Talk:Lost season 2/Archive 5

message: :Anyone else notice how long the summaries for "Lockdown" and "Dave" are?  I want to edit it because we're getting practically a play-by-play rather than a summary.  I also don't like the use of "we" such as "we return to hurley's flashback and discover..."  Not very encyclopedia...ish.  What do you people think? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.195.2 (talk • contribs) April 6, 2006
::Totally agree. It usually merits waiting a couple of days for the dust to settle after the initial airing of an episode; eliminating pieces sooner than that tends to just get the same stuff added back again. -- PKtm 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really long summaries 

message: It was at least 10:04 when this episode ended.  Did anyone else notice that this episode was more than an hour long?
The normal length for one episode is about 42 minutes without commercials. This episode is about 45 minutes long. 147.229.222.8 21:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dave" -- Longer than an hour? 

message: :I know this should be in the Hurley discussion page, but people rarely check that and it needs correction now.  His pic is no longer Hurley but some kid that kinda looks like him.  I'm having trouble locating the change in the history...I dunno, maybe someone with more expertise can help out.
::Done :) Hongshi 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurley's pic 

message: I admit I haven't been active as much as I used to with editing Lost-related articles, but why on Earth do we have a page like this and seperate episode articles? We need to choose one or the other. We can't have both. I would consider this to be a top priority. K1Bond007 07:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the extensive discussion at Talk:List of Lost episodes.  Basically, there are wikipedians who want to follow the standards set by other shows and get rid of this page and use the list, while there are many regular LOST editors who don't like the list and would rather have this.  Not only is having both of them a compromise, but there is also reasoning behind it:  The idea is that for in-depth summaries of episodes, one will consult the list and for a more general overview of the season one will consult this page.  This obviously isn't the case right now, but it will be as soon as the episode guide under development here is complete.  --Kahlfin 18:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the discussion and this is truly just a bad idea, and one that sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia IMHO. We're not a fansite. I'm all for a short synopsis and a link to the episode article, but the link you listed is nothing close to a short synopsis. One way or another has to be chosen here. We can't have it both ways, even in a compromise. Someones going to have to give. K1Bond007 19:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please reffer me to the policy statement where this is discussed? I'm a great fan of the Wikipedia project and use articles here a lot. However I have this conflict about TV show articles like these. the Wikipedia is proud of its high number of articles compared to the EB and conventional encyclopedias, however a considerable chunk here is dedicated to culture trivia, like stuff normaly found on fan sites, sexual posisions, and many other types of non encyclopedic verbage. Is it really a good idea to load the poor database with this? people have Lostpedia and many other sites for that... You can say it's just not bothering anyone to have another article in the hay stack, but some people DO download the database dump and the cost of WP maintainence IS burdened by these at the bottom line... In short - where can I find the discussions on such issues? TIA. --SeeFood 08:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We can't have it both ways

message: I've noticed in several places, Rousseau is referred to as 'Rousseau', and in other places, as 'Danielle'.  I would propose that we be consistent:
* Only refer to any character by either their first or last name, whichever is most frequently used by other characters in the show
* Specific to Danielle Rousseau: always refer to her as Rousseau, since I don't think I've ever heard a character refer to her as Danielle, and Sayid in particular seems to refer to her as Rousseau.
(Similarly, we should choose between John and Locke for John Locke, though there seems to be more consistency there on these pages.)  Opinions? Bldxyz 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistancy is good. I'd suggest going with the name that is used most often in the show. (Rousseau for Danielle Rousseau, Locke for John locke, Hurley instead of Hugo, etc) Blade 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that as a general policy people should be referred to by their last name in Wikipedia articles. And I further agree that Rousseau should be called by her last name as this is the name she is better known by. But as others pointed out, there are exceptions. We'd only be confusing people if we wrote Shephard and Austen went out in the woods and were met by Dawson rather then Jack and Kate went out in the woods and were met by Michael. MK2 09:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent Reference to Danielle Rousseau (as Rousseau)

message: There was incorrect trivia for The 23rd Psalm. The "Dutch subtitles" mentioned are incorrect, Eko's brother is indeed named Yemi, as this is the name used in the credits and the official Guest Cast List. ShadowUltra 21:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Trivia for 2.10

message: This article may be redirected as per a poll that will be conducted for the next seven days at Talk:List of Lost episodes#Poll: Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep?. --M@thwiz2020 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll - this article may be redirected... 

message: I saw today that someone added Desmond as being the character flashbacks of Live Together, Die Alone and Michael being the character of Three Minutes, neithe rof these are confirmed. Who is it that has permission to edit the table? ShadowUltra 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like every day I check this page these Flashbacks are being re-added to the table and then removed.  This appears to be a problem. spacemonkey4 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who has permission to edit the episode table?

message: Kristin said on this page that, in an interview with Damon Lindelof (which, by policy, is allowed as citable material):
:I mean, it [the map] plays huge in the finale, and even in episodes 21 through 24. Twenty-one is an episode that is very much on the sort of fundamental axis of that map, and it's a Locke and Eko story, which is going to be awesome. [Executive Producer] Carlton [Cuse] and I wrote it. That episode is just called '?' because that is the symbol Locke remembers from the map.
So, can we put Locke and Eko as the flashbacks for "?" ? --M@thwiz2020 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.  Lindelof never said ANYTHING about Flashbacks, he merely said that Locke and Eko would feature most in the the episode, quite like in Maternity Leave where it was mainly Claire, Kate and Rousseau, or Outlaws (Kate and Sawyer). 86.133.156.43 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashback in "?" 

message: Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere or if theres some wikipedia policy on this that ive ignored, but...
The page about all the different episodes of lost is collosal, gargantuan. I sometimes like to look at wikipedia on my mobile or on my PSP and guess what? "Out of memory". I guess this doesnt affect people that use a PC (actually mine takes a while to load it and its sluggish scrolling around but its an old machine) to view it in quite the same way but even so wouldnt it be more sensible to create a list of episodes and a seperate page for each episode?
--Timmywimmy 22:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, the page List of Lost episodes is what you're looking for. Short synopsises linking to fuller descriptions on other pages. 86.141.208.51 23:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there isn't much use for this page, is there? ;\ --Ted 07:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is gigantic 

message: This article states that the fate of Ana and Libby is currently unknown, however in Ana-Lucia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana-Luc%C3%ADa_Cortez) it is stated that she dies as of "Two for the Road".
Yes, and where is it absolutely proved that Ana-Lucia died in this episode? Did the producers keep her on Hawaii just to throw off any speculation that she would be leaving the show?
At least one of them is dead as it was revealed on the advert for the final few episodes on ABC.
However, ads for the shows are not considered verifiable sources, and sources need to be verifiable to make reference.  Consider the shows that actually have aired as the source of information (and some accept the offical websites and Podcasts, too).  Are either of them shown to be dead, as of the latest episode?  No. Wounded and unconsious, sure, but dead... not yet. Bldxyz 23:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know about Libby. However, an interview with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse in TV Guide following the episode stated that Ana-Lucia is indeed dead, so we can put that on her character page.  We probably shouldn't put it on the episode summary though, as it isn't part of the episode. --Kahlfin 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting articles 

message: Has it been confirmed where Michael has shot himself?  Judging from the last few frames of the latest episode (as of above date), it does appear that he shot himself in the left arm/shoulder area.  If it has been confirmed, then please include a reference, otherwise, it must be changed back. - Charlie Marrow 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, it has not been confirmed that he shot himself in the arm.  The previews for "?" show Michael wearing a sling, but since these previews are not considered verifiable sources, we're not going to know where he shot himself until "?" airs.  --Kahlfin 14:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops.  I made an edit on this.  I wrote "The last thing we see is Michael, pointing the gun at himself (his arm or side), and firing."  I tend to prefer statements of what we actually see if the conclusion (e.g. he shot himself) isn't shown.  Sure, pointing the gun at yourself and the sound of gunfire seems to add up to "shot myself", but since we aren't shown the result of the gunfire, we don't know that it happened.  Arguably, the gun could have misfired or he could have missed.  Bypass the whole issue be describing what is shown. Bldxyz 23:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Good idea. --Kahlfin 18:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael in latest epsiode as of 8-5-2006 

message: There appears to be no mention in the episode articles about when the group abandoned the caves.  There is several discussion of "back at the caves", but then we don't read about them again until the recap for "Dave" in which Hurley announced he is going to move to the "now empty caves."  For someone reading along, they might wonder when and why the caves are now empty. --spacemonkey4 10:20, 9 May 2006
: If you can cite an earlier episode in which a character makes reference to abandoning the caves (or why), go right ahead and make the edit. (In fact, it was a question put to the exec producers on the offical Podcasts, but it is not mentioned in the show, at least to my recollection. Bldxyz 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving the Caves 

message: Someone on TV.com said that Michael is wearing a different shirt from The Hunting Party to Two for the Road. They said he is wearing an orange shirt when he goes off and then wears a plaid buttoned shirt when he comes back. I thought he was wearing the same shirt.- JustPhil 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael's shirt 

message: here is some extanded summarys i found and i want you to decide if you want them add to this page ok
Three Minutes: A determined Michael convinces Jack and several castaways to help him rescue Walt from "The Others." With Jack away, Locke is left in charge of the hatch and must decide if he should believe Henry and not push the button, risking everyone's safety. Meanwhile, the events that happened to Michael after he left are finally revealed. Lastly, Meanwhile, Charlie struggles with Eko's decision to discontinue building the church.
Live Together, Die Alone: After discovering something odd just offshore, Jack and Sayid come up with a plan to confront "The Others" and hopefully get Walt back. At the same time there will be an answer to the question of where Michael has been and resolution of him and Walt. Meanwhile, Eko and Locke come to blows as Locke makes a potentially cataclysmic decision regarding the "button" and the hatch. Lastly, Desmond returns and he sheds some more light on his experience on the island in the three years prior to when Locke came down into that hatch.
LeafGreen Ranger 12:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info On future episodes 

message: Just watched the ep and then read the summary on this article (so that i get all the points) and it is not mentioned that in the orientation video the Dr Guy (i'm not very good with names) says that they should put all full notebooks in the tube and they will "be transported directly to us" that must be important and worth noting as it has many possible affects on the possible outcome of the plot. TheEnlightened 20:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is conjecture but my point was that in the summary of the episode "?" it doesn't state what the Dr says to do with the notebooks. Surely as part of the episode summary it should be stated? if not for any other reason? TheEnlightened 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: further more if the article just states what is said on screen there is no conjecture or any mis information as it would be merely stating what the character said. This woul give the broadest possible summary of the article and whilst being informative, correct and would not be affected by conjecture. TheEnlightened 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: one is always safer to report what is said or shown without drawing any conclusions. Something to note, however, is that earlier, before seeing the tape, Locke examines the tube and tests it by placing his hand-drawn map into the tube, and the map disappears up the tube.  After viewing the tape, one has to wonder if Locke's action is significant (e.g. the map he drew probably winds up in the same place as the notebooks once did, but this is conjecture, so one should only refer to the action Locke took, not why it might be important). Bldxyz 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "?" Missing a bit of possible vital information 

message: In the trivia section of the this episode someone has written that Locke is able to make an impression into the concrete wall when he hits it with his fist. To me it doesn't look like concrete at all but just some soft wall covering.
Agree or disagree? Should this comment be removed? --81.106.138.21 11:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode "?": Trivia: Concrete Wall 

message: In the "The Other 48 Days" part of the article, it opens up saying there is a "black man" and "Latina Woman," and a "blonde woman."
Now, why do we have to say its a black guy and latina woman? Truth is he was black and she was Latina, but we do not say "white woman with blonde hair." 
In fact, I see no reason for there to be any mention of race to open up the section.
And just so you know, Im a white guy, and even I think its racist that when the show opened up the person who wrote this article first thought black and latina.
* except latin(a/o) isn't a racial label, it's a cultural one. It refers to anyone who originates from an American country and speaks an Iberian Romance language, i.e Spanish or Portugese; they could be "white", "black", amerind, or (most commonly) mestizo. But yeh, the overt level of detail does seem a bit much, especially seeing as we already know their names. --Krsont 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism? OR no? 

message: why is this page so long? you have individual pages for the episodes, you dont need the entire summaries here... someone should shorten them down and add a table (a la Battlestar Galactica or Stargate SG-1) -Xornok 23:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long 

message: Notice how Ms. Klugh wrote down Hugo instead or Hurley, and James instead of Sawyer, yet she did not write down Kate's full name - Katherine.
: That's all one of the mysteries of the show, ain't it?  I mean, how come they know Sawyer's real name, Hurley's real name, but they are otherwise unfamiliar to many of the survivors?  However, it isn't encyclopaedic to note that odditity, though it might be interesting to show the list as it was shown to Michael. Bldxyz 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List given to Michael in "Three Minutes" 

message: There is a reference to Widmore Industries in Fire+Water which is notable due to the company's increasing importance in the latter part of Season 2 (particularly the finale). I added a note to the Fire+Water note section referring to this. It also seemed odd to have it noted in The Whole Truth but not under the actual episode it appeared in. Thanks.--Werthead 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Widmore Reference in Fire+Water

message: Now it seems we're going backwards. The character name is "Ms. Klugh" and now it's back to "Miss Klugh" According to User:Kahlfin ABC has stated the name as Ms. Klugh (see the Talk page on the Others). Now this article is out of sync with the Episodes List arrticle, the Others article, and the Characters of Lost article. I'm going to change it back, but why bother? Einbierbitte 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ms. Klugh

message: The main Lost template is looking at major edits after the finale tonight, there has been some discussion on how the design should look like, and what the contents of the new template should be, the Current template is as follow
and is looking to be replaced with this one
 
and others that are listed in there, Please do not share your ideas here, go to Template talk:LostNav#More "spacious" template to share your thoughts, thank you very much and enjoy the season finale tonight 9/8c on ABC --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Template 

message: The two men in the end of the last episode are speaking portuguese, with a brazilian accent. The actors themselves, however, most likely are not brazilians due to their natural accent. Also, Brazil has a permanent base in Antarctica, called Comandante Ferraz, which seems to be appropriate with the climate outside the men's tent.201.79.102.152 03:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese Speakers 

message: The second season finale specified the exact date of the plane crash, suggesting that one could estimate if not know exactly the dates other episodes took place.  (The Other 48 Days could be mapped out exactly).  I'm sure Lost fans have been scrambling to try to specify dates for each episode, so the question is, should that be reflected in the Wikipedia descriptions/synopsis?  I for one would like to see it: "This episode takes place between October 12th and 15th, 2004" is how it might read.
:Um, see WP:OR. This would be original research. -- PKtm 20:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify Episode Date Range? 

message: Having only watched season one and not having access to season two I decided to read up on the whole thing here. However, in "The Long Con" this sentence:
"While Kate is reading to Sawyer, he mentions the army that Jack and Ana-Lucia are forming."
is giving me problems. What army? There is no mention of an army at any point before this. It's a small omission but someone who knows that episode might want to fix it.
:Look at the episode called "The hunting Party"
Y2Lance 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Army? 

message: There seems to be some conflict as to where information on each episode will be stored. I'd like a vote. The "losing" pages should be merged into the winners.
===Give each episode its own page===
#SergeantBolt 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This dispute is not going to be resolved by a vote. -- PKtm 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not actually a dispute. It's just that it doesn't make sense (to me) to have two different groups of people writing up two different versions of the same material. I think we'd do better all working together - the intention of this vote is to choose which banner we'd be working together under. -Litefantastic 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see each episode have its own page, but I still think it's useful to have one page for each season, which includes a brief (max 1 paragraph) synopsis of each episode, that then links to the individual episode page. --Elonka 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While that's a good idea in theory, I really don't think that the results of a poll are going to convince people to delete/merge months of their hard work.  Whichever way this poll works out, there's going to be some resistance, and as long as there's resistance, you can't merge without consensus --Kahlfin 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then screw the poll. How do you think we should try and reach consensus? -Litefantastic 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue debate at Talk:List of Lost episodes#Serious Consensus Problem.  --  Wikipedical 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Voting is evil eh? Citing an essay as policy is evil in my opinion. This poll is needed. --Ted 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't cite it as a policy, in fact I said in my comment that it wasn't an official policy. --Kahlfin 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: On the articles

message: #SergeantBolt 11:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give each episode its own page

message: #Litefantastic 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Give each season its own page

message: First of all, I don't this poll is necessary at all.  To whoever made it, see WP:VIE (I know this isn't an official policy, but unless someone can refute it in this instance, we should abide by it).  Voting is evil, and should be avoided unless there is no other way to settle a dispute.  Second of all, as much as I myself would like to do away with the list, you can't say that the "losing" pages should be merged into the winners, because Wikipedia is not a majoritan democracy.  It operates on consensus, and a majority is not a consensus.  See WP:CON.  Third, there has already been a poll at Talk:List of Lost episodes, and while I personally didn't think that it was a fair poll, unless this poll is different some how, I don't see any point to it. --Kahlfin 06:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This dispute is not going to be resolved by a vote. -- PKtm 12:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not actually a dispute. It's just that it doesn't make sense (to me) to have two different groups of people writing up two different versions of the same material. I think we'd do better all working together - the intention of this vote is to choose which banner we'd be working together under. -Litefantastic 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to see each episode have its own page, but I still think it's useful to have one page for each season, which includes a brief (max 1 paragraph) synopsis of each episode, that then links to the individual episode page. --Elonka 23:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While that's a good idea in theory, I really don't think that the results of a poll are going to convince people to delete/merge months of their hard work.  Whichever way this poll works out, there's going to be some resistance, and as long as there's resistance, you can't merge without consensus --Kahlfin 02:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then screw the poll. How do you think we should try and reach consensus? -Litefantastic 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue debate at Talk:List of Lost episodes#Serious Consensus Problem.  --  Wikipedical 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Voting is evil eh? Citing an essay as policy is evil in my opinion. This poll is needed. --Ted 20:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't cite it as a policy, in fact I said in my comment that it wasn't an official policy. --Kahlfin 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (What a radical idea)

message: We need to reach consensus.  PLEASE comment here.  --  Wikipedical 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my lengthy comment here on this issue (where I look at the results of having individual articles and the mess that's turned into). -- PKtm 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on article system: Seasons vs. Episodes 

message: There is a consensus problem, as regards deciding whether episodes should be summarized on a single page for each episode, with links from a central List of Lost episodes page, vs. having a single page for a season, which then summarizes all episodes on that single season page.  Currently effort is being duplicated, as episodes are being summarized twice -- once on individual pages, and again on the Season page.  Attempts at achieving consensus to avoid this problem of forking, have not been successful, so a formal Request for Mediation has been submitted, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#List of Lost episodes vs. Episodes of Lost (season 2).  Editors who are interested in participating in the mediation discussion should please add their names to the page.  --Elonka 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I suspect that it would be seen as a conflict of interest for individuals who've been heavily involved in the discussion already-- considering that you've made 30+ comments on this talk page. —LeflymanTalk 22:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * Yeah, I suppose that's true. I just haven't made any comments about this issue (the List versus Episodes discussion), since I don't have an opinion on it.  That said, any perception of conflict of interest would  be bad. All parties would have to think it okay, since accepting the mediator is part and parcel to resolution. Bldxyz 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * The mediation request has been accepted by the mediation committee.  Participants should set a watch on the new page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Lost_episodes. --Elonka 01:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The season articles have now been reworked to be "all season" summaries rather than individual episode lists.  Information about individual episodes should now be placed into the respective episode articles, which are linked from List of Lost episodes.  I've attempted to update all the links appropriately, but help would be appreciated to see if I missed something somewhere.  Hopefully we can have everything all cleaned up before Monday, when Lost will be featured on the front page of Wikipedia! --Elonka 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: Thank you to everyone that participated in the successful mediation. :)  Our next steps now are to smoothly implement the result.  As part of the compromise, this Episodes of Lost (season 2) article will be gracefully phased out after its contents are merged into the episode articles, and replaced with a Lost (season 2), which will contain a summary of the main themes of Season 2.  This will entail a lot of work, so I recommend that we coordinate here.  
For my part, I'm going to start working down the episode list on this page, and ensuring that each episode summary is properly merged.  Once I've doublechecked this, I'll go ahead and delete the summary from this page, but leave the  link in its place, so that interested readers can still be directed to the episode article.  Others may wish to help with these merges, or work on the new season page.  I think if we all work together, we can get everything cleaned up before October 3rd, which is when the Lost (TV series) article is scheduled to be featured on the main Wikipedia page. Good luck!  :) --Elonka 06:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The season articles have now been reworked to be "all season" summaries rather than individual episode lists.  Information about individual episodes should now be placed into the respective episode articles, which are linked from List of Lost episodes.  I've attempted to update all the links appropriately, but help would be appreciated to see if I missed something somewhere.  Hopefully we can have everything all cleaned up before Monday, when Lost will be featured on the front page of Wikipedia! --Elonka 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Completed mediation

message: A routine move request was submitted on an episode article, Fire + Water, to move it to a name that was  more consistent with the other episode articles in :Category:Lost episodes, namely Fire + Water (Lost).  However, the move request has generated a surprising amount of controversy, so I am requesting further participation.  Any editors who would like to offer an opinion on the matter, are encouraged to do so at Talk:Fire + Water. --Elonka 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related poll