Talk:DHARMA Initiative stations/Archive 1

message: This article begins with spoilers in the introduction, and has a lot of OR speculation.  Cleanup is needed agapetos_angel 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was intending to edit it right away, but got called away from the computer.  I've cleaned it up a bit now, but there is still more work to be done.  Suggestions?  agapetos_angel 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Leflyman, you said in edit summary: please stop changing the formatting of the reference tag; it's there as an example. What are you on about?  Why do you feel it necessary to have lengthy formatting 'as an example'?  Articles disseminate information, not indicate examples of formatting.  That is why there are HELP articles. agapetos_angel 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: When Michael returned from the Other's Camp, he said they had a hatch that was guarded 24/7. Since on the list of stations, The flame is the only station not looked at yet, could the Flame be the station the Others are in control of? Should we put this under The Flame,or would this be speculation? {{unsigned|Foxo103|18:04, 14 May 2006}
*Speculation. Making such an inference, which hasn't been explicitly stated either on the series or in a verifiable source would be Original Research. We don't know, for instance, that Michael's claims are true— a reasonable supposition, based on his behavior, would be that he's being deceitful, but this opinion is likewise non-encyclopaedic. Further, we don't know if there aren't actually more stations/facilities than are suggested by "the map"— which itself is a questionable "source." Thus, it would be inappropriate to suggest any connection between an unknown location and the claims of an unreliable character. Thanks for asking. —LeflymanTalk 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Flame and the Others? 

message: There should be a paragraph saying how many stations there are. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to add it based on what we know already. The orientation films for Swan and Pearl Stations claim they are, respectively, "3" and "5 of 6." On the other hand, Pearl Station has enough TVs to study eight stations (including, oddly, itself), and the ultraviolet map shows eight shapes (though one has been sketched out). If there's a coherent paragraph to be wrung from that information, I confess I couldn't do it without forecasting... we'll probably have to wait for more input. -Litefantastic 23:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One, two, three...

message: Just a shout out to the person/persons resbonsible for adding all the information on this article. I had tried to before but it was just deleted by who knows who. So it should also be mentioned that no one should just deleted all this well done work and it should be perserved. So please, if you disagree  then discuss it before just throwing away and deleting it as occur with me in a previous moment.  
Thanks
:don't worry, if someone deletes some stuff for no good reason we will revert it --muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 05:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Props and Perservation

message: I don't know if any one else saw this, but at the Lostpedia and various other lost related site, ther has been several confirmed pictures of a station's doors in the side of a small rock formation, this is a prop for lost, and it was photographed by hawaii locals, there are also several tents near it.  I don't know if this should be considered something to be put up if it counts a speculation.
:I don't know for sure, but it sounds like the Others's fake station.
--Rroepke 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's the Others' station: see here and here for the original rumours (also, the tents sound like the Others' camp). They were certainly right about the station being "the door". Sdalmonte 08:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Door

message: I just wanted to say again that I think the split was the wrong thing for this article at this point.   A majority was not achieved - it was a minority vote (especially when you take that the HANSO Foundation was never merged).  This article is great, however the other has been left very incomplete and unattended. This article is a much more complete picture of the entire DHARMA initiative.  The other article is still focused on the video in station 3.  There is really only about two paragraphs in the other article that fit.  Why is this not just the "background" for the initiative with all the stations below it?  The stations are a major part of the Initiative so it is still on topic.  The split was premature.  Morphh 12:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Split

message: I find it very strange to read this article and see the things that were 'revealed' in the most recent episode written up as though they were the absolute truth. If anyone has been watching this series at all they must realise that today's 'absolute truth' is generally open to question in a few episodes' time. The whole article needs to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism. Some of the things written here are going to look very stupid in a few months time. DJ Clayworth 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. However, if only a few episodes were in a few weeks, not months...*sigh* Anway, I agree. The skepticism needs to be there.--Rroepke 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning against absolute truth

message: It seems that the article shouldn't mention this at all, since it's not really a Dharma Initiative station (in fact, it's not a station at all), and this is an article about Dharma Initiative stations.  Is there support for deleting this section entirely? --Kahlfin 00:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, because there will be ridiculous edit wars on what to call the section, what should be included in it, etc.; while in reality all that will be added to is is mere speculation -Whomp 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep.  Regardless of whether or not it really is a station, it still looks like a station, and Wikipedia readers looking for information on it will come here to look for information on it.  --Elonka 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, completely. --Rroepke 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *While that's technically true, I think at this point to argue that we don't know if it's a station or not is ridiculous.  That's like saying "We should add The Rotunda from ALIAS to this page, because for all we know, it could be owned by the Dharma Initiative (even though it's a branch of the CIA).  I mean, after all, no one said that The Rotunda isn't a station, right?"  I think it was made pretty clear that "The Others' Station" is nothing but two doors in front of a rock. --Kahlfin 06:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete the "Others' Station" section?"

message: In the Swan, we find: "The original purpose of The Swan was to be a sort of laboratory for DHARMA's research on electromagnetism." That's a very definite statement considering that there are definitely differing views, both among the Lost characters and audience, about whether the 'original purpose' was a fake or not. We should say "according to...". However I can't remember what the in-programme source is for stating that the original purpose was electromagnetic research. Was it in the orientation film? DJ Clayworth 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose