major fansites, when the guideline specifically states: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. We already have the major AND official forum: The Fuselage. If you'd like to add a link to a directory of Lost fansites, be my guest... but inclusion of either Wiki alone (instead of a list) is preferential treatment of minor fansites, since there are certainly other, larger, more popular fansites (Lost-media, Lost-tv, for example). Certainly, if we were to start adding fansites at random, we'd have to begin there and with others, like a link to TWOP's reviews and forums. The best course of action if you believe these sites simply must be linked to is for you to make a list of fansites and include a link to that directory, which is how WP:EL says to proceed.
As for removing the disclaimer, its not going anywhere. The disclaimer was put there specifically because we'd have people posting each and every fansite they dreamed up as official sites when they weren't. Lost is an example of a show wherein Wikipedia guidelines and policies are repeatedly ignored by the editing community, so the long-term editors have had to be very diligent in monitoring this page. This is an outgrowth of that, and has for the most part helped a lot. :Moreover, there is no "freebie" section for links. All links listed there are official sources except IMDB, which is used almost without exception. The same list of reasons I mentioned above for IMDB, including the fact that IMDB is a featured part of the standard TV Infobox, clearly do not apply to these Wikis nor any other site people have been trying to add (Mr. Clucks, 4815162342, etc.)
Finally, I will agree with you that the list of links for all the individual networks is redundant, and should be chopped down or moved to Airdates of Lost as a link for the country/network listed there. Baryonyx 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As usual, I'm in agreement with Baryonyx. Among the problems with having an external links section which include non-official/fan sites is that there is no established criteria for what qualifies for listing. For popular programs like LOST, there are can be an infinite number of sites that might be added. While I might think that the TV IV LOST wiki is a fine site, that's not reason enough to add it. Anyone could include their personal favorite fanpage and will be upset when someone else comes along and removes it. Being listed on Wikipedia is like a "stamp of approval" and raises the "PageRank" of a Google search, so bare link inclusion is something that should be handled with the greatest of care. The only such site that might be acceptable would be one like LostLinks.net which takes it upon itself to organize the extensive number of Web sites which deal with the series. And yes, to moving the non-English network sites elsewhere, also. —LeFlyman 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "External Links" should be renamed "Official Sites"? --67.76.88.88 05:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white

A lot of the items in this section are a bit iffy, but this one seems especially silly to me:

The show's most spiritual characters, Locke and Mr. Eko, are white and black respectively.

It's not as if Locke is the only white character and Eko the only black character. One could make all sorts of meaningless observations along these lines, i.e. Charlie, one of the smallest characters, is white; Mr. Eko, the largest character, is black. I'm not even sure how this is supposed to reflect the motif; if "black and white" are supposed to connote duality, what does it mean if both characters are very spiritual? How are they opposites? android79 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These "symbols" sections are getting really out of hand. Danflave 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Locke/Eko "spiritual" item, plus one about Charlie's checkered shoes, and another about Vincent being "white" (uh, he's a yellow lab, right?) and Walt being black. Just trivial silliness. android79 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parents and children

Am I the only one who is concerned about the "Parents and children" section? I think it is rather unnecessary (or too bloated, in the least). One of the primary aspects of the show is its flashbacks. Because of this, obviously, every single character will most likely have his or her parents featured at some point. Basically, I think people are starting to stretch too much by trying to find a way to fit EVERY character into the "Parents and children" section. Since each character has their own page, I don't think a lot of this info is necessary to put on the main page. I think we ought to parse this down and state that dysfunctional family relationships are a definite theme, and some of the most prominent examples are Jack, Kate, and Locke. It's just turning into a laundry list at this point. Danflave 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've cut it down, adding only the specific example of Jin, who seems to be the most prominent exception to this theme. I'm putting the laundry list here for posterity. Perhaps this can be built up from an analytical perspective, using the things listed here as a base.
  • Locke was victim of a wretched betrayal in "Deus Ex Machina" by both his natural parents.
  • Jack's broken relationship with his alcoholic surgeon father Christian was the impetus for him to travel to Australia, at the behest of his mother.
  • Sawyer's mother had an extra-marital affair; his father killed her and then himself after finding out.
  • Michael was absent as a father for most of Walt's life, and it was the death of Walt's mother that reconnected Michael with his son.
  • Kate, after discovering that the abusive man she believed to be her step-father was, in actuality, her biological father, murdered him. Kate was forced into a life on the run after her mother revealed her crime to the police.
  • Claire's son, Aaron, was abandoned by her boyfriend, and she was prepared to give her unborn child up for adoption.
  • Shannon's father died in a car accident, leaving everything to her stepmother (Boone's mother) in his will.
  • Sun's father, a gangster, led Jin into a similar life after Jin decided to work for the man in exchange for Sun's marriage.
  • Jin's own shame at his fisherman father's poverty and upbringing incited him to tell Sun and her family that his father is dead.
  • Ana Lucia was portrayed as being in conflict with her mother, who worked in the LAPD and whose professional seniority provides a situation comparable to Jack and his father. While responding to a robbery call, a pregnant Ana Lucia was shot, and lost her child. Baryonyx 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Story Elements with Respect to 09.01.06 Podcast etc

I have returned the dichotomy of faiths for a few different reasons. Firstly, the aforementioned podcast makes it relatively clear that there is a play on faith's theme within the show, this is supported by the "seminal relationship quote," as well as the title "man of science, man of faith." As with pieces of literature and films, many themes are fundamentally clear, however the author or director may never explictly say these things. However, like a Clock Work Orage, it is axiomatic that it speaks of the theme of a dystopia, the fact that Burgess has never said it does not make it a non credible argument. The producers and wirters have said enough, and made enough relaitvely clear to warrant the dichotmy of faiths theme to be accepted as fact.

On that note, the theme of redemption folllows by similar implications. In the third podcast I believe, thorough referrences are made, as well, the inclusion of the tabula rassa, and dialogue within the show makes it abundantly clear that it is a theme.

Character names: In the newest podcast, Damon again clarifies the personified themes of the character names. Explaining the obvious ones, Locke and Rousseau, and saying in close paraphrase, "names like Jack Shephard were specifically chosen to represent him as a guide." This is irrefutable evidence warranting his inclusion, and as well it should be enough to justify names like Christian and Shannon. Considering the fact the producers said they were very careful about name selection ,and that Ernest Rutherford had theories closely connected to electromagnetism, and Christian Shephard is rather obivous considering Jack, this should be adequate.

Finally, in response to the laundry list of parent relationships, I would vote for its reinclusion in the interest of consistancy. Literary referrences and black and white both have lists justifying them, either they should all be removed, or they should all remain. If kept terse, there is no reason why the 'laundry list' cannot be included. This is an encylpodic referrence to lost, and should have some substanciation. User:Synflame 09 January 2006 1:44 EST

I agree with pretty much all of this, except that I replaced 'Redemption' with 'Starting Over' (a section that was labeled as OR and deleted) for a few reasons: 1) The word "Redemption" suggests trying to atone for sins. Most of the characters are not atoning for for their past sins, but they are behaving differently than they did before the plane crash, which is more synonymous with "starting over". "Starting over" is also the concept suggested by the dialogue: Jack told Kate, "It doesn't matter... who we were - what we did before this, before the crash... three days ago we all died. We should all be able to start over." 2) A lot of the material in 'Redemption' was OR. The section said that Locke was leading each of the characters towards their personal redemption, which has no real verification and is only one interpretation. I tried to write "Starting Over" in a way that's not up for interpretation; it might still need some work. 3) This was included in 'Redemption': "This can also refer to the title, giving it a double meaning of people being 'lost' or 'adrift' in life, but finding themselves and getting a chance to make things right on the island." Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think being lost in life has anything to do with redemption. This seems like OR to me.

Here's the original section of Redemption in case you decide to put it back:

Many of the characters are in one way or another finding redemption and second chances as a result of being on the island. Locke is the first character to do so, when he discovers that he has mysteriously regained use of his legs and brings back food to the survivors; after this, Locke begins to lead many of the other characters towards their own personal redemption: he gathers water for the other survivors, a move which helps encourage Jack to become the de facto leader of the group; he helps Charlie kick his heroin habit; he encourages Sawyer to face his past misdeeds involving an incident that transpired before Sawyer left Australia; he helps Boone let go of his relationship with Shannon; he finds Walt's lost dog and allows Michael to take credit, and then later helps Michael bond with/save Walt when Walt is attacked by a polar bear; and his philosophizing to Shannon encourages her to pursue a relationship with Sayid. In the season 1 finale, Sawyer is heard uncharacteristically singing Bob Marley's "Redemption Song" as he sets sail to find help.
This can also refer to the title, giving it a double meaning of people being 'lost' or 'adrift' in life, but finding themselves and getting a chance to make things right on the island.

--Silentword 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Synflame, I'll refer you to the peer review comments. If we have any interest at all in improving the page to the point it could be considered a FA, the lists have to go. I'm all for removing them completely outright, but I want the removal of the one to spark a reasonable discussion of how we integrate such thematic material without resorting to a list. Baryonyx 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have commented-out the sections once again; the content is still un-verifiable, as no specific source has been provided for the "themes" presented therein. The Podcast mentioned above discusses a number of topics; however, the material that had been under Story Elements is not based on that podcast, but rather extrapolates on what some may think the show means -- rather than using the actual, concrete statements of the show's creators. As with any other encyclopedic article, the content presented here must come out of information gathered from some other place; not some new concept, originating here. Appreciation for the importance of "No Original Research" is something that I personally have become more aware of; I suggest that in order to meet qualifications for "featured" status, we aim to be scrupulous is our application of that policy. —LeFlyman 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second Baryonyx and LeFlyman. The lists have gotten totally out of hand. And to comment on what you said, Synflame, yes this is an encyclopedia. NOT a fan site and certainly not a tedious laundry list of every minute detail of the show. An encyclopedia has edited, succinct articles that give an overall summary of a specific topic. Yes, it is important to include the prominent themes of Lost -- but that does not mean we need to include each and every example of how the theme is used. Danflave 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And something else that's been bugging me about this flimsy Shannon Rutherford/Ernest Rutherford connection -- where are you getting the fact that ER was notable in the field of electromagnetism? Even his Wikipedia page makes no reference to the word "electromagnetism" or "magnets" -- and my very cursory Google research doesn't come up with anything indicating that Rutherford's primary studies were in electromagnetism. Yes, he was a physicist, and a very famous one at that, but I don't see any reason to connect his name to Shannon. Total original research balderdash. Danflave 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so here's what I suggest about Redemption...since some characters have not quite gotten there, I think we can all agree, it's at least Regret some are feeling (Sayid regrets his days of torture in Iraq and regrets the deal he made that caused his friend to committ suicide, but he has not attempted to redeem himself from this because he does not know a real way. Kate regrets her days of crime, but has done nothing to redeem herself. Sawyer shows flashes of regret for his standoffish attitude, and has done little things to redeem the way he's treated others, but hasn't really redeemed himself). So I think the theme is Regret/Redemption. Perhaps I'm wrong, tell me what you think.JurgenHadley 16:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would still be Original Research. The interpretation/analysis of the motivation or personality of the characters, without being able to cite a source outside of Wikipedia for that interpretation is what makes it inappropriate here. Whether it's called "Regret" or "Redemption" or "Starting Over", it's a novel theory based on our own idea of what the character or story means, rather than something which we can attribute to another place. The "laundry list of similarities" that we can put together may be interesting for fans of the show, but are likely not encyclopedic-- which is the ultimate goal of what we're trying to build here. For other such lists of "similarities" which have been excluded, see the archive: Talk:Lost (TV series)/Story elements.—LeFlyman 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've snipped down the Story Elements section and recombined it under a single heading. I've also removed the commented-out text, as no one has yet provided sources for it. Here are the sections excised:

Please provide specific CITATION to a verifiable external published or broadcast source for the following material; otherwise, it is "Original Research" and will be removed

Dichotomy of faiths
The Dichotomy of faiths is a philosophical motif within Lost that is very prominent as of late, and also reflects the theoretical cause of the plane's crash. The conflict between John Locke and Jack Shephard was defined in season 1, and encapsulated in the season 2 episode "Man of Science, Man of Faith." Both Jack and Locke exhibit different views on life itself, in deviations of existentialism. As a doctor, Jack believes everything, including what happens on the island, can be logically and scientifically explained. Locke holds an unbound faith in fate and destiny, believing that they are being tested by impalpable forces that require no tangible explanation. From this original dichotomy, there has developed a second contrast, this time between Locke and Mr. Eko who, as opposed to possessing a general faith in fate, holds a religious faith in God. Both Locke and Eko believe that things happen for a reason. However, they believe the source and reasons for these occurrences to be quite different.

Redemption/Regret
Many of the characters are in one way or another finding themselves regretting past decisions or behaviors, and many are acting on ways to redeem themselves from it.

  • Locke regains the use of his legs, and through hunting and going through the jungle, redeems his desire to do what people told him he couldn't do. This is shown heavily in Walkabout. He also gains stronger understanding of how he is, telling Sun in ...And Found that the reason he is never angry is because he isn't lost anymore. Locke also acts as the agent of change in other characters' redemptions. He helps Charlie kick his heroin habit in The Moth; he helps Boone let go of his relationship with Shannon in Hearts and Minds; he finds Walt's lost dog and allows Michael to take credit in Tabula Rasa, and then later helps Michael bond with/save Walt when Walt is attacked by a polar bear
  • Charlie attempts to redeem himself from his heroin addicition in The Moth. His withdrawl causes him to grow antsy and after accidentally causing the cave in that traps Jack, Charlie volunteers to climb in to save Jack. After going through that ordeal, Charlie tosses his remaining heroin in the fire. However, when he finds the crashed plane containing heroin, he takes one of the statues with him, but does not open it.
  • Sayid goes

This can also refer to the title, giving it a double meaning of people being 'lost' or 'adrift' in life, but finding themselves and getting a chance to make things right on the island.

—LeFlyman 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

540 Days

I assume I'm not the only person here getting sick and tired of seeing the point "540 days is 108 x 5" appear and disappear constantly from the Numbers section of the page. So, lets pretend that we're all rational adults and discuss this. Do people think this should stay or go, and why?

  • Delete - 108 is indeed the sum of the numbers, but 5 means nothing. If it was 108 days, I'd give it to you. But why 540? Why not 216? Or 324? Or 432? At least 432 is 108 x 4 (which is one of the numbers). 108 x 5 means nothing. I think more likely 540 days is just a nice round number way of saying "18 months" or "One and a half years". So until the number is revealed to mean something special on the show, that "fact" has no place here. Wikipedia's not meant for original research. Maelwys 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The point is that it's a multiple of 108. Clearly there is a thread of 'the numbers' in the show. So many people have added it that it is not just one persons 'original' research. By your criteria even 108 would be original research. BTW these polls are disingenuous, there are enough people repeatedly adding this comment that it should be left. Just because a few people claim this page and share a point of view does not give them the authority to insist on a vote for every single change, knowing full well most casual Wikipedians will simply give up and edit another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan 12 2006 (talk • contribs)
      • The entire article is based on people watching the show and writing about it, which is 'original research'. Wikipedia does not have a clear defintition of this term and so I it is now used mainly by those who need an excuse to remove edits they don't like. Problem is your 'consensus' normally ends up being between those who think they own the page as no one else wants to deal with fanatics. This is greatly to the detriment of Wikipedia.Jac97u 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This stuff keeps getting re-inserted because anonymous readers stumbling onto the LOST articles think they're adding something new that we've never heard of. There is absolutely no need to list every perturbation of "The Numbers" appearing on the series; such fancruft shuld be saved for fan sites. The number "540" is already noted in The Dharma Initiative article, where it's more pertinent, and does not have any additional need to be here, other than to satisfy the fan-trivialists who would have the article over-run by excessive numerology. In truth, so far there is no significance to the numbers whatsoever; they are merely a plot device and a means to keep certain people entertained with "spot the number." Let's aim to improve the quality of the writing and actual encyclopedic content rather than continually trying to find new and silly minutae to argue over. We've already gone down this path, and anyone wanting to read some of the entertaining numerical theories can see the discussion archive section, Theories and Other Items (plus other places). —LeFlyman 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's very condasending of you. Maybe they just think it is valid information that readers other than you might find interesting. I always laugh when someone claims something in WP isn't encyclopedic, what they really mean is 'I don't like it but can't think up a coherent argument against it'. Jac97u 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we're apparently being condescending, welcome to Wikipedia; as it appear to be your first day, perhaps you'd like to spend some time reviewing the extensive archives of discussions for the LOST articles before you wish to wade in with your view of how things should be run? You might also benefit by taking a look at "What Wikipedia Is Not" And yes, there is a clear definition of Original Research, too. Good luck, and thanks.—LeFlyman 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Leflyman's basically already written what I would have said. I will note that, IIRC, 5 is the number on Matthew Fox's tattoo, which the producers have said will be written into the show as important to Jack. However, that may not even happen this season. The numbers that have been hammered on are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42 and to a much lesser extent, 108... and even then, the numbers are looking more and more like a MacGuffin. 540's single mention in the Dharma video doesn't make it any more a number than all the other numbers mentioned in passing (shall we document occurrences of 2? 6? 10? I'm sure all of them have been mentioned more than 540 has). Sure, 108x5 = 540. Anyone who watches the show figured that out back in October when "Orientation" was first shown, and if they didn't, there was an army of fans at the ready to point that out. However, it was trivia then, remains trivia now... and minutiae of this sort is the realm of the fansite. Saying something doesn't belong because it's not encyclopedic doesn't mean "I don't like it." It means that this material is not pertinent to the long-view, historical, and analytical nature of an encyclopedia. In the long view (as in, what's more likely to be the object of an author's search some years from now), what's more pertinent: the meaning/role of the numbers generally or a detailed listing of each example? An encyclopedia needs to be informative, while at the same time keeping specialized details to a minimum; any researcher needing more detailed information would and should seek out more specialized resources. This is the way its been for a long time. Are you telling me that you only used your Britannica when writing your high school papers? Honestly, if you can't see the distinction, and instead must resort to veiled personal attacks, then perhaps Wikipedia isn't the best use of your time. Baryonyx 04:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason a paper encyclopedia must keep specialized details to a minimum is because its size is restricted. For all intents and purposes WP's size is not. The numbers section should contain a link to another section or page with common speculations like 540 thus maintaining the simplicity of the main page while at the same time taking advantage of those new-fangled I_N_T_E_R_N_E_T technologies and spreading knowledge and debate. Unlike The Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia has the potential to be comprehensive enough to be the only source and/or portal used to write a high school paper. And if you don't think this is a fansite you've wikified one too many articles. --Onesloth 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the reasons stated above. Archon Divinus 12:33 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Subliminal messages

Can someone provide an example for this: "Other examples include images that only appear on the screen for a split second but, when seen, can help to reveal mysteries about the show." As far as I know, no split second screens, like Eko's images in the smoke, reveal any mysteries about the show. Jtrost 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section is not necessary, as it is not a "Theme," "Motif," or "Symbol." This information is more appropriate on the episode list or character pages, not on the main page. Danflave 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I was unable to find in the history who started this section, so I didn't know if it had been here long or widely accepted as something that should be included. Jtrost 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't there when I left my message on the Talk page yesterday, since if it had been, I'd have dumped it then. A section of trivial whispers and backward lines from Walt, neither of which are even remotely subliminal messages (since the whole point of such messages is to not notice them on a conscious level), is cruft. The additional connections posted there were OR at best. Baryonyx 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move 'Island Census' to here?

The 'Island Census' section in Characters of Lost really doesn't belong there- the number of people alive on the island isn't related to the characters. Shouldn't it be moved to the main article?--Silentword 03:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. We're trying to improve this page in the direction of FA status, and weighing it down with what is perhaps the cruftiest section on the Lost pages would do the exact opposite of that, especially since this same question months ago led to its being moved where it now is. It's a sloppy, over-indulgent mess of a section, and given the fact that its also been a constant source of acrimonious debate, I'd rather see that section gone completely rather than bringing it over here. That's my honest opinion anyway. Baryonyx 07:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say no because it logically belongs in the Characters of Lost section. The characters make up the census, so it goes there. Jtrost 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Per the comment in the peer reviewfor this article, I began adding references. The information in the first paragraph under Overview I remembered seeing in a special feature in the DVD, so I referenced the DVD for that material. I also added proper footnotes for the sources in the Fan Speculation section. I read through the article and found three things that need cited:

  • While Lost's pilot episode was criticized for being the most expensive pilot episode in television history, the series became one of the biggest critical and commercial successes of the 2004 television season and, along with fellow new series Desperate Housewives, helped to reverse the flagging fortunes of ABC.
"There's a link to IMDB here, but IMDB is not a citable source for this kind of information. We need something better like an interview with ABC or the creators.
I found this article which tells a bit more about Lloyd Braun's story, and how his decision to green-light Lost was instrumental in his losing his job at Disney. It includes a quote from DisneyWar: "If Eisner or Iger decided they wanted rid of him, he'd handed them the ammunition: he had green-lit a $12 million pilot that still didn't have a script." I personally don't feel that's a perfect source for this, but it's an improvement over IMDB. Baryonyx 23:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Iger is now the Chairman/CEO, so it may be that some of them still hate the show. Eisner's gone, however, so the opinion's probably better. However, I will note that the rift over Lost was big enough that it made DisneyWar, which came out 2/2005, just a few months after Lost began. Might have even been a final nail in Eisner's coffin, as it were. But that's just speculation on my part. Baryonyx 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some characters on Lost, by admission of the writers, reference famous philosophers through their names and connection to each other.
We need to find the interview where the writers said this, or else delete the by admission of the writers part.
  • During "Orientation" the bookshelf in the hatch contains The Turn of the Screw and The Third Policeman, which Desmond packs in his rucksack when fleeing. Craig Wright, who co-wrote the episode with Javier Grillo-Marxuach, told the Chicago Tribune that "anyone familiar with The Third Policeman will 'have a lot more ammunition' in dissecting Lost plotlines." [1]
It looks like someone tried to cite this, but there is no link at the end of the sentence.

Lastly, I have included instructions in HTML comments at the top of the page, so anyone who edits this article will have an easy guide to adding references.Jtrost 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to find sources for the first and third items from USA Today and Reuters, however I was not able to find anything regarding the second item. Therefore, I've removed the text "by admission of the writers" since it is an unverified claim. If anyone is able to find a source for that, please add it. I've read through the whole article again and do not see anything else that needs to be referenced, but if you do find something please mention it here. Jtrost 02:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are good sources for references:
—LeFlyman 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character dates

I made some edits to the way character dates were referenced, but I'd like input. I think it makes most sense to list the same way as the IMDb (i.e. Shannon Rutherford (2004-2005)). It gets much too unwieldy to list by season. Shannon Rutherford (season 1-sixth episode of season 2) and Mr. Eko (season 2 onward), etc., just seems unnecessary. I can understand why some may argue for listing by season, since the show airs at different dates in other countries than the U.S. However, it is an American-produced show, and we should reference things by the dates first-aired. Anyone disagree? Danflave 22:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like listing the years because episodes shown in countries outside the US air during different years. This would confuse people. Not considering people in other countries is too nationalist for my liking. I'd like to refer to the kiss principle, and suggest we simply list the seasons where each person appeared as a main character. For example, Jack would be season 1+, Mr. Eko would be season 2+, Shannon would be seasons 1-2, and Boone would be season 1. There's no need to reference specific episodes. That kind of detail can be saved for the episode guides. I also think the word onward sounds really cheesy. A simple plus sign has the same effect. Jtrost 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am very cognizant of not wanting to be nationalist, but the IMDb is a standard-bearer for this sort of information, and this is the system that they use when listing Lost characters. Any other thoughts? Danflave 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no other television article on Wikipedia formats dates this way, and this article should conform to the standard that Wikipedia has set, not some other website. Displaying years is far too complicated and may become unmanageable. For example, right now it says Mr. Eko as first appearing in 2005. Well 2005 can refer to the spring of season 1 or the fall of season 2. Right now it doesn't seem like an issue, but think about the later seasons of the show where a character may have the year 2006-2008. Can you tell off the top of your head what seasons those cover? You'd have to read the episode guides to figure it out. Listing season number is the simplest and least confusing way to do this. Jtrost 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point -- but let's try to keep out the unnecessary "season 1-sixth episode of season 2" malarkey. That's what was bugging me in the first place! Danflave 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security System Fun

Someone keeps adding a section on the security system, and apparently someone else has gone and made a page for it at Monster (Lost). Now, the "security system" (which is the name its been given on the island, very explicitly) is a key element of the show, but its not one we can really say anything about. It's certainly not a theme or motif. It may be a symbol, but what can we really say about it? Sure, we saw what it looks like in last Wednesday's episode, and that is showed Eko images from his life, but we still have absolutely no idea what it is, where it came from, or why its there. In fact, I suspect that the "security system" is inseparable from the island, and that we really won't know the true origins of the thing for quite some time (which is why I said on the LostNav template talk page that neither deserve a page at this time). Anyway, long spiel short (too late): we don't need a section on the "security system" here. We also, IMHO, don't need a page for the thing yet, but given that it already exists, we should probably discuss whether it should continue to exist, and where it should end up... I certainly do not think that if it is to remain a page it should be called "Monster (Lost)". ATM, if anything, it should get merged into Characters. Baryonyx 22:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anybody is dying for a hint of what the monster is, you should check the following article. The nanotechnology theory is by far the closest one again, and now this is a real example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3872931.stm --Charlie144 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carbon nanotubes have nothing to do with the "smoke" -- they're intended as a super-strong fibre/wire. I take it that what you're actually alluding to, like Michael Crichton's Prey story, is that the black smoke is made up of nano-bots. In any event, any such theory would be Original Research and has no place in this article, nor as a separate one (as Baryonyx notes above.)—LeFlyman 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we mark Monster (Lost) for deletion? Normally I wouldn't care if someone makes a rogue, fancruft page, but someone is linking to it from other Lost related articles. I think this hinders the main article's chance of becoming a featured article. If others think the monster is notable, we can create a subpage for the monster and develop an article for it there. However, in its current form I don't think the article should be on Wikipedia. Jtrost 04:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please mark it AFD. Someone -- delete this bloated, pointless fancruft!Danflave 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD added to Monster (Lost). Not sure I got the links right on the AfD page, but please stop by and add your comments. Rillian 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to post a note: the specific wording of Damon Lindelof's debunking of the nanobot cloud was "that depends on how you define 'nanobot'." Javier Grillo-Marxauch only clarified this somewhat, saying that Mr. Lindelof means "the monster is not a cloud of nanites a la michael crichton's 'prey'". Since they've only ruled out a nanobot cloud, but left the door open for other interpretations, we can't say anymore than they've debunked the "security system is a nanobot cloud" theory. I've changed the line in fan speculation to note this, and included both sources I found on this. Baryonyx 07:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh... smart dust See: [4], [5] and [6]. Pure speculation, of course. —LeFlyman 08:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Damon Lindelof dismissed this theory in an interview at Comic-con that's on The Fuselage. I've been searching around, but was unable to find any verification. If anyone can find this please post it here. Jtrost 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...sorry everyone...it was me who made the page on the Monster....I see why you want to get rid of it, sort of, however, if the Others, who we also know almost nothing about, get their own page, why shouldn't the monster?ShadowUltra 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Familial dysfunction - part 2

Hello everybody. Now that we have watched "the 23rd Psalm", I think that it would be necessary to add a paragraph inside "familial dysfunction" to focus on brothers or siblings, since we had Boone and Sharon with a troublesome relationship, and also Eko and his younger brother in similar fashion. What do you think?

--Charlie144 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sibling dysfunction is notable, especially in the case of Charlie and Liam. Jtrost 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can do this in a short paragraph, or find a way to succinctly include it in what is already there, then that would be fine IMO. But the section really does not need to grow any longer than it already is. Danflave 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Danflave. A short note about sibling relationships might be ok at some point, but the claim seems pretty weak, and bordering on Original Research, right now: Boone and Shannon, were not actually siblings, per se, and their particular story seems to be at an end; Eko and Yemi were separated by circumstances rather than personal (dysfunctional) issues. Likewise, Charlie and Liam were estranged over the future of the band—and perhaps Charlie's drug use— but we don't have more to go on in terms of their relationship. In short, I'd say it's a hard case to make at this point—although it might be notable that both Boone and Charlie came to Australia, to effect some change from their particular "siblings," from whom they had been separated. —LeFlyman 20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting point you got there Leflyman, about the separation of siblings and its consequences. Note that Eko was separated twice from his brother, the first time to became a "kingpin" and the second one when he wasn't allowed in the plane and became a "truly priest" being mistaken by the military forces. We'll have to see a second part of his flashblack, to find out why he was on Oceanic 815. --Charlie144 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers

4 8 15 16 23 42
Is this article necessary, or would it be better to redirect the page to this article? Jtrost 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate it to AFD. More pointless fancruft not meant for Wikipedia. Danflave 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For articles like this, it makes sense to just turn it into a redirect and keep an eye on it, rather than make it sit on AfD for a week. android79 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the afd was delete. I setup a redirect so the page now goes to this article. Jtrost 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention: Geronimo Jackson listed for deletion

Some uninformed people have nominated this article for deletion. If anyone on Wikipedia knows why this article is important, it is Lost fans & mavens. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geronimo Jackson & add your voice to keeping this article from deletion. If enough of us vote to keep, it will be kept. Thanks. -- llywrch 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And it should be deleted. This band never existed, and the article doesn't even identify it as fictional. Wikipedia isn't a repository for every trivial detail -- at best, this deserves a brief mention in the Season 2 synopsis of the episode it appears in. android79 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far it has been mentioned in only one episode. We have Lost-related articles on other topics that were mentioned incidentally in one episode, & in later episodes came to be quite significant. Lost in a rare television series where details are intended to have significance (& has come back to bite the writers when they accidentally introduce errors). Either it is some real but obscure group, or a fictitious group that will have future importance to the tv series: I'd be surprised if it appears in one episode just to be dismissed as a group no one has ever heard of. -- llywrch 17:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Until it's revealed that it has some sort of significance other than a one-off joke, there's absolutely no need for an article on it. If it's "real but obscure" no one's been able to verify that it ever existed. android79 17:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed with Android; this is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedians should not be promoting-- made-up fancruft of the silliest sort, attempting to get legitimised here. If/when "Geronimo Jackson" makes any impact on the LOST story, it may receive some attention and mention; right now it's just the producers/writers toying with the audience. Llywrch, we have LOST-related topics only on those things that actually impact LOST (such as The Dharma Initiative), or have some real-world basis for an article (like "The Third Policeman", which existed prior to mention on the show). A quick shot of a fake album is not such a basis; it fails both Verifiability and No Original Research policies. Wikipedia is not a fan site. —LeFlyman 18:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with Android and Leflyman. The point of Wikipedia isn't to have the most information or have it first, but rather to have the most accurate information. So until Geronimo Jackson's significance is revealed there is no point in having an article about them. Jtrost 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've posted my thoughts at the VfD already, so I won't repeat them here, except to say I'm also in agreement with Android and Leflyman. Baryonyx 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense for character bios in Lost

Due to length, discussion moved to Talk:Lost (TV series)/Present tense

Episode Guide

Whoa, whoa, whoa here! When did we all agree to split the episode guide up into separate pages? One page for every episode?? I find it exhausting enough monitoring all the pages we already have... And now every episode will have its own page on Wikipedia? This is a recipe for dozens of poorly-written, crufty, vandalism-prone Lost pages. I was of the opinion that we needed to shorten the episode guide. We don't need a minute-by-minute description of every episode -- a simple one or two paragraph summary is totally acceptable. Who made this decision to create these episode sub-pages? I was extremely shocked when I logged onto WP today to see these massive changes. Danflave 16:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 24 episodes across 6 seasons means we'll have 144 pages of Lost episodes, plus probably a dozen or so special episodes. I think if we keep everything on one page and keep out fancruft it will be fine. After each season is done airing I think we can go through all the episodes and take out stuff that wasn't really important for that season. However, I'm not in favor of having an additional 150+ pages on my watchlist and going through all the extra work to keep an eye on every single one of those pages. Jtrost 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think there was a consensus yet, but I did make the point — having been through the individual synopses for grammar, typos and repetiton, etc. — that some of them were far too long. As a relative newcomer, I didn't want to barge in and start ripping out someone else's carefully honed content. Discordance made the point that there is an established format on Wikipedia for episodic series and gave some examples (see Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)#Clean-up). I merely commented that they seemed a sensible solution, and hoped that others would agree — nothing more. However, having now seen your viewpoint about the amount of extra pages to watch, etc., I'm beginning to have second thoughts... Chris 42 18:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From some of Leflymans questions to me: From what I have seen in the talk pages there has been no consensus either way, yet many users still think the season articles are too long. In answer to your questions

  • Why individual episode articles versus brief summaries?

It is standard practice to have episode articles. Just look in the Category:Episode lists the majority have list pages, with the major series like buffy, desperate housewives, south park, star trek etc... all have episode articles. Lost should not be an exception.

  • How will quality be maintained on that many new pages? 25 pages would need to be created for Season 1 alone, which some editors feel would be a lot of work to monitor.

Many editors deal with far more pages, South Park has 140 episode pages, The Star Trek project looks after 100s of star trek episodes.

  • How would such hypothetical new pages be named to prevent encyclopedic confusion?

there is currently a straw poll on disambiguating tv series underway, for now Star Trek and others set precendent. Episodes would be named Tabula Rasa (Lost episode)
From what I have read in previous talk pages there has been little progress in reaching a compromise and I cannot see another solution the series mentioned above have episode articles longer than your current summaries, someone has to do something and I am quite happy to do it. I will try to address some concerns before I do this but I do not intend to take a straw poll against the common standard: Wikipedia is not a democracy.
I have not made any changes yet, I have just created the list page in preparation. I do not think you need to shorten the summaries down, while it is more work separating the pages, I think this needs to be done, if not now at some point in the future. Discordance 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for coming into this headlong, I was unaware of the large amount of previous discussion on this. I did not intend to start performing the splits without some discussion here, I had not yet got around to posting on this talk page about it and I hope I can reasonably convince you all to let me go through with this. Discordance 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to Discordance's Talk page, but some of my wording came across as somewhat strong (especially in light of his recent 19:08, 25 January 2006 addition). However, the gist is still the same.

I find it disconcerting that, as someone who has not contributed to the Lost page in the past, you have suddenly shown up to advocate a radical change to the article. In fact, you have not so much "advocated" as "forced a decision on everyone." I actually think you bring up some good points about splitting the episode guide up; however, your brusque manner and rude decision to go forward without discussing this with other Wikipedians is quite a turn-off. Also, will you be monitoring the possibly 150+ articles that will result from this change? We have had major, major problems with crufty, poorly-written material in the Lost pages and the dozen or so of us who regularly "patrol" the pages are genuinely concerned about the burden of keeping up with this new workload. I strongly suggest you Talk about this before proceeding. Danflave 19:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be willing to add all the episode pages to my watch list, I doubt I could contribute much in the way of content but I will gladly help in formatting, infoboxs and patrolling Discordance 19:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I am slightly concerned now, Futurama seems to be operating both, It has an episode list along with individual episode articles and it has season break-downs like lost. Smallville and a few others also have season break-downs, while the majority still do seem to use episode articles the use of season break-downs seems fairly widespread. I think now a straw poll is probably appropiate to set up some guidelines as to which is more suitable, probably with the options:

  • use both (see futurama lots of repeated information there though!)
  • use a list and episode articles
  • use season break-downs
  • leave it to the regular editors to decide

Discordance 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've come out against this in the past, and in fact think it is a crufty mistake in the instance of every TV show. There is not, nor will there ever be, sufficient useful information about a TV show episode to merit an encyclopedic article. I also believe that this "policy" developed because by the time the question was asked of the general community, editors for other shows, like "The Simpsons" and "Star Trek" had already begun making every episode a page. In other words, inertia has brought us this project policy. For example, the South Park episode for "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" was created before there was a Wikiproject on TV episodes, and I don't see any real discussion on this over at the Project page... just a lot of decrees that this is how it shall be. So, I think this is an issue that has never really been hashed out, and simply because other shows do it (not to mention the universally crufty nature of most of these shows' entries.... I mean look at what's cited: DH, Simpsons, Star Trek, Buffy, SP...), doesn't mean it's the right approach. If you wish to argue production info is important, it's my opinion that this is an example of the extremely specilaized minutiae we should be striving to avoid on Wikipedia. If you're thinking it's a good place for a long summary, that's what TWoP or any other number of sites is for. I could see including a link to the TWoP summary as part of a trimmed down season review, for example, but a page for each episode? Further, I disagree that you or any of us will really pay attention over the long haul once this is begun. Back when I joined, someone had just recently created articles for every single Babylon 5 episode out there. Today, unless it was a truly pivotal episode, like Sleeping in Light, it's basically empty (see Objects in Motion. Now, true, Lost is a bigger show than Babylon 5, but given the cruft war already being waged on the Lost pages, now is not the time to add another 40 pages to be policed (though, IMHO, there's never a time for it). Baryonyx 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something to consider: adding a link at the end of every episode summary that brings the viewer back to the top of the page.--Kahlfin 21:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about as a compromise we get rid of a lot of the extra wording in the episode guides. Take this paragraph from the pilot for example:
A close-up of an opening eye shows the pupil contracting. The tops of trees in a bamboo grove are seen through the eyes of a man (who is later identified as Jack Shephard (Matthew Fox)) lying on his back in the jungle. A Golden Labrador Retriever dog trots past through the trees. Obviously confused to how he arrived there, the man gazes about at the idyllic surroundings when his memories rush back to him. With great effort, he sits upright, revealing blood on his shirt. He bolts upright and runs pell-mell through the jungle, emerging at a beach strewn with the wreckage of a jet airliner and almost 50 confused survivors of the crash. It is later revealed that the plane was torn apart in mid-air while travelling from New South Wales, Australia to California, United States. The fuselage of the jet is still burning and one of the engines is still in operation, though its speed waxes and wanes due to no apparent cause.
This is an example of brilliant prose, but is it really necessary? It sounds like someone was trying to write a novelization of the pilot. That entire paragraph can be shortened to something like this: "Jack Shephard wakes up in the middle of a jungle and sees a Golden Labrador Retriever run off. The fuselage from the plane he was in is burning on the beach with dozens of terrified and injured passengers crying out for help."
I think we can create a more synoptic guide without losing the overall quality of the article. Jtrost 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the solution is not expanding, but editing and tightening what we already have. It will certainly be a big project (and controversial, at that) to edit down the episode guide, but I think it makes sense. Wikipedia is not a fan page -- I can go to dozens (hundreds!) of fansites that have extremely detailed breakdowns of each episode. That's not our job here at Wikipedia. I think we can summarize every episode in 2-3 paragraphs at the most. I'd be willing to do this if we (the regular editors) are each assigned maybe 5 episodes to "trim." Thoughts? Danflave 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help. I'd be happy to tackle a couple (but only Season 1 — I'm in the UK and trying to stay spoiler-free). I know I'm relatively new to this site, but I'm already a sub-editor for http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2. I'm sure one of you guys would step in to correct any mistakes I made! I've done quite a bit of correcting so far on Season 1, but I'm not going to rush in and start trimming the major fat without the say-so of more established Wikipedians. Just let me know if you're happy to let me have a go, and if so, which episodes. Chris 42 22:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this now, I must admit I have not questioned previously the guidelines I had been following, while I do like individual episode pages for browsing they do make an awful lot of work and coupled with the dubious nature of the pages, I'm starting to go off them. I would like everyone to be following the same structure so the television section as a whole doesnt look a mess but I'm starting to doubt if that will ever happen. At the moment I'd suggest using the list page I created as a contents page to the full season breakdowns, I like there to be a full list somewhere of all the episodes. It gives a better general overview of the whole series Discordance 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've already suggested to Discordence that a straw poll be taken on this matter. I'm staying neutral, as quite a while ago, I'd spoken in support of separate articles, but now I'd like to hear concrete discussions about specific options for improving the Episode sections. A more "formal" proposal about changes to the summaries should be made, as it's clear that there are those who would like to see them shortened significantly, and those who'd like to have long synopses.--LeFlyman 00:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some guidelines that I threw together so we have something to work off of:
Episodes summaries...
  • should be limited to 500 words.
  • should not contain brilliant prose, fancruft, speculation, or original research.
  • should only mention events important to the central character and his/her flashback, events that relate to the ongoing or future story lines, and events that emphasize the Story elements section in the main Lost article. Jtrost 04:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here seems agreed now to trim the brillant prose out of the summaries and I'm not convinced individual articles are a good idea anymore. When I said above you don't need to shorten the summaries, I was going on length alone, I hadn't read the summaries in depth by that point. I don't think shortening the lost summaries needs to be straw polled now theres no strong opposition to the idea unless theres editors not talking here. And if I do try to write a straw poll for the format of wiki episode guides my main focus is the list pages, I'd be happy to suggest people use a list page linking to season breakdowns or episode articles if they feel it necessary. Sorry I keep changing my mind, I hadn't thought this through before this discussion started! Discordance 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the guidelines Jtrost has put together. Those would do for the body of the episodes, especially since it clarifies that important future storylines should be included when possible (such as the discovery of the hatch or Michael deciding it's time to build a raft). As for other things I'd include, it looks like the episodes have all I'd ever include: Title, Original Airdate, Flashback, Writer, Director. If we have this and a 500 word summary (max... though I think we can get by on less, since some of them are already less than 500 words), and toss the trivia (which, TBH, I've never been a fan of, since they're pretty crufty, but deferred to concensus on), I think we can do a pretty good job cutting it down. It should be noted that it's not likely the size of the page will change drastically, but it'll sure look better. I also think we should drop every screen cap... I don't think they contribute much, if anything, to the episode summary, and the haphazardness with which they've been allocated makes the page look sloppy. Anywho, I'm thinking I'd like to do a practice run, the way we did the draft before the Great Lostcruft Excision of '05, so we can get a feel for the differences. I'll edit the Pilot, which weighs in at a hefty 1,300 words, down to 500 or less... where shall I place it? Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Pilot draft, perhaps? Baryonyx 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure where to put this, and I suspect I'll be busy at the office tomorrow, so I'll put what I've got here in NoWiki form for it to be moved wherever and mercilessly edited by you all in the morning. :) I realize it's a big clump o' text, but it should be easy to cut out of here and paste into wherever we'll place the draft without the NoWiki's. Note: as it stands, it's 519 words with 37 of those in Wikilinks, giving us 482 words. All 14 main characters and 2 minors have been linked to already, and there are line breaks and such... just they're not showing with the NoWiki tags in. The summary was removed after its test location was determined.Baryonyx 07:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the draft, Baryonyx. I put it in Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Pilot draft and did some minor copyediting to it. Most notably, I added a sentence where Charlie disappears into the airplane's bathroom. Jtrost 14:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, Baryonyx. Although, I'd like to have more input, especially from LeFlyman. LeFlyman - are you okay with this? Feel free to be opinionated instead of "neutral"! You are an important part of the Lost page, and I'd want to make sure you fine with all this. I agree with cutting out most of the screencaps (keeping maybe two or three just to give the page some variety). I actually think this will significantly shorten the page -- especially if you look at some of the unbelievably long Season 2 summaries! --Danflave 19:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum A point was made on Talk:Episodes_of_Lost_(season_1)#Clean-up about the episode guide articles being rendered "useless" if the summaries were shortened, as Lost is too complex for this. While I disagree with this, I think it may be useful to include a link to a reputable episode guide page that includes more detailed summaries. --Danflave 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are there any objections to this, or can we start revamping the episode guide? Jtrost 04:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtrost - as far as I am concerned, yes. If you have time, you can start as soon as possible. If you would like to give me a few episodes to deal with, I'd be glad to help. However, you should begin doing this on a project page (i.e. the same way Baryonyx made his Pilot draft) and once we've completed the project, get some consensus and then transfer it to the main "Episodes of Lost" sections. --Danflave 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Pilot draft page to: Talk:Episodes of Lost (season 1)/Drafts. We can put all the new episode guides there. I guess the easiest way to do this is just to have people volunteer for episodes. I'll do episodes 2-5. Anyone else who wants to help out, just post here beforehand so you don't end up doing the same episode as someone else. Jtrost 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm volunteering to work on "Deus Ex Machina", "Do No Harm", "The Greater Good", "Born to Run", and "Exodus" (all 3). It'll probably take me a few days to go through them... I'll start tomorrow. Baryonyx 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC) BTW, here's a list of all episodes, and who's working on them:[reply]
I moved the signup list to a subsection to keep it separate from the discussion. I've signed up for a couple more. Baryonyx, if you find that 500 words is too limiting for the Exodus episodes, I don't think it'd be a big deal if you went over as long as it's still a reasonable length. There's a lot that happens in those episodes, and it may be hard to limit it to 500 words. On another note, can we keep a link in this article to Episodes of Lost where it listed the table of contents for each season? Once there are many seasons this page can be an easy reference to every episode. While it may not seem that important now, I think it's something that we'll someday want. In order to keep it easy to maintain, we can simply call the templates from each season (we'd have to make a template for season 1, as the TOC on that page is still inline). Jtrost 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signup

  • Pilot, Part 1: General
  • Pilot, Part 2: Jtrost
  • Tabula Rasa: Jtrost
  • Walkabout: Jtrost
  • White Rabbit: Jtrost
  • House of the Rising Sun: Jtrost
  • The Moth: Jtrost
  • Confidence Man: open
  • Solitary: open
  • Raised by Another: open
  • All the Best Cowboys Have Daddy Issues: open
  • Whatever the Case May Be: open
  • Hearts and Minds: open
  • Special: open
  • Homecoming: open
  • Outlaws: open
  • ...In Translation: open
  • Numbers: open
  • Deus Ex Machina: Baryonyx
  • Do No Harm: Baryonyx
  • The Greater Good: Baryonyx
  • Born to Run: Baryonyx
  • Exodus, Part 1: Baryonyx
  • Exodus, Part 2: Baryonyx
  • Exodus, Part 3: Baryonyx

Date

File:LostTicket.PNG

I found something interesting on the lost website. on the right is apparently Jack's plane ticket. If you look closely on the left beneith the barcode you will see the date is "09SEP21". This probably means the show takes place in the future. I think this should be included in the article but I'm not sure. Help me out here. - BlackWidower 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the Oceanic Airlines website, IIRC. It's actually been discussed a few times on sites like The Fuselage (I've even been in on at least one of those 'lage discussions). The thought is out there that Lost takes place in the future, especially since I recall reading somewhere that one of the creators has said we've all just assumed the crash took place in 2004. However, like most of the other material on that website, this could also be a red herring, and interpreting something off this site in the way you suggest deviates from what's in the canon of the show itself (that being no real time of events has been indicated beyond being post 2003 Iraq invasion). In other words, its speculative to say anything about Losts time line outside of it being post-March 2003 at this time. As such, this shouldn't be included in the article, since it combines speculation with original research. Baryonyx 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Grillo-Marxuach has stated on The Fuselage that odd dates appearing have been, unfortunately, production errors. Both Jin's resume and an x-ray in "The Hunting Party" contained dates that a number of fanboys excitedly claimed as proof of some sort of "time" shenanigans. Javi said that it was just prop guys f*cking up. So take any dates with a grain of salt. --Danflave 04:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it on the official website, OceanicFlight815.com, in the explore section. I doubt its a mistake. - BlackWidower 14:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as that site is crammed with red herrings and non-canon information, it really doesn't matter much anyways, now does it? --Danflave 16:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Someone mentioned in the peer review that we write a section about the show's production. Specifically, about Oahu and how the Hawaiin islands are transformed into flashback scenes. However, before adding this section I'd like to get other people's opinions. First, do we need it? And if we do, what kind of information should be included? I found this page on About.com, and this page on the Seattle Times website that go into detail about the production. Jtrost 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am of the opinion we do not need to do that. Or if we do, we keep it a brief one paragraph deal. I've read a lot of articles in People and EW, etc., about this subject, but I'm not sure we need to add that all to Wikipedia. I suppose that I consider the article to be primarily about the fictional television series, not all the behind-the-scenes bells and whistles that go into the show. Danflave 04:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Site

  • When was the last time OceanicFlight815.com was updated? It doesn't have any information on season 2. I think in the Links part of the Lost webpage, Oceanic Flight 815 .com should not be listed as the official lost website. I think ABC: Lost (abc.go.com/primetime/lost) should be listed as the official site, because it is updated every week, whereas Oceanic Flight 815 hasn't been edited since the end of season 1 in June 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by January 26, 2006 (talk • contribs)

So they are getting affected by "The Sickness"?

I think they are. Remember Rousseau said her troop got it at about two months in? That's roughly how long they have been here now. --159.134.55.127 19:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black & White

Someone feels the need to aggressively defend keeping an observation about Rose & Bernard's race in the B&W section. Two of us have removed it as irrelevant and dubious, but it's been reinserted. Let me explain why this tidbit is both dubious and irrelevant. It is dubious in two ways: first, it is questionable as to the true nature of its posting, as in, what's the real motivation behind this repeated posting (since a reasonable person would be able to see that it's more than about any taboos on race), but more importantly, it is doubtful that it is an example of the dichotomy of opposition black & white are used to entail. One must ask themselves, since its probably likely that everyone noticed this little fact, does this relate to the use of the theme within the show? And, quite clearly in Rose & Bernard's case, it doesn't: Rose and Bernard are, at this point, very much not in any form of opposition, to either themselves or anyone else. They're both very nice, loving, caring people who just happen to be of a different skin color. It is quite doubtful that, given the nature of the section, we should equate a difference in skin color to a form of opposition (which is also why the observation of Locke and Eko's skin color has been removed repeatedly). Until the show makes it about opposition, there's no there... there. This can be taken a step further, making this irrelevant, because, since the section builds off of Locke's comments from the pilot, invoking the images of light and dark in opposition, skin color is completely irrelevant to determinations of that sort. Every example given in that section is representative of an opposition, on the sides of light and dark (even if only in the character's minds) between and within characters. Jack hiding the stones from Locke (the opposition between Locke and Jack, which Jack obviously felt to be real, even from that early stage), the color of Sawyer's glasses (the opposition within Sawyer's mind), the initial opposition between the two camps (the opposition between a group that just killed one of the other group's members)... all examples of this type of opposition. There simply isn't any opposition of a deeper sort between Rose & Bernard... skin color is a pretty flimsy example, especially when it doesn't even make sense given the overall use of B&W in the show. Even the show itself has commented on the irrelevancy of this "example", through Jack's exasperated (though not disdainful... an expression akin to, "Yeah, and?") dismissal of Hurley's comments about the couple. Further, factuality is not the datum for inclusion, verifiability is, and making the claim that Rose and Bernard's racial distinction is an example of the dichotomy invoked by Locke himself, and will be used by the producers as such in connection with the use of black and white throughout the show, is unverifiable. As always, perhaps, one day, when Rose & Bernard get their flashback episode (expected sometime in Season 3), this will become an important example... and if so, it can go in then. Baryonyx 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear, Baryonyx. I wanted to say all this, but a) couldn't muster the energy against the repeated and adamant postings, and b) wouldn't have said it as eloquently or comprehensively. Thank you! --PKtm 19:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, indeed. I think that for the Story Elements sections to remain "neutral", they should be kept brief and point out only the clearest (and least dubious) examples of the recurring elements. In the case of "black and white" it may not always signify "opposition" on the show-- as I clarified by editing the "meaning" to reference "Duality. However, the importance of the skin color of the two minor, married characters is pretty much non-existent; other than to provide an opportunity (as Baryonyx eludes to, above) for Hurley to quip (paraphrasing) "So Rose's husband is white; who would have seen that?" In terms of the ongoing plot, it has no material relevance.—LeFlyman 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I also agree. I've always found the inclusion of "Rose is black, Bernard is white" to have ulterior motives. However, you summed up the reasons why it should NOT be included perfectly. Danflave 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where should Lost and LOST redirect?

Currently Lost and LOST are both disamabiguation pages for various things called Lost (a reality show I've never heard of, a hamlet in Scotland with less than 24 inhabitants, the world-famous TV series and a few more). LOST used to go to this show until an administrator suddenly decided that it should no longer be so. (LOST doesn't work though without clicking further to get to the disambig page.)

This TV series is certainly the most famous "Lost" and I think that an encyclopedia should primarily send users to actual content-filled pages, at least when there is reason to believe that a good deal of them are looking for something in specific. And if there are other articles with similar names, there should be a notice at the top of the "big" one telling people about a different page or a disambiguation.

A vote (or a poll to explore community consensus) for where the two pages should go, would be, from what I understand, held at Talk:Lost and Talk:LOST. I was wondering if there is interest for such a vote (or two, actually). If there is, I could see several options for what to vote on: Lost stays a disambiguation page, LOST goes back to redirecting to the TV series, no change at all, or both Lost and LOST could go here. Tskoge 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a strong argument can be made to have Lost come here. There is precedent for this (with the Friends article). Jtrost 01:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A poll had already been held here, back when it was first proposed in September last year, with extensive discussions. See: Talk:Lost_(TV_series)/Archive03. If you'd like to try to get consensus to hold a new poll, please feel free. --LeFlyman 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic appears to be open again, I've put a formal move request at WP:RM to move the disambiguation content to Lost (disambiguation) and have Lost redirect to the TV series. I think that LOST should redirect here as well, but that doesn't need a formal move to change. There's discussion at Talk:Lost and Talk:LOST. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_(TV_series)&oldid=37381107"