Talk:Lost (2004 TV series)/Archive 6

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The hamlet, I doubt. The other two, I concede. And your user page should have Cyber in it, DDG Sceptre (Talk) 20:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect and page moves at [[Lost]] and [[Lost (disambiguation)]] 

message: 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 . In fact, because the -unusual in Colombian TV- premiere of a national series in December, the competitor network premiered the original series.  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)
thread_title:  The Colombian version 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move 'Island Census' to here?

message: 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)
replies: text: Please nominate it to AFD. More pointless fancruft not meant for Wikipedia. Danflave 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Numbers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attention: [[Geronimo Jackson]] listed for deletion 

message: thumb|rightI 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Date 

message: 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)
thread_title: So they are getting affected by "The Sickness"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  540 Days 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *On a belated note, this particular theory was debunked by show's writers -- albeit, with some wiggle-room (see below).—LeFlyman 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Please, please mark it AFD.  Someone -- delete this bloated, pointless fancruft!Danflave 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Security System Fun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: A poll had already been held here, back when it was first proposed in September last year, with extensive discussions. See: Talk:Lost_%28TV_series%29/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)

text: So now we discuss? Vote right away? Discuss what the vote should be about? (I would vote to either have Lost redirect here or move this page to Lost, with a disambig notice at the top in either case.) Does the discussion and vote take place here or at Lost?  Tskoge 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can go ahead and vote at Talk:Lost.  The September proposal to have the TV show at Lost failed to reach a consensus, but I think that redirecting Lost to Lost (TV series) may have more support.  LOST is a less complicated matter, and can be decided after consensus is reached at Talk:Lost.  Does that make sense? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should Lost and LOST redirect? 

message: The way that the TOC creates a large break in this article is really bugging me.  I would like to do something about this, but I want to know what everyone else thinks.  Here are two possible solutions I've come up with:
# Make the TOC float to one side of the page using the  or  templates.
# Get rid of third level headers, and make the text bold, so ===Header=== would become Header
For more info on the TOC you can look at WP:SECT.  Is this just me being really picky, or does anyone else think we can do something so the TOC doesn't create such a large break in the page? Jtrost 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I went ahead and cut down the headings. Better now, I think?--LeFlyman 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: There doesn't seem to be enough interesting and reliable information to make an entire section from this topic.  How does everyone feel about putting something like this at the end of the first paragraph: Lost is filmed on location on the Hawaiian island of Oahu. Jtrost 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: I'm new as well, so please excuse if I've commited any netiquette faux pas in what was really my first editing of the Wikipedia.  I added the relation of dharma, the bagua (Dharma Initiative) symbol and its relevance to binary code in the Philosopher section (would have prefered a Religious section, but I guess until then, this will do).  All as far as I know are verifiable, objective connections. Please edit as you see fit, as I'm still seeing how things work here.  I commend you guys very much for keeping this place free of baseless speculation, which it would quickly deteriorate to if it were a playground for fans to go rampant with theories on, and the articles were not peer-reviewed. -Pandora
First off, I'm new, please don't bite my head off if I'm going about this wrong
In fan speculation, I think that someone should add that a lot of people think the island is some kind of mind game that the hanso foundation is playing with the castaways. I'd do it, but I really can't find this theory anywhere except internet forums, which doesnt really count as a source, but the idea is popular enough that is should be included. 204.218.240.90 14:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan Speculation 

message: I think I recently read somewhere that there are plans to produce 6/7 seasons. Does anyone know if there are definite plans? if so, should it be added to the page? if not, just ignore me :-P SilentGuy 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What Baryonyx said. As we are supposed to avoid "Crystal Balling", it would be futile to try to predict whether such a show as Lost can keep its audience happy. Lest we forget the lesson of Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season. However, if it keeps its ratings, Lost should be on the air through season five, when it hits episode 100; after which contracts will be up again, and all bets are off. But that's true of any TV series. —LeflymanTalk 19:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, at the rate Lost is going, (25 episodes last season, 24 ATM this season) it might be at episode 100 for the season finale of season 4! Also, all the first season actors are locked up through a possible sixth season (at least if they agree to the offer). That was part of the agreement they signed onto when they got their raises a few weeks back Source. Baryonyx 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Twin Peaks which was the hot water-cooler show of 1990, but ran out of steam in its second season." Best mixed metaphor ever, btw. --Krsont 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks; I had my writing staff working for weeks on that line. —LeflymanTalk 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: not a fan of theorising, but it's pretty obviously planned to run for 2 seasons only ;) --Streaky 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned seasons? 

message: I miss some fansites in the external links section! This article and the official sites only covers a fraction of all the Lost theories out there! --158.36.240.121 14:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree with not listing quality fan sites. Quality fan sites that feature more than speculation should be allowed. After all, Wikipedia is not endorsing all the content as factual. Fan site links exist for such television shows as Entourage, The O.C., Desperate Housewives, 24, Scrubs, The Today Show, The Office, and so on. I agree that Wikipedia isn't here to provide a comprehensive list of theories and speculation, but it should at least link to quality fan sites, just as just about every other popular television show article. LegalSwoop 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage you, LegalSwoop, to remove the link spam from these other articles.  We certainly don't want link spam in this article, though, and Wikipedia is not a link repository.  --Yamla 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to remove the "link spam" because some at least are links to fan sites that are notable. Some are not. And I don't know which ones are and which ones aren't. That's a job for the editors of each article to determine. I don't pretend to know which ones should or shouldn't be there for TV shows I don't follow. But I think article editors should determine what links to put in not based on the simple knuckle-dragging notion that "fan site bad, official site good." Instead, the best, most notable sites should be listed. I am not trolling for a lost fan site. I have never been to one. (Just Googled and found a bunch; but are any of them any good?) Some of the factors to consider should be: extensiveness of the site, amount of original content, traffic, site design, preference for non-commercial sites or those not overrun with ads, and community. If there are no sites that rise to the level of includable, then so be it. But the statement that "fansites...[cannot] be listed without risking being seen as playing favorites and resulting [in] a links section dozens of links long" is just not borne out by the examples in other articles and the ability of competent editors to rationally manage the article. LegalSwoop 04:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:EL.  Use the criteria on that page to determine if a fansite is notable. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan sites! 

message: OK, I've just gone through the infobox page by page, and some of the actor pages that branch off the main character pages, and, TBH... there's a lot of work to be done. WikiProject level work, IMHO, but not sure there's a precedent for a WikiProject for a show this young. Season 1 is being worked on, but if Season 1 is an elephant, Season 2's an apatosaur. With only half the episodes, it's already nearly as large as the entire Season 1 page. I see that Season 2 is listed in the signups above, and that's good, but I think we need to really focus our efforts on cleaning up one section at a time, instead of splitting off.
Doesn't stop there, though... the Characters page needs work (need to decide how we want to handle flashbackery, and trim out or eliminate the Census section altogether, IMHO), as do a significant number of the main character pages. Then there's the miscellaneous ones, like The Dharma Initiative, Oceanic Flight 815, The Hanso Foundation, The Others, etc. that have cropped up. Collectively, I think we've taken great strides in getting this article into better shape, and I think we can do great things with all the articles under the Lost category. Baryonyx 08:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's enough work to justify an entire wikiproject, but there certainly is a lot to be done.  I think we can start by creating a todo template for each article on its talk page and identifying exactly what improvements could be made to each article.  I think with enough hard work, we can get this article and all of the LOST related articles up to FAC status by the season finale in May.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this article shouldn't be nominated for FAC until all other articles that talk about LOST are also up to that status, although they necessarily won't need a peer review. Jtrost 17:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been discussing this with Leflyman, and the main reason why I mention a project is if we do eventually decide to split up the episodes (I hope not, but I'd defer to consensus), we'd need to get a tight grip on that process pretty quickly. As far as FAC, I agree... Lost shouldn't be nominated until the other key Lost articles are of at least A quality (using WP 1.0 guidelines). And by key, I mean the main article, Season pages (or episodes, if they do get split), Character page, Main character pages, and the minor spinoff pages related to Lost. Though, I'd note that I'd shoot for the end of June for FAC, since we'll probably need that long for the dust to settle from the season finale.Baryonyx 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey all -- I apologize for not Wiki-ing much lately.  Things have picked up at work and to add to my already enormous stress-load, I need to find a new apartment and move by March 1st.  I didn't want you guys to think I was abandoning the Lost Wiki page.  Things should be back to normal next month, and I am always willing to help out with upkeep and edits.  I still plan on helping with the Season 2 episode guide, but can't do it anytime soon (which might work out fine, since Baryonyx wants to focus on Season 1 for now!) Danflave 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quite A Lot To Do

message: I left a note on the original author's talk page about this section.  If no references are cited, however, I think this section should be deleted. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Building off the section I started above, I wanted to start a conversation between the main editors here about a couple of things. First, I'm noticing that there's a couple of editors who want to split off the episodes, and apparently want it so badly, they're digging for ways to justify it. While I'm wholly against split episodes in principle, a thought came to me today: someone splitting the Lost episodes out is probably inevitable, and even if most of them get AfD'd, some will remain, leaving us a jumbled mess. I think we've been fairly fortunate so far in that most of those here have deferred to consensus, but that may not always be the case. The question I started asking myself is what is the better choice: watch the work we've done get undermined by a gung-ho fan or group of fans who don't take WP convention into account, or take on the task of splitting the episodes out ourselves, so that we can develop a template and move on this responsibly, creating good articles out of a bad situation? Second, tied to the first, if we come to some sort of agreement on splitting things apart, I'd like to re-iterate that the best way to approach the splitting up of the nearly 50 episodes we'll have by season's end would probably be through a WikiProject, but if that's not the best method, we'd need to devise a system to control the process and make all this easier. Thoughts?Baryonyx 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already done a great deal of work rewriting the episode guides, and are almost done with the first season.  The reasons for keeping them in one article have been stated over and over, so there's no reason to go over that again here.  If some new editors do make unneeded articles AfDs will succeed, especially since we have two admins who regularly edit and watch over these articles.  We've done a lot of working cleaning these articles up, and I for one have every Lost article on my watchlist and revert unnecessary edits on sight.  I think if we just stick to what we're doing everything will be okay. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I am commenting on this so late, but I agree with JTrost. While the idea of separate articles for each episode has its positives, I think it is an absolute recipe for mayhem. This was re-iterated for me the other day when I looked up something about South Park and happened to check out one of the "episode pages" -- it was filled with spelling mistakes, bad grammar, outrageous cruft, and original research. I can't imagine patrolling all those Lost episode pages -- I think even with our diligence, we (the regular Lost editors) let a lot slip through the cracks on the character pages and bric-a-brac pages (Dharma, Hanso, etc). As for a Wikiproject, if you all have the time and energy to organize that, it's an excellent idea. But as someone who holds a full time job and has (or strives to have) a social life, I don't know how much I could contribute. :-\ Danflave 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with my full-time and a half job, social obligations, move preparations, and the like, I don't have the time to do it either. However, if people here were behind the idea, I'd have found the time. Seeing as everyone's content to let things be, I'm not going to do it. Baryonyx 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as rude or dismissive in my last post. I am moving this coming weekend and things at work have become crazy, so I have felt pretty overwhelmed lately. I am always glad to help out, and if we made a WikiProject, I'd support that and assist in any way I could. Danflave 17:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it Dan, that's not what my point was. My point was that I'm not going to take any such actions without the core group agreeing. That creates more strife than it's worth, especially given that some of us have such full schedules now. :) Plus, I'm on Wikibreak now anyway... so it doesn't matter either way. Baryonyx 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Leflyman's idea of creating a guide for new users who want to contribute to Lost.  I've been reverting so many edits by annonymous users lately that about 90% of my contributions to Lost articles are now reverts.  I think it would be great to adopt the guidelines and policies we already have into something more specific to Lost.  Heck, I'll start: Rule #1, no anagrams!  I'll fully support a Wikiproject, but honestly I think we're doing fine right now.  Maybe in the future when we get more articles we'll need it.  However, right now I think our priority should be the episode guides.  They're a complete mess.  After that maybe we can do something with the airdates page and the characters page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: All of the episode synopses are currently being rewritten (see above), and this is issue is cleared up from the episode I have read. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Forward

message: Just an observation, but maybe there should be a way to format the episode descriptions between the flashbacks and the present. As it is, it's confusing to distinguish between the two, even after seeing the episodes - imagine if someone has never seen the show (also for future visitors to Wikipedia in the years to come). Maybe have the flashbacks in italics, or indented, or bold Flashback, or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.51.8 (talk • contribs) February 22, 2006
:All of the episode synopses are currently being rewritten (see above), and this is issue is cleared up from the episode I have read. Jtrost (T | C | #) 03:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Is this term really encyclopedic?  The source is a livejournal...  I don't think this belongs in this article at all, it is extremely crufty. Maybe if this term has been mentioned in an actual media source somewhere it can stay, but as is I think it has to go.  --DDG 17:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It does not belong here. And I have removed it. Danflave 17:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMGWTFPOLARBEAR 

message: I have been avidly removing a paragraph in Literary references that deal with Locke and Gale and Hemingway, and to prevent this from popping up again in its current form I would like to explain why.  Gale is a recurring character who seems to be playing an increasingly larger role in the show.  Until his story line is said and over with, I think adding any story elements regarding him as they happen will cause large amounts of cruft.  Take the one that keeps popping up right now with Gale turning Locke against Jack for example.  If we keep that then every time there's a hint of Locke fighting with Jack it'll be added to that section and it will have to be yet another thing that we'll have to constantly revert.  I think we should wait until Gale's story is over with, then talk about what, if anything, should be added to this section about him. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In agreement.  We should hold out not only until we have much more information, but until we see the larger relevance to the season and the show as a whole.  I feel repetitious in my constant attention to this issue, but we need to aim to be less knee-jerk and more encyclopedic.  Additions to this article should not revolve around "hey, this just happened" in response to an episode but "in retrospect, look at this significance" in response to the season or show as a whole.  Gale will probably be an interesting addition to this article; until we know the details, however, he should remain the foder of fan and speculation sites. Rlove 15:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locke and Gale 

message: I've been looking at both the Canterbury Tales and Lost. There are a similarities between characters and the way that Lost is presented. I haven't had much time to put much thought into this. I'll just give the comparisons that I think work. Jack: The Knight or The Man of Law. Sayid: The Squire. Hugo: The Franklen. Sharron: The Wife of Bathe. Ana-Lucia: The Cannon. Mr. Echo: The Yeoman. Does this make sense to anybody else? Bradley Elenbaas
*Unless there is a source from an interview with the show's creators, or a verifiable publication which can be cited for such a connection, it would be Original Research to include here. Save such new theories for fan sites. --LeflymanTalk 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interests of "Not Biting the Newbies", I can understand that you likely didn't realize that Wikipedia Talk pages are not "open discussion" forums, but tools to figuring out ways to improve the articles themselves. If you have a suggestion for the article, that's more than welcome; if your intention is to float your personal thesis of a comparison between Lost and the Canterbury Tales, then no, that isn't appropriate here. —LeflymanTalk 05:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Canterbury Tales 

message: does anyone else think this article contains _too_ much information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.54.228 (talk • contribs) 
It might help if you could be specific. —LeflymanTalk 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much information 

message: I edited in a discredited theory from the most recent podcast--that dead characters would not return as zombies (yes, laughable, but it is something that is discussed as a "real" theory elsewhere).  I'm curious as to why this was edited out.  Also, I added in a section just stating that Locke made reference to Jack about Hemingway/Dostoevsky, and I'm curious why this did not last, either.  Also, apologies if this is not the proper process to go through to get answers... email me at bike.freak@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.50.174 (talk • contribs) March 21, 2006
:I deleted those edits.  The whole "zombie" thing, after I listened to it, sounded like they were joking.  It's not a widespread theory in the first place, so I have doubts about its notability.  As for the literary references, we are not compiling an exhaustive list of every reference.  If the whole Hemmingway thing becomes more significant in the future we can definately add it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discredited Theories

message: Someone added a long new section, which I think is encyclopedically valid, but should go elsewhere; either to its own article or merged to List of songs featured on Lost.--LeflymanTalk 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the section.  I agree that the table is quite long, perhaps it could be edited?  I don't think it requires its own page, though.  I think it should stay where it is on the Main Page.  SergeantBolt 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Merge this with List of Songs featured on Lost, since that's basically what the soundtrack is. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Absolutely merge the material with List of songs featured on Lost. The main article shouldn't be laden down with this list, particularly as it grows. --PKtm 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack -> [[List of songs featured on Lost]] 

message: I'd add the citation for this to the article myself, but I'm not sure how to format a citation for a comic strip.  Anyway, the Lost parody/homage began on March 1 (following on from an earlier storyline in which Monty was on a cruise ship with a bunch of old folks who were all much cooler than him), and continued through March 18.  (Those links will work only for 30 days after the original publication date, so there's probably not much point in putting them in the article citation.)  So, if anyone knows the best way to cite a comic strip, please do so.  (I should add that Monty is a pretty widely syndicated strip, appearing in many newspapers across the US, including the Washington Post, so notability shouldn't be a concern.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused as to why this "Lost in popular culture" section has been added to the main Lost page?  It seems rather crufty to me, but both of you do not seem to have a problem with it.  I am just worried that the section could grow out of control, as Lost is bound to be cited/spoofed/discussed/etc rather frequently. I would like to remove this section -- we had been removing the crufty "Veronica Mars" and "lotto" references in the past... Danflave 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monty" parody 

message: Someone has nominated this article as a featured article candidate; without really going through the review process (again) prior to being so proposed. The poll is looking rather unfavourably at the Lost article and claims there are some serious deficiencies and speculative  content. I would suggest the long-standing editors read through the discussion there, and consider the validity of those objections to this article as an FA. If you believe that the objections are accurate or not please comment there. According to the requirements for comments:  "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." —LeflymanTalk 19:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that we are not ready to be a FA. I think the article is excellent, and we've all put a lot of work into it, and I object to a lot of the comments made in the nomination discussion (i.e. the article is crufty and has too much trivia). However, one comment I do tend to agree with is that Lost is still in a very early stage of its development, and I think more time should pass before it is a FA. I was actually quite surprised when Arrested Development was made a FA, but 3 seasons had already passed and it was presumed to be close to the end of its run. I think we should continue our work, but with the goal of it being a Featured Article sometime in the future. Danflave 16:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues at Featured Article nomination

message: I don't think there's enough content in Addicted to Lost to warrant a full article. Everything about this commericial is there, and it's only a couple paragraphs. At the most, this should be a section here in the main article. -- MisterHand 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please nominate this trivial cruft for deletion?  I would do it myself, but I don't know how to. :-\  Danflave 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal: "Addicted to Lost"